alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1w1






Exhibit 10.1.1




     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SHAREHOLDER LOAN AGREEMENT



          THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SHAREHOLDER LOAN AGREEMENT, dated as of November 14, 2005 (this
“Amendment”), is by and among American Capital Strategies, Ltd., a Delaware corporation,
(the “Lender”) and Dosimetry Acquisitions (France) SAS, a Société par Actions Simplifiée
under the laws of the Republic of France (the “Borrower”). Capitalized terms used and not
defined elsewhere in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement
(as defined below).




          WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower are parties to a Shareholder Loan Agreement dated as of
September 23, 2005 (the “Agreement”); and




          WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree and hereby do wish to amend the Agreement by making the
changes set forth herein.




          NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the parties hereto, in consideration of the premises and
their mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth and intending to be legally bound hereby,
covenant and agree as follows:




          Section 4.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety as follows:




          Interest shall be payable on the first day of December, March, June and September of each
year.





 









 








          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment or caused this Amendment to
be duly executed by their officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above
written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	The Borrower




DOSIMETRY ACQUISITIONS (FRANCE)
SAS

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert Klein 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Robert Klein 	 
	 	 	Duly authorized thereto 	 
	 
	 
	 	The Lender




AMERICAN CAPITAL STRATEGIES,
LTD.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Todd Wilson 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Todd Wilson 	 
	 	 	Duly authorized thereto
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dale Lee CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11067.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Susan B. Cowger, Linda R. Rossborough, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dale Lee Crawford has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Crawford has not responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Fabrize, D.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Recent News & Stories             
  -  News Releases             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.13 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1972

WILLIAM E. BENSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONALD L. EVANS, Secretary, Department of

Commerce,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05-

364-RWT)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Benston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks,

Assistant United States Attorney, Neil Ray White, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William E. Benston, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order substituting the United States of America in place of Donald

L. Evans, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce,

and dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We

affirm. 

Benston’s claim is controlled by the Federal Tort Claims

Act (“FTCA”) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2000), which provides the

exclusive remedy for torts committed by a government employee in

the scope of his employment. See United States v. Smith, 499 U.S.

160, 165-66 (1991). We find the United States was appropriately

substituted in the place of Donald L. Evans because federal

employees who are sued for actions within the scope of their office

or employment are immunized, and the United States is substituted

in their place. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (2000).

Turning to the dismissal of Benston’s complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, we find Benston’s complaint was

properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust administrative

remedies as required before bringing a FTCA action. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a) (2000). Moreover, even if Benston had properly exhausted

his administrative remedies, the district court lacked jurisdiction

because the FTCA specifically excludes the tort of false

imprisonment from claims for which the United States has waived

sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (2000).
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Charles E. Drimal, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Beverly A. Cummings, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/  Charles E. Drimal, Jr.

---------------------------------

President

Chief Executive Officer/

May 14, 2004

 

/s/  Beverly A. Cummings

----------------------------------

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2004
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 4 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 5 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 6 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 7 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 8 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 9 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 10 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 11 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 12 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 13 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 14 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 15 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 16 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 17 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 18 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 19 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 20 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 21 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 22 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 23 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 24 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 25 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 26 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 27 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 28 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 29 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 30 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 31 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 32 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 33 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 34 of 35
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 23-2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 35 of 35
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 00991

- CR

JOSE FRANCO CAMPUZAN O , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 176th District Court of Harris County . (Tr. Ct. No. 1315240 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on October 15, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no re versible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered March 26 , 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Jennings.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 14-4 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As
Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Unified Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
October 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:    December 17, 2009



/s/    RICHARD J.
MARTIN Richard J. MartinExecutive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer (Principal financial and
accounting officer)




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1647 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1647

   To amend title V of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 
  family-to-family health information centers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 23 (legislative day, May 22), 2019

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title V of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 
  family-to-family health information centers, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Family-to-Family Health 
Information Centers Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that family-to-family health information centers--
            (1) assist families of children with disabilities or 
        special health care needs to improve the well-being of 
        children;
            (2) provide information to families regarding resources 
        available to help children with disabilities or special health 
        care needs;
            (3) work with representatives of health care organizations 
        to facilitate collaboration between families of such children 
        and professionals and organizations in the health care system;
            (4) since fiscal year 2007, the first year the Secretary of 
        Health and Human Services began to develop and support such 
        centers, they have spread to the extent that family-to-family 
        information centers now operate in all 50 States; and
            (5) since fiscal year 2018, these centers have been, and 
        continue to be, developed in the territories and for Indian 
        tribes.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION FOR FAMILY-TO-FAMILY HEALTH INFORMATION CENTERS.

    Section 501(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(vii), by striking ``and 2019'' and 
        inserting ``through 2024''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``fiscal years 2018 
        and 2019'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal 
        year thereafter''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:06-cv-15118-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15118-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15118-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### David A. Titcomb, Impleaded with Elbridge S. Pratt, v. George W. Straight.

1. *Pleading—Pleas Purporting to Answer the Whole Declaration While Answering Only a*Part.—A plea which assumes in the introductory part to answer the whole declaration, and yet is pleaded only to a part, is bad.

Memorandum.—Assumpsit. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 10, 1895.

L. H. Bisbee and W. FT. G-emmill, attorneys for plaintiff in error.

Allen, Payne *&*Blake, attorneys for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion *ov*the Court.

This was an action by the indorsee of two promissory notes, bearing the signature of Titcomb & Pratt.

The appellant, Titcomb, filed his plea of the general issue with an affidavit of merits.

From the statements of his counsel, made during the trial of the cause and a brief here filed, it appears that appellant claimed as a defense, that his partner, Pratt, for his individual benefit, and not for the benefit of the firm, made the notes in question; that the firm received nothing therefor, and that the indorsee knew of this when he received the notes.

The cause having been placed upon the short cause calendar and being called for trial, appellant asked leave to file his verified plea, setting forth that “ he did not make and deliver the writing in the said declaration mentioned, in manner and form as the plaintiff has above in that behalf alleged.”

To which of the writings, two promissory notes, men*332tioned in the declaration, this plea was intended to be or is applicable, we are unable to tell. It clearly was not designed as a plea to the common counts of the declaration, and was for that reason also insufficient. It assumed, in-the introductory part, to answer the whole declaration, and yet in truth is pleaded only to a part. Harpham v. Haynes, 30 Ill. 395; Chitty’s Pleadings, 549.

There was no error in refusing to permit the filing of this plea, and judgment was properly given for the plaintiff, there being on file no plea appropriate for the defense appellant desired to make. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of ARTISTdirect, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
Report), I, Jonathan V. Diamond, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my best knowledge: (1) the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant. Date: May 21, 2004 /s/ Jonathan V. DiamondJonathan V. DiamondChief Executive Officer
#### INSURANCE CO. v. HYLTON

No. 22 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 244.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 15 April 1970.