alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                                                     Aetna Inc.
                                                     151 Farmington Avenue
                                                     Hartford, CT  06156-3124


                                                     ELEASE E. WRIGHT
                                                     Senior Vice President
                                                     Aetna Human Resources, RC3A
June 19, 2000                                        (860) 273-8371
                                                     Fax: (860) 560-8721

                                                     VIA HAND DELIVERY


Frolly M. Boyd
149 4th Avenue
Milford, CT 06460

Re:  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Frolly:

This letter is to confirm the discussions we have had regarding the status of
your employment agreement with Aetna Inc. (the "Company") dated as of May 7,
1996 (the "Employment Agreement"). This letter shall constitute the Company's
notice not to extend the Contract Employment Period. On December 31, 2000, the
Contract Employment Period shall expire and your employment with the Company
shall continue thereafter on an at-will basis. As provided in the Employment
Agreement, the Company's non-renewal of the Contract Employment Period shall not
be considered a Termination Without Cause or a Termination for Good Reason. All
terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the
Employment Agreement.


Respectfully,



AETNA INC.



By:   /s/ Elease E. Wright
    ---------------------------------------
    Elease E. Wright
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FIRST QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,047,006
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,869,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    108,391,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (67,620,253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,869,910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               313,104
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,853,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,715,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,715,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,715,587)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (49.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (49.04)
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of G. Willi-Food International Ltd.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I,
Joseph Williger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 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, as amended; and

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

     Date: June 29, 2009

                                                  By: /s/ Joseph Williger
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Joseph Williger
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

M ATTHEW J. JACKSON, SR., 1 § No. 705, 2015

§

§ Court Below: Family Court

Respondent Below

- Appellant

, § of the State of Delaware

§

v. § File Nos.: 14

- 04

- 1TK

§ 15

- 06

- 1TK

DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES

, §

§ Petition Nos.: 14

- 08217

Petitioner Below

- Appellee. § 15

- 15503

Submitted: August 17 , 2016

Decided: August 17 , 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 17th day of August 2016 , upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and

the record below, we find that the judgment of the Family Court should be

affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Family Court’s

well

- reasoned decision dated December 4 , 2015 terminating the p arental rights of

the appellant

. 2

1 The Court assigned this pseudonym under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 Div. of Family Servs. v. Jackson , Nos. 14

- 08217, 15

- 15503 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 4

, 2015).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I  James M. McNamee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

                    (ii)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 14, 2003

|   | /s/   JAMES M. MCNAMEE                                 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **James M. McNamee Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer** |

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper Holmes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1697 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1697

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to refund certain 
  collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Reclamation Reform Refund Act of 
2000''.

SEC. 2. REFUND OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER RECLAMATION REFORM ACT 
              OF 1982.

    (a) Refund Required.--Subject to the availability of 
appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and 
directed to refund fully amounts received by the United States as 
payments for charges assessed by the Secretary before January 1, 1994, 
for failure to file or properly file certain certification or reporting 
forms pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of the Reclamation Reform Act 
of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)) prior to the receipt of irrigation 
water. Such refunds shall be made regardless of whether such payments 
were required by the United States, were made pursuant to a compromise 
or settlement (whether court approved or otherwise), or were otherwise 
received by the United States. Any refund issued pursuant to this 
subsection shall include the amount of associated interest assessed by 
the Secretary and paid to the United States pursuant to section 224(i) 
of that Act (43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section such sums as necessary.

            Passed the Senate October 13 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1697

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to refund certain 
  collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.
```
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-38867, 333-53557, and 333-104622 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 8, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Renaissance Learning, Inc. and the effectiveness of Renaissance Learning, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Renaissance Learning, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.







/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Milwaukee, WI


March 8, 2011
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.8


                     AMENDMENT TO NEXTEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN


1.      Section 7 of the 1997 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended
        by adding to such Section the following sentence at the end thereof:

               "Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective upon the effectiveness
               of the Articles of Amendment to the Company's Restated Articles
               of Incorporation, adopted by the Board of Directors of the
               Company on October 23, 2000 and providing for the
               reclassification and conversion of each share of the Common Stock
               issued and outstanding on the date of filing of such Articles of
               Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Washington
               into one share of Class B Common Stock, par value $0.001 per
               share, of the Company ("Class B Common Stock"), all outstanding
               options to purchase shares of Common Stock granted pursuant to
               this Plan shall be options to purchase shares of Class B Common
               Stock."
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





|                        |  |                                                              
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:    March 15, 2004 |  | /s/    F. William Conner                                     
|                        |  | Name:    F. William Conner Title:     Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 21, 2014

p0218 

# Order

Clerk February 21, 2014

148590

- 1

SC: 148590

- 1

In re CHAVEZ, Minors

. COA: 316163; 316166

Clinton CC Family Division:

12

- 024196

- NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 2, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that t he questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50979

Conference Calendar

 

RONALD LEE BARLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Parole Division,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 98-50979

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Lee Barlow, Texas prisoner # 185946, appeals the

district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 civil rights lawsuit alleging that his inability to

receive annual parole-review hearings violates his constitutional

rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. 

However, he does not brief any argument in connection with the

dismissal of his equal protection claim, and it is therefore 
No. 98-50979

-2-

waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993)(arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned); Fed.

R. App. P. 28(a).

Barlow challenges the district court’s failure to

distinguish his due process claim, which he asserts is based on a

property interest, from those raised by prisoners asserting a

liberty interest in parole. Despite his arguments to the

contrary, Barlow’s allegations show that he is really asserting a

liberty interest in a parole-review hearing, and the claim

therefore fails. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 559 (1997). Barlow is aware

that such a claim will not succeed in this court, and his attempt

to cast his claim in terms of a property interest is frivolous.

Barlow also challenges the district court’s determination

that he raised an ex post facto claim. Even if his contention

that he has not raised an ex post facto claim is accepted as

true, his argument does not affect the disposition of the case,

i.e. it does not demonstrate that the district court erred in

dismissing his complaint on summary judgment, and it is therefore

of no moment.

Barlow’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, it is dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00189 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, District of Columbia 20210 

Dear Ms. Leiton:

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-533-6826

January 7, 2013 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an 

addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. On December 7, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 

SEC: 

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors 

and subcontractors who worked in any area at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10) in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, from June 17, 1943, through July 31, 1955, for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes 

of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on January 6, 2013, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on January 6, 2013, members of this class of employees, defined 

as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

Sincerely, 

[Signature on File] 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0915. IN THE INTEREST OF: M. F., A CHILD.

The father of M. F. filed a complaint seeking to obtain custody of his biological

child from the permanent guardians. The trial court dismissed the action, and the

father filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The trial court nevertheless

transmitted the record to this Court. Because it appears that the father wishes to

appeal to the Supreme Court, the record should have been transmitted to that Court. 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/22/2015

January 22, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 21, 2021

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Charles Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Charles Day, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Upon review of the record, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 

United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Day, No. 3:07-cr-00154-

JAG-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2021). We also deny Day’s motions for appointment of counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1937 Referred in House (RFH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1937

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2000

    Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the 
 Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation 
    Act to provide for sales of electricity by the Bonneville Power 
              Administration to joint operating entities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. Section 5(b) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
Planning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839c(b)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(7) Required sale.--
                    ``(A) Definition of a joint operating entity.--In 
                this section, the term `joint operating entity' means 
                an entity that is lawfully organized under State law as 
                a public body or cooperative prior to the date of 
                enactment of this paragraph, and is formed by and whose 
                members or participants are two or more public bodies 
                or cooperatives, each of which was a customer of the 
                Bonneville Power Administration on or before January 1, 
                1999.
                    ``(B) Sale.--Pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
                Administrator shall sell, at wholesale to a joint 
                operating entity, electric power solely for the purpose 
                of meeting the regional firm power consumer loads of 
                regional public bodies and cooperatives that are 
                members of or participants in the joint operating 
                entity.
                    ``(C) No resale.--A public body or cooperative to 
                which a joint operating entity sells electric power 
                under subparagraph (B) shall not resell that power 
                except to retail customers of the public body or 
                cooperative or to another regional member or 
                participant of the same joint operating entity, or 
                except as otherwise permitted by law.''.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```