alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010262EN.01000501.xml

| 29.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Special Report No 3/2010 ‘Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision making?’

2010/C 262/04

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 3/2010 ‘Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision making?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 2, 2014 by and between Fibrocell Science, Inc. (the “Company”) and Gregory Weaver (“Executive”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an employment agreement, dated August 26, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Company and Executive may amend the Employment Agreement by mutual agreement in writing; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“(a).  Base Salary.   The Company shall pay to Executive an annual base salary (“Base Salary”) of $330,000, less applicable withholdings and deductions, in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures.  The Base Salary shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors and may be adjusted from time to time by the Compensation Committee.”

 

2.                                      Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Employment Agreement. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended by this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect.

 

3.                                      This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.

 

<signature page follows>

 











 

The Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and Executive has executed this Amendment, in each case on the date first set forth above.

 

 

	
 
    	
FIBROCELL   SCIENCE, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   David Pernock
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chairman &   CEO
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GREGORY   WEAVER
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Gregory Weaver
    


 

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01cr66-03/RV

ROBERT LEE SMITH 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on April 17, 2009

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reduce Sentence (re Retroactive Application of Sentencing

Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582) 

Filed by Defendant on 3/14/2008 Doc.# 139

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17th day of

 April , 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendments 706

and 711.

(c)The amendments do not affect the Defendant’s sentencing guideline range. 

/s/ Roger Vinson 

Roger Vinson

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cr-00066-RV Document 175 Filed 04/17/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

The following statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20549

Re: Lee Enterprises, Incorporated

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to our knowledge:



|(i) | this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2009 (Quarterly Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the
periods presented in the Quarterly Report.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2009



|                        |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|/s/ Mary E. Junck       |  | /s/ Carl G. Schmidt                    
|Mary E. Junck           |  | Carl G. Schmidt                        
|Chairman, President and |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|Chief Executive Officer |  | and Treasurer                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lee Enterprises, Incorporated
and will be retained by Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
**Exhibit 31.****4******

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL****FINANCIAL****OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Glenn C. Worman, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of National Holdings Corporation; and  |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: January 28, 2019 | By:    | /s/ Glenn C. Worman         |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                   |   | **Glenn C. Worman**         |
|                   |   | **Chief Financial Officer** |
#### STATE v. OXENDINE

No. 96 PC.

No. 133 (Spring Term 1980).

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 391.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 1 April 1980.
Case 5:11-cv-00075-RS-GRJ Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:11-cv-00075-RS-GRJ Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 10(hh)**

Chuck Enze 

Employment Arrangement 

Since June 12, 2006, Energy Future Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) has employed Chuck Enze, who is Chief Executive Officer, Construction, on an at-will basis. The Company pays Mr. Enze an annualsalary equal to $600,000, and Mr. Enze is eligible to participate in all compensation and benefits of the Company in which similarly situated executives are eligible to participate, which currently include the EFH Corp. Executive AnnualIncentive Plan, the EFH Corp. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the EFH Corp. Salary Deferral Plan, the EFH Executive Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical Examination Program, the EFH Retirement Plan, the EFH Second SupplementalRetirement Plan, the EFH Corp. Executive Change in Control Policy and the EFH Corp. 2005 Executive Severance Plan. 

Additionally, Mr. Enze is entitledto a supplemental benefit, in the form of a single lump-sum, equal to $3,100,000, which amount will be reduced by the value of the Company pension payable to Mr. Enze under the EFH Retirement Plan and the Second Supplemental Retirement Planearned by Mr. Enze up to the age of 60. This supplemental benefit will be paid upon the earlier to occur of Mr. Enze’s separation of service from the Company or his death.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

for the use and benefit of 

MCALLISTER CONSTRUCTION CO.,

LLC, an Alabama limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-100/RS-CJK

DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS

INC., a Utah corporation,

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

vs. 

GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO., of NY,

a New York corporation,

Defendant.

_________________________________________ 

UORDER

The pretrial conference has been rescheduled to Friday, February 3, 2012, at 1:30 

p.m. 

ORDERED on December 7, 2011. 

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00100-RS-CJK Document 36 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011140EN.01001401.xml

| 11.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/14

---

Latest publication of COM documents other than legislative proposals and legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

2011/C 140/08

OJ C 121 of 19.4.2011

History of previous publications:

History of previous publications:

| | OJ C 94 of 26.3.2011 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 94 of 26.3.2011

| | OJ C 88 of 19.3.2011 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 88 of 19.3.2011

| | OJ C 26 of 28.1.2011 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 26 of 28.1.2011

| | OJ C 296 of 30.10.2010 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 296 of 30.10.2010

| | OJ C 76 of 25.3.2010 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 76 of 25.3.2010

| | OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009

---
amendment.htm









 


EXHIBIT 4.1












PREMIER ALLIANCE GROUP, INC.







2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Amendment







The Plan was amended upon its approval by the Company’s majority shareholders on August 13, 2014 to increase the shares of Common Stock available for issuance under the plan to 20,000,000.  The Shares Subject to the Plan in the 2008 Stock Incentive Plan is replaced as follows:












Shares Subject to the Plan







Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 7, an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of Common Stock shall be available for issuance under the Plan.  The shares of Common Stock deliverable upon the exercise of Options may be made available from authorized but unissued Shares or Shares reacquired by the Company, including Shares purchased in the open market or in private transactions.  If any shares of Common Stock that have been optioned cease to be subject to a Stock Option for any reason, or if any shares of Common Stock that are subject to any Restricted Stock award are forfeited or any such award otherwise terminates without the issuance of such shares, such shares shall again be available for distribution under the Plan.
# C_2011076EN.01001101.xml

| 10.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 March 2011

2011/C 76/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3928 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,14 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4580 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85900 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8055 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2920 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7510 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,290 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7060 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9801 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1902 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2069 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3759 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3481 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8484 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8808 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7643 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 551,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5727 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1539 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3939 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 217,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2237 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,318 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,4750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,230 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3039 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6906 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,6830 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3928

JPY

Japanese yen

115,14

DKK

Danish krone

7,4580

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85900

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8055

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2920

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7510

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,290

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7060

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9801

RON

Romanian leu

4,1902

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2069

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3759

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3481

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8484

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8808

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7643

KRW

South Korean won

1 551,01

ZAR

South African rand

9,5727

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1539

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3939

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 217,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2237

PHP

Philippine peso

60,318

RUB

Russian rouble

39,4750

THB

Thai baht

42,230

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3039

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6906

INR

Indian rupee

62,6830

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5437 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program for the 

issuance of identity protection personal identification numbers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2018 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself and Ms. DELBENE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a 

program for the issuance of identity protection personal 

identification numbers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IDENTITY PROTECTION PERSONAL IDENTI4 FICATION NUMBERS. 

5 Not later than 5 years after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the 

7 Secretary’s delegate) shall establish a program to issue, 

8 upon the request of any individual, a number which may 

9 be used in connection with such individual’s Social Secu10 rity number (or other identifying information with respect 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5437 IH

1 to such individual) to assist the Secretary in verifying such 

2 individual’s identity. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY BERNARD SHEPPARD,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv104-WS

MARY M. JOHNSON, THE CLERK

OF COURT, SANTA ROSA COUNTY,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 17)

docketed October 14, 2011. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants'

motion to dismiss be granted. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation.

Having reviewed the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 17) is ADOPTED

and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 13) is GRANTED.

3. The plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Case 3:11-cv-00104-WS-CJK Document 18 Filed 11/15/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4. The plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the

plaintiff filing them in the appropriate state court.

5. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Plaintiff's federal claims are 

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:11cv104-WS

Case 3:11-cv-00104-WS-CJK Document 18 Filed 11/15/11 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

128201 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (47) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128201 COA: 255405 Livingston CC: 77-001715-FY MONICA ANN JAHNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of December 15, 2005 is considered , and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

JAMARLIN HUNTLEY,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2332

[January 6, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-3773 

CF10A.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion for 

judgment of acquittal.1 To prove the charged offense of child abuse, the 

state was required to prove that (1) the defendant committed “[a]n 

intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or 

mental injury to” K.H., and (2) that K.H. was under 18. See §§ 827.01(2), 

827.03(1)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2017). On the entirely circumstantial evidence 

before us as to the commission of the act, we cannot conclude that the 

defendant committed an intentional act without impermissibly stacking 

inferences. See generally Graham v. State, 748 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 

4th DCA 1999) (“An impermissible pyramiding of inferences occurs where 

1 The trial court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict 

but without polling the jury. We have jurisdiction because “the order of acquittal 

was granted after the jury had deliberated and returned a verdict to the trial court 

on all charges.” See State v. Pickersgill, 284 So. 3d 542, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), 

review denied, SC19-2142, 2020 WL 3549917 (Fla. June 30, 2020); see also Fla. 

R. Crim. P. 3.450.
2

at least two inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be 

drawn from the evidence and then stacked to prove the crime charged; in 

that scenario, it is said that the evidence lacks the conclusive nature to 

support a conviction.”). In light of Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 

2020), we are aware that the jurisprudence regarding inference stacking 

may evolve, but at this point we are bound to follow the dictates of

precedent. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN, JJ., and BELL, CAROLYN, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Cite as State v. Freeman, 124 Ohio St.3d 121, 2009-Ohio-6538.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. FREEMAN, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State v. Freeman, 124 Ohio St.3d 121, 2009-Ohio-6538.] 

Certified question answered, and court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the 

authority of State v. Lester. 

(No. 2009-1235 — Submitted September 1, 2009 — Decided 

December 17, 2009.) 

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 08 MA 81, 

2009-Ohio-3052. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court upon the certification of a conflict 

by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District. The court determines 

that a conflict exists. 

{¶ 2} The certified question is answered by the court’s opinion in State v. 

Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038. The judgment of 

the court of appeals as to appellee’s (appellant below) first assignment of error is 

reversed on the authority of State v. Lester. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 LANZINGER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ralph M. 

Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 

William A. Freeman, pro se. 

______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES E. MERIWEATHER,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv236/RS-EMT

PAIGE AUGUSTINE, Warden FCI Marianna;

CHARLES BROWN, Tech; BUREAU OF

PRISONS; and DESIGNATION & SENTENCE

COMPUTATION CENTER,

Respondents.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9). No

objections have been filed.

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 is

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Tennessee, Nashville Division. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on December 13, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE