alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 15







July 23, 1997




Orion Capital Corporation
600 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Orion Capital Corporation and
subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 1997 and 1996, as indicated
in our report dated July 23, 1997; because we did not perform an audit,
we expressed no opinion on the information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 2-65348 on Form
S-8 and S-16 relating to the Orion Capital Corporation 1976 and 1979
Stock Option Plans, No. 2-80636 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital
Corporation 1982 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan, No. 2-63344 on
Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital Corporation Employees' Stock
Savings and Retirement Plan and No. 33-59847 on Form S-8 relating to the
Orion Capital Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
Directors.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Hartford, Connecticut






                                    Page 26
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00425-CV

Susie AGUILERA,

Appellant

v.

Santiago NAVA and Jessica DeLuna,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-09-21974-MCV

Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 31, 2010

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART

On February 22, 2010, we ordered appellant to show cause why appellee Jessica DeLuna

should not be dismissed from this appeal. Although appellant responded to our show cause order,

appellant’s response provides no compelling reasons for why we should not dismiss the appeal as

to appellee DeLuna. Appellee’s motion to dismiss is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed

as to appellee DeLuna. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         582,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,948,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,338,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   153,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,626,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,679,000
<PP&E>                                       4,483,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,190,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,959,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,221,000
<BONDS>                                      3,618,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       908,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,871,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,959,000
<SALES>                                     13,047,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,047,000
<CGS>                                        7,626,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,626,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,915,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,566,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,566,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,566,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
#### FERRARA v. LEONE et al.

No. 14243.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Eraste Vidrine, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Jos. A. Oasse and Jos. M. Vieages, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

Vincent Ferrara, prior to his death, was the owner of a store situated on the upper lake corner of North Rampart and Panger streets. Two automobiles, one owned and operated by each of the defendants, collided at that corner and one or both of the cars crashed into the posts supporting the shed attached *to*the store building and extending over the sidewalk. Some of the posts were knocked down and the shed collapsed. This suit has for its object the recovery of the estimated cost of erecting another shed to take the place of the former one. Both defendants are charged with negligence and a solidary judgment is asked against them.

Before the matter was tried below Ferrara died, and, by appropriate proceedings, his heirs were made parties-plaintiff and judgment for $151.63 was rendered in their favor against both defendants, in solido.

Leone was driving his car toward Lake Pontchartrain and was crossing North Rampart street. Whitfield was proceeding up North Rampart street. Leone was, therefore, approaching from Whitfield’s left and Whitfield, under the traffic ordinance of the city of New Orleans, No. 7490 O. O. S., was entitled to the right of way, unless, of course, Le-one had pre-empted the intersection by entering it sufficiently in advance to have made it evident that Whitfield should have stopped.

We believe that the testimony shows that Leone drove his car in front of Whitfield’s when it was too late for the latter to stop and that to this extent he was at fault. On the other hand, Whitfield was evidently proceeding at a speed in excess of that permitted by the ordinance in question and manifestly was not keeping a lookout for other vehicles which might cross or enter the roadway ahead of him. In these particulars he was negligent and his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident because, had he been proceeding at a reasonable speed, or had he been on the alert, he could have stopped before striking the other car, even after its driver evidenced his intention of not yielding the right of way.

Had either driver been careful, no accident would have taken place. Therefore both are legally responsible.

It is not necessary to decide whether both of the cars actually collided with the posts. Since negligence of both drivers contributed to cause the initial collision, each is responsible for the final result.

Such was the view of our brother below, and, as only facts are involved, we could not *291reverse the judgment since it is not manifestly erroneous.

The amount of the judgment seems to be warranted by the evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   213404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     423913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                641882
<PP&E>                                         1317721
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1010414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2328135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           575734
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        413190
<OTHER-SE>                                     1339211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2328135
<SALES>                                         221138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                221138
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   195874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               58610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  19092
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     19092
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.005


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Mark A. Little, certify that this
annual report on Form 10-K/A of Remington Arms Company, Inc. fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: April 4, 2006
/s/ Mark A. Little

Mark A. Little
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Administrative Officer
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.6.2


AMENDMENT NO 1. TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC. 
2014 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


The Amended and Restated Brookdale Senior Living Inc. 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective February 12, 2020.   


1.Amendment.  The Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 23 in its entirety from the Plan and replacing such Section with the following:


Section 23.    Clawback.  


Notwithstanding anything contained in the Plan to the contrary, any Awards granted under the Plan shall be subject to forfeiture, reduction and/or recoupment by the Company: (i) to the extent provided in the Company’s Clawback and Forfeiture Policy (the “Clawback Policy”), as it may be amended from time to time, (ii) to the extent that Participant becomes subject to any other recoupment or clawback policy hereafter adopted by the Company, including any such policy (or amended version of the Clawback Policy) adopted by the Company to comply with the requirements of any applicable laws, rules, regulations, or stock exchange listing requirements, including pursuant to final SEC rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or (iii) to the extent provided under applicable legal requirements which impose recoupment, under circumstances set forth in such applicable legal requirements, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 


2.Miscellaneous.  Except as set forth in the foregoing Section 1, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.
### WR-86,973-03 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/6/2017 4:35 PM Accepted 10/6/2017 4:40 PM DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERK
----

| (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:August 5, 2010 |  /s/ John M. Lowber  |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|
|                | John M. Lowber                 |
|                | Chief Financial Officer        |
|                | GCI, Inc.                      |

----
msci-ex10213_797.htm



 

Exhibit 10.213

 

AMD_00265533.0

 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) dated as of October 25, 2019 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) is made to the Previous Amendment (as defined below) by and between MSCI Inc. (formerly known as Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc.) (“MSCI”) and BlackRock Fund Advisors, a California corporation (as successor to Barclays Global Investors, N.A., which was succeeded by BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.) (“Licensee”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Previous Amendment or the Agreement (as defined below), as the case may be.

WHEREAS, MSCI and Licensee entered into the Amendment (internal MSCI reference number: AMD_00421) dated as of October 4, 2011 (the “Previous Amendment”), which amends the Index License Agreement for Funds (internal MSCI reference number: IXF_00040) dated as of March 18, 2000 (the “Agreement”) by and between MSCI and Licensee;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, each of MSCI and Licensee hereby agree as follows:


	
1.
	
Commencing on the Amendment Effective Date, the Previous Amendment is hereby amended so that all references to “iShares MSCI Global Silver Miners Fund” shall be deleted and replaced with “iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF”.





	
2.
	
This Amendment amends and operates in conjunction with the Previous Amendment.  This Amendment, the Previous Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede in full all prior proposals and understandings, oral or written, relating to such subject matter.  To the extent that the terms of this Amendment conflict with the terms of the Agreement or the Previous Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control.





	
3.
	
This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.





	
4.
	
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, which taken together, shall constitute one Amendment and each party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing such counterpart; provided that no party shall be bound hereby until the Amendment has been executed and delivered by all parties hereto.  A facsimile or PDF signature of either party to this Amendment shall be deemed an original signature of such party and shall manifest such party’s intention to be bound by this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the Amendment Effective Date set forth above.

 


	
MSCI Inc.
	
 
	
BlackRock Fund Advisors

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By
	
/s/ Shannon Lee
	
 
	
By
	
/s/ Ruth Weiss

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Name
	
Shannon Lee
	
 
	
Name
	
Ruth Weiss

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Title
	
Executive Director
	
 
	
Title
	
Managing Director

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 




 

1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TARIQ RASHID, J .R. W ORLDWIDE LIMITED CORP. A/K/A JR WORLDWIDE, L TD .,

Appellant ,
v
. SIMON J AN KLAPWIJK A/K/A S.J

. KLAPWIJK , Case No. 5D 21

- 2350 LT Case No s. 2019

- CA

- 008890 -O 2019

- CA

- 008887 -O
Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed Novem ber 1, 2022 Non f inal A ppeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Orange County , Denise Beamer , Judge. Michael M. B rownlee, of Brownlee Law F irm, P .A., Orlando, f

or Appellant. Jam es J. M c Gu ire, Mark R. Car am anic a, an d Daniela B. Abratt, o f

T homas & LoC icero PL, T ampa, f or Appellee.

PER CUR IAM. AFFIRMED.

COHEN , TRAVER and WOZNIAK , JJ. , conc ur.
================================================================================

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection  with the Annual Report of Paradigm  Medical  Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period  ending  December 31, 2007,
as filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Raymond P.L.  Cannefax,  President and 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, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

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

      (b)  the  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
           material respect, the financial condition and result of operations of
           the Company.




                                        /s/ Raymond P.L. Cannefax
                                        --------------------------------------
Date: July 8, 2008                      Raymond P.L. Cannefax
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
206 La. 741

#### WHITE v. BENDIX.

No. 37361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 6, 1944.

R. A. Dowling and John J. Jackson, both of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Cyril F. Dumaine, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

The plaintiff is appealing from a judgment of the lower court dismissing his rule to have the alimony of $40 a month awarded his wife reduced.

Under the express provisions of Article 160 of the Revised Civil Code, the court, finding a wife sued for divorce on the grounds of separation for more than two years entitled to the same, may allow her “in its discretion, out of the property and earnings of her husband, alimony which shall not exceed one-third of his income,” but this alimony may be adjusted at any time to meet the changing needs of the wife and the husband’s ability to pay. Wright v. Wright, 189 La. 539, 179 So. 866; Slagle v. Slagle, 205 La. 694, 17 So.2d 923.

We do not find the rule filed by the plaintiff in the record; nor do we find the answer thereto. However, it does appear from the evidence therein that at the time the judgment of divorce was obtained by the plaintiff on January 12, 1942 (in which decree his wife was awarded the alimony of $40 a month), he was earning $183 a month. According, to his own testimony, he is now making $10 a month more, or $193. Otherwise, there has been no change in his financial status except that 20% of his salary, or $38.60 monthly, is being withheld, and he is paying $36.72 a month toward the liquidation of a loan made -him to cover certain medical and dental bills.

On the other hand, it appears that the defendant is unable to work, having been under the doctor’s care since an operation some three years ago, and that she is being prepared for another operation. In addition, the remainder of her teeth have to be extracted.

Under these circumstances we cannot say that the trial judge erred in refusing to reduce the amount of alimony awarded the defendant; particularly since the plaintiff neither stated the amount of his medical and dental hills nor showed how much the loan being liquidated by him amounts to.

For the reasons assigned,, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 591

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to ban activities

of political action committees in elections for Federal office and to

reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other

than multicandidate political committees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. POSHARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

ban activities of political action committees in elections

for Federal office and to reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other than

multicandidate political committees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 591 IH

1 SECTION 1. BAN ON ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL ACTION

2 COMMITTEES IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL

3 OFFICE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election

5 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘BAN ON FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES BY POLITICAL

8 ACTION COMMITTEES

9 ‘‘SEC. 324. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision

10 of this Act, no person other than an individual or a politi11 cal committee may make contributions, solicit or receive

12 contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of in13 fluencing an election for Federal office.’’.

14 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO

15 CANDIDATES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN

16 MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

17 Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Cam18 paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended

19 by striking out ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

20 ‘‘$500’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,725,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,798,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,662,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (203,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  7,175,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,411,000
<PP&E>                                       4,608,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,299,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,185,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,667,000
<BONDS>                                      2,999,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       912,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,015,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,185,000
<SALES>                                      8,520,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,520,000
<CGS>                                        4,881,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,881,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,224,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                431,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,150,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,581,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,581,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>