alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh10-33.htm




Exhibit 10.33







Jeff Thachuk


1120 Martin St.


White Rock, BC


V4B 3V7

















May 31, 2011







Coronus Solar Inc.


1100 – 1200 West 73rd Ave.


Vancouver, BC


V6P 6G5







Re:           Letter of Engagement for Jeff Thachuk







Dear Board of Directors:







This letter is to confirm my understanding of the terms and objectives of my engagement as Chief Executive Officer of Coronus Solar Inc. (the “Corporation”).







As Chief Executive Officer, I am responsible for the general development of our business, including business direction and strategy. As the Corporation’s sole “active” employee, I am responsible for day-to-day operations. Additionally, I am responsible for the overall administration of the Corporation, not only as it relates to our core, solar business, but also as it relates to us as a reporting issuer.







I report directly to the Board of Directors, and submit to them, for their review and approval, designs and plans covering all aspects of the Corporation’s business direction and development, as well as its administration.







As Chief Executive Officer, I now dedicate approximately 40 hours per week to the business of the Corporation, and shall continue to do so.







Effective June 1, 2011, the compensation I shall receive to serve as Chief Executive Officer is a salary of CAD $8,000 per month..







Sincerely,












JEFF THACHUK


Jeff Thachuk


Chief Executive Officer


Coronus Solar Inc.






  





1











  













ACCEPTED by the Board of Directors of Coronus Solar Inc., May 31, 2011:




























	
JEFFERSON THACHUK

	  	
RAVEN KOPELMAN


	
Jefferson Thachuk

	  	
Raven Kopelman


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
KENNETH BOGAS

	  	
DAVID HOLMES


	
Kenneth Bogas

	  	
David Holmes





































 


 


 


 


 


 


 




 































  





2
#### SYLVESTER DUNLAP v. MRS. ROSE CARTER.

(Filed 27 January, 1931.)

Civil actioN, before *Schench, J.,*at July Term, 1930, of Stokes.

The plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show that on the night of 26 October, 1928, while traveling along Academy Street in the town of Madison, he was injured by the negligence of defendant, who drove into said street from Wilson Street in a careless and negligent manner, without warning and without lights on her ear. The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and offered evidence tending to show that the injury was the result of the negligence of plaintiff.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff.

From judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.

*A. G. Bernard and W. Reads Johnson for plaintiff.*

*Folger & Folger for defendant.*

Peb OueiÁM.

In all essential aspects the record presents an issue of fact which was determined by the jury adversely to the defendant. The *798evidence was conflicting and tbe jury would bave been fully warranted in finding- for tbe defendant. Tbis, however, they did not do. A close examination of all exceptions discloses to us no reversible error, and tbe judgment is affirmed.

No error.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 Exhibit 11.1


               INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION INCORPORATED ("i-Cube")
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except per share data)
                                  (unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended 
                                                                      June 30,                           June 30,
                                                            ---------------------------        ---------------------------
                                                              1998                1997           1998                1997
                                                            -------             -------        -------             -------

<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>            <C>                 <C>
Net income                                                  $ 1,581             $ 1,071        $ 2,953             $ 2,000
                                                            =======             =======        =======             =======

Basic:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding              13,729              12,535         13,473              12,527
                                                            =======             =======        =======             =======

     Net income per share                                   $  0.12             $  0.09        $  0.22             $  0.16
                                                            =======             =======        =======             =======

Diluted:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding              13,729              12,535         13,473              12,527
     Stock options                                            3,655               2,111          3,401               1,932
                                                            -------             -------        -------             -------

     Weighted average common and common equivalent                                                                       
          shares outstanding                                 17,384              14,646         16,874              14,459
                                                            =======             =======        =======             =======

Net income per share                                        $  0.09             $  0.07        $  0.18             $  0.14
                                                            =======             =======        =======             =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
John E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of MIPS Technologies,  Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-Q"),
to which this  certificate  is an exhibit fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a)  of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended, and that information
contained  in the  Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition  and  results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period
covered by the Form 10-Q.

|                    |                                      
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    |                                      
|                    |                                      
|                   
|Dated:  May 8, 2006 | By:     /s/ JOHN E. BOURGOIN         
|                    | John E. Bourgoin                     
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | MIPS Technologies, Inc.              

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be
retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

1

---
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiariesof Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.**

 

All of the followingsubsidiaries are 100% owned by Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 
| **Name**               | ** ** | **State or Country of  Incorporation or Organization** |
|------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |       |                                                   |
| Amylin Europe Limited  |       |                                                   | United Kingdom |
|                   |       |                                                   |   |
| Amylin Investments LLC |       |                                                   | Delaware |
|                   |       |                                                   |   |
| Amylin Ohio LLC        |       |                                                   | Delaware |
|                   |       |                                                   |   |
| Amylin Puerto Rico LLC |       |                                                   | Puerto Rico |

 

----
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4233 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to provide for critical 

maintenance and repair of certain Bureau of Reclamation reserved or 

transferred works, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2022 

Mr. BARRASSO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to 

provide for critical maintenance and repair of certain 

Bureau of Reclamation reserved or transferred works, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Platte River Basin 

5 Critical Maintenance and Repair Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. 

7 Section 40904 of the Infrastructure Investment and 

8 Jobs Act (43 U.S.C. 3204) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4233 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B)— 

2 (A) by striking the period at the end and 

3 inserting ‘‘; or’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘(B) a unit’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘(B)(i) a unit’’; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(ii) in the case of reserved or transferred 

8 works located within the Platte River Basin, the 

9 reserved or transferred works had a structural 

10 failure in Bureau of Reclamation infrastructure 

11 resulting in a declaration of emergency by the 

12 applicable State during the 3-year period end13 ing on the date of enactment of this Act.’’; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In ad16 dition to amounts otherwise made available to carry out 

17 subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated to 

18 carry out that subsection $100,000,000 for fiscal year 

19 2023, to remain available until expended.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### JOHNNIE PORTER WOOTEN v. TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY.

(Filed 28 October, 1931.)

Electricity A c — Held: complaint alleged cause of action against electric company for negligent installation of wiring.

Every person specially injured by tbe breach of duty of an electric company can maintain an action for bis individual compensation, and where a complaint in an action against an electric company for damages caused by tbe negligent installation of electric wiring, refers throughout to the house damaged as the plaintiff’s “house” or “home” it is a sufficient allegation of ownership upon which to deny a motion of nonsuit entered upon the ground of failure to allege ownership.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, Special Judge,*at August Term, 1931, of BladeN.

Eeversed.

*Burney & McClelland and Herbert McClammy for plaintiff.*

*Carr, Poisson & James for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for the burning of her house alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligent installation of electric wires therein. She alleged that the defendant furnished an electric current for the purpose of lighting her home, after having installed the electric wires; that the work was negligently done by the defendant; and that in consequence her property was destroyed by fire. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.

The case came on for trial and the defendant demurred *ore terms*on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

The judgment does not set forth the ground upon which the demurrer was sustained but on the argument here the reason was said to be the want of an allegation that the plaintiff was the owner of the property.

"We think there is error in this conclusion. In her complaint the plaintiff describes and repeatedly refers to the building as her “house,” and her “home.” It is elementary that every person specially injured by an electric company’s breach of duty can maintain an action for his individual compensation. Under the allegations of the complaint the question whether the plaintiff owned the property and the extent of her loss are matters for the jury to determine from the evidence. Judgment

Reversed.
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew E. Rubel, Chief Executive Officer and President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: September 7, 2005                                                              /s/  Matthew E. Rubel   Matthew E. Rubel   Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

John P. McLaughlin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Christine Larson, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, of PDL BioPharma, Inc. (the Registrant), each hereby certifies in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on his
or her knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of the Registrant, to
which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the 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); and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be provided to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: March 2, 2009



By:/s/ John P. McLaughlin John P. McLaughlin President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)/s/ Christine Larson Christine Larson Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1983

Westool Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 31.1



Certification



I, John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.; 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: November , 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ John R. Plachetka                              
|                      |  |  |  | John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D. Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1998 Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,488
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                   426
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28
<PP&E>                                         121,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                 41,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 87,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,900
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     85,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   87,561
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,505
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Haley, Millette and Se nior Judge Coleman

PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0949-08-4 PER CURIAM AUGUST 12, 2008 ANGELICA PIZ ANO-MURILLO

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Kristin A. Zech; Wh arton, Aldhizer & Weaver, P.L.C., on brief), for appellants. (George L. Townsend; The Cha ndler Law Group, on brief), for appellee.
Pilgrims Pride Corporation and its insurer (her einafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commis sion finding that (1) employer failed to prove Angelica Pizano-Murillo’s (claimant) October 24, 2006 work-related injury was the result of her willful misconduct and viola tion of a known safety rule 1 ; and (2) claimant proved entitlement to temporary total disability benefits from November 7, 2006 through November 27, 2006. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Pizano-Murillo v. Pilg rims Pride Corp. , VWC File No. 231-30-01 (Mar. 18, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 The commission also ruled that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the claimant knew of a safety rule, the employer did not routinely enforce any rule.”- 2 - presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.
See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
#### ANNE LIBBY McDONALD v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION.

(Filed 30 April, 1941.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Parker, J.,*at December Civil Term, 1940, of Wake.

Civil action for recovery for personal injuries allegedly resulting from actionable negligence.

The jury answered the issue of negligence in the negative. From judgment thereon, plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Liiila & Wilson and B. L. McMillan for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Douglass •& Douglass for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

A careful consideration of the several assignments of error shown in the record on this appeal fails to reveal cause for disturbing the result of the trial in the Superior Court. Hence, in the judgment below, there is

No error.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: AVERY ARMANI, 

______________________________ 

AVERY ARMANI, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, 

Respondent, 

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Real Party in Interest.

No. 17-70244 

D.C. No. 

2:13-cv-07058-RSWL-RZ 

ORDER*

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the

United States District Court for the

Central District of California

Submitted April 7, 2017**

San Francisco, California

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 8 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Before: D.W. NELSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,*** District 

Judge.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. We vacate the district 

court’s January 26, 2017 order and direct the district court to enter judgment for 

the petitioner awarding him payment of his long-term disability benefits, interest, 

attorney fees, and costs, and reinstatement of the long-term disability policy.

The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court. 

PETITION GRANTED. 

 

*** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.