alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Levcor
         International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
         date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward F. Cooke, Chief Financial Officer
         of the Company, certify, 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.


Dated:  August 14, 2003

By: /s/ Edward F. Cooke
   ------------------------------------
   Edward F. Cooke
   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

                                    Page 29
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 832 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 832

  To establish limits on wage continuation and severance benefits for 
  Amtrak employees displaced by a discontinuance of service, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1995

Mr. Barton of Texas (for himself, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
Mr. Combest, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Schaeffer, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. McCollum, 
    Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Miller of 
  Florida, Mr. Largent, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Latham, Mr. Hancock, Mr. 
  Shadegg, Mr. Livingston, and Mr. Brewster) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish limits on wage continuation and severance benefits for 
  Amtrak employees displaced by a discontinuance of service, 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. SERVICE DISCONTINUANCE.

    Section 24706(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
    ``(7) Notwithstanding any arrangement in effect before the date of 
enactment of this paragraph, no employee of Amtrak whose employment is 
terminated as a result of a discontinuance of intercity rail passenger 
service shall receive any wage continuation or severance benefit in 
excess of 6 months pay. This paragraph shall not affect the obligations 
of rail carriers under section 11347 of this title.
    ``(8) Notwithstanding any arrangement in effect before the date of 
enactment of this paragraph, Amtrak may require an employee whose 
position is eliminated as a result of a discontinuance of intercity 
rail passenger service to transfer to any vacant position for which the 
employee can be made qualified on any part of Amtrak's system. If such 
transfer requires a change in residence or seniority district, the 
employee shall choose--
            ``(A) to transfer to the position and be covered by the 
        collective bargaining agreement applicable to the seniority 
        district to which he is transferred; or
            ``(B) to voluntarily furlough himself at his home location 
        and receive protective benefits not in excess of the amount 
        authorized under paragraph (7).
For purposes of this paragraph, a transfer shall be considered to 
require a change in residence if the new employment is more than 30 
miles from the employee's place of residence and is farther from that 
residence than was the former work location.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.5



Schedule 1, amended and restated as of January 22, 2020, to the Third Amendment to Fifth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of April 19, 2018, among Laredo Petroleum, Inc., as borrower, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, Laredo Midstream Services, LLC and Garden City Minerals, LLC, as guarantors and the banks signatory thereto.


SCHEDULE 1


	
				
	Bank
	Maximum Credit Amount
	Elected Commitment
	Commitment Percentage

	Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
	$191,666,666.67
	$91,041,666.67
	9.583%

	Bank of America, N.A.
	166,666,666.66
	79,166,666.66
	8.333%

	BMO Harris Financing, Inc.
	166,666,666.66
	79,166,666.66
	8.333%

	Capital One, National Association
	166,666,666.66
	79,166,666.66
	8.333%

	The Bank of Nova Scotia, Houston Branch
	141,666,666.66
	67,291,666.66
	7.083%

	Societe Generale
	141,666,666.66
	67,291,666.66
	7.083%

	ABN AMRO Capital USA LLC
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Barclays Bank PLC
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	BOKF, NA DBA Bank of Oklahoma
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Branch Banking and Trust Company
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Citibank, N.A.
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Compass Bank
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Goldman Sachs Bank USA
	116,666,666.66
	55,416,666.67
	5.833%

	Comerica Bank
	91,666,666.66
	43,541,666.67
	4.583%

	Totals:
	$2,000,000,000.00
	$950,000,000.00
	100.00%








	
		
	Administrative Agent
	Address for Notice

	Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
	Credit Contact:
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 4500, T9216-451
Dallas, TX 75202
Attn: Muhammad A. Dhamani
Tel: 214-721-6430
Email: Muhammad.dhamani@wellsfargo.com


Primary Operations Contact:
1525 W WT Harris Blvd, 1st Floor
Charlotte, NC 28262-8522
MAC D1109-019
Attn: Agency Services
Tel: 704-590-2706
Fax: 704-590-2782
18611.

#### Housing Authority of City of Calhoun *v.*Spink.

Submitted June 14, 1954

Decided June 14, 1954.

*Y. A. Henderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harry Lawrence, James B. Langford,*contra.

Head, Justice.

In this proceeding to condemn described property of the defendant in error, the sole question made by the pleadings is the value of the property sought to be condemned. After the award of the assessors was made, the condemnor filed an appeal, and, upon the trial in the superior court, the jury returned a verdict fixing the value of the property. The motion for new trial relates solely to the value of the property taken. *Held:*

The sole issue being as to the value of the property condemned, this is not a case “respecting title to land” within the provisions of the Constitution, article VI, section II, paragraph IV (Code, Ann., § 2-3704), and jurisdiction of the writ of error is in the Court of Appeals and not in this court. *H. G. Hastings Co.*v. *Southern Natural Gas Corp.,*173 *Ga.*212 (159 S. E. 853); *Wilson*v. *State Highway Department of Ga.,*208 *Ga.*510 (67 S. E. 2d 578); *Housing Authority of City of Dublin*v. *Curry Realty Co.,*209 *Ga.*84 (70 S. E. 2d 749). The fact that the trial court may have given in charge to the jury the provisions of a statute previously declared to be unconstitutional would not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to apply the construction given a statute by this court. *Wadley Southern Ry. Co.*v. *Faglee,*173 *Ga.*814, 816 (161 S. E. 847).

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices, concur.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Marc KING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7642.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Dennis Marc King, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*590PER CURIAM.

Dennis Marc King seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*587 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
ORANGE AND ROCKLAND
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
LEAVES COMPANY


     Pearl River, NY, August 8, 1997 - Effective today, Larry S.

Brodsky, Orange and Rockland's President and Chief Operating

Officer, has left the Company to pursue other interests.  Mr.

Brodsky had been with the Company in that capacity since January

1996.

     The decision whether to fill the vacancy created by Mr.

Brodsky's departure  is under consideration.

     Orange and Rockland serves an area of 1,350 square miles and

an estimated population of 671,000 in southeastern New York

State, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania.  It

generates, distributes and sells electricity, and distributes and

sells natural gas.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3927

___________

Allen Ray Bishop, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Donnie Threet, Deputy; *

Bob Ross, Sheriff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 27, 2002

 Filed: March 4, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Allen Ray Bishop, a former inmate at the Crawford County Detention Center

in Van Buren, Arkansas, appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. Upon
-2-

de novo review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See

Larson v. City of Fergus Falls, 229 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of

review); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir.1997) (to prove deliberate

indifference, plaintiff had to show defendants knew of, yet disregarded, excessive risk

to his health); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 1993)

(respondeat-superior-based claim “is not cognizable under § 1983”). Further, the

district court did not commit a gross abuse of discretion affecting the fundamental

fairness of the proceedings by refusing to compel discovery. See Stuart v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.2


 


VARIATION AGREEMENT


 


THIS VARIATION AGREEMENT is made the
17th day of February 2020 (“Commencement Date”)


 


Between:


 


		(1)	La Fosse Associates Limited (Company No: 6729790) a company incorporated in England and
Wales whose registered office is 30 City Road, London, EC1Y 2AB (the "Company"); and



 


		(2)	Adaptimmune LLC a Delaware company with principal address at 351 Rouse Boulevard, Philadelphia,
PA19112 (the "Client").



 


Background:


 


		A.	This Variation Agreement amends the client agreement dated 30 September 2019 between the Company
and the Client (“the Client Agreement”) from the Commencement Date. Save as amended herein, the Client Agreement
remains in full force and effect.



 


	 	1.	INTERPRETATION




 


In this Variation Agreement, all defined words and
expressions shall have the same meaning as in the Client Agreement unless otherwise stated.


 


	 	2.	AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE




 


		2.1	As from the Commencement Date, the definition of the “End Date” as provided in Section 1 of the Assignment Schedule
shall be amended as follows:



 


““End Date” means 9 April
2020 or such other date as the Company and the Supplier/Consultant may agree in writing.”


 


		2.2	As from 1 April 2020, the Services in the Assignment Schedule and as set out in Section 1 of the Assignment Schedule shall
be superseded and replaced with the following consultancy services:



 


““Services" means consultancy
services defined by the following responsibilities:


 


		•	Work with the Chief Financial Officer to provide a comprehensive handover of the Interim CFO responsibilities as defined
by the following responsibilities: 



 


		o	Work with the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Team to define and execute the financing strategy for the Client



 


		o	Act as a key spokesperson for the Client with the investment community



 


		o	Lead the preparation, review and filing of the financial statements (10Q and 10K) and other associated SEC filings



 


		o	Lead and manage the finance team ensuring maintenance of an appropriate control environment for SOX compliance and control
over the capital deployment of the Client



 


		o	Lead the budget/financial plan preparation, review and approval by the Board



 


		o	Lead interactions with the Audit Committee, external auditors and SOX program support specialists.”



 


	 	3.	TERM OF VARIATION AGREEMENT




 


This Variation Agreement shall be effective
from the Commencement Date.


 






     


     


    

 


	Signed by Katherine Miller  	/s/
Katherine Miller
	on behalf of La Fosse Associates Limited  	Director  
	 	 
	Signed by Helen Tayton-Martin 	/s/
Helen Tayton-Martin
	on behalf of Adaptimmune LLC	President and Secretary
cbio-ex1020_631.htm



Exhibit 10.20

 

Description of Annual Cash Incentive Program

Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains an incentive award program (the “Program”) under which its named executive officers and certain other employees are eligible to receive an annual cash incentive bonus. Under the terms of the Program, each eligible employee is assigned a target bonus percentage of his or her base salary. The target bonus percentages for the Company’s executive officers are determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. At or about the beginning of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee establishes performance objectives for the Company for that year and ascribes, for each performance objective, a percentage weighting, target criteria for achievement. The performance objectives typically relate to some of the following areas — the progression or advancement of the Company’s product candidates, development program execution or outcomes, the enhancement of the Company’s product portfolio, business development, alliance management, operations, capital or operational efficiency, financial factors, or other matters.

Following the end of the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee determines the achievement level for the Program for that year. In making its determination, the Compensation Committee evaluates which achievement criteria have been met, if any, for each performance objective, the circumstances surrounding any performance objective or associated criteria that has not been met and whether to award all or any portion of the weighting ascribed to that performance objective(s), and whether to make any adjustment based on other Company accomplishments that occurred during the year.

For the Company’s named executive offices and other employees participating in this program, 100% of the annual cash incentive bonus is generally determined based on the achievement level for the Program determined by the Compensation Committee as described above. Accordingly, the annual cash incentive bonus for a particular year for each employee in this group is determined by multiplying the amount of his or her base salary received for that year times his or her assigned target bonus percentage times the achievement level for the Program determined by the Compensation Committee, provided that the Compensation Committee reserves the right to make individualized adjustments based on specific facts and circumstances.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 848 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 848

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for 
 highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 
                       Military Park in Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 1995

   Mr. Deal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for 
 highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 
                       Military Park in Georgia.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 1(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize and direct 
the National Park Service to assist the State of Georgia in relocating 
a highway affecting the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 
Park in Georgia'', approved December 24, 1987 (101 Stat. 1442), is 
amended by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$45,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.2





 Exhibit 10.2 

Chiasma, Inc. 
 140 Kendrick
Street 
 Building C East 

Needham, MA 02494 
 February 14, 2020 

Mark J. Fitzpatrick 
 Re: Amendment to Amended and Restated
Executive Employment Letter 
 Dear Mark: 
 This Amendment
(the “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Letter dated May 31, 2019 (the “Agreement”) confirms the amended terms and conditions of your employment with Chiasma, Inc. (the
“Company”) effective February 14, 2020. Except as expressly amended herein, the Agreement remains in full effect. Your Non-Competition,
Non-Solicitation, Confidentiality and Assignment Agreement with the Company dated May 8, 2015 is unaltered and unamended by this Amendment and remains in full effect. 

Section 8(e) of the Agreement is hereby amended by: 
  

	 	1.	 Adding, after the phrase “the year in which the Change in Control occurs,” the words “(b-i) your
accrued bonus (if any) with respect to the calendar year in which the Date of Termination occurs, subject to the Board’s assessment of applicable bonus criteria and prorated from the beginning of such year to the Date of Termination”; and



  

	 	2.	 Adding, after the words “(a) and (b),” the words “and (b-i)” 



This Amendment constitutes the complete agreement between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any prior agreements,
representations or understandings (whether written, oral or implied) between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein. 
 Please
acknowledge, by signing below, that you have accepted this Amendment. 
  

					
	Very Truly Yours,	 		 	
			
	/s/ Raj Kannan	 		 	  

	 Raj Kannan
 Chief Executive Officer

Chiasma, Inc.
	 		 	

  

					
	I have read and accept this Amendment:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Mark J. Fitzpatrick	 		 	02/18/2020
	Mark J. Fitzpatrick	 		 	Date
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10(b)




Schedule of Executive Officers who are Parties
to the Amended and Restated Severance Agreements in the Forms Filed as
Exhibit 10(e) to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010 
    


Form A of Severance Agreement


John G. Morikis




Form B of Severance Agreement


Joel D. Baxter
Peter J. Ippolito




Form C of Severance Pay Agreement


Jane M. Cronin
Aaron M. Erter
Mary L. Garceau
Thomas P. Gilligan
James R. Jaye
Allen J. Mistysyn
David B. Sewell
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.(the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005  (the “Report”), which this certificationaccompanies, I, Darius G. Nevin, in my capacity as Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify that to the best of myknowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

 

 
| Date: March 20, 2006 | /s/                                                                                                                   | Darius G. Nevin |   |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|                 | Darius G. Nevin                                                                                                       |
|                 | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Protection One,  Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. |
|                      |                                                                                                                       |                 |        |  |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companiesas part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes ofSection 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

----
#### Andrew F. McNickle, Appellant, v. Bridget Delaney and Nora Harty, Respondents.

Judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.