alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GTE - 2014.03.31 - EX 10.3


Gran Tierra Energy Canada ULC
300, 625 11th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2R 0E1




Exhibit 10.3
April 15, 2014


PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Duncan Nightingale
c/o Gran Tierra Energy Colombia


Dear Duncan:


RE: EXPATRIATE ASSIGNMENT LETTER AGREEMENT, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2010, BETWEEN GRAN TIERRA ENERGY INC.  (“GTEI”) AND DUNCAN NIGHTINGALE (AS AMENDED) 
(the “Amended Expatriate Agreement”) – FURTHER AMENDMENT


Further to our discussions, we are pleased to propose to you the following further amendment to the Amended Expatriate Agreement:


		
	1.
	The following is inserted after item “K” of Clause 5 (COMPENSATION):




l. For the 2013 taxation year and subsequent taxation years (if any) while on this expatriate assignment and deemed a non-resident of Canada for taxation purposes under the Canada-Colombia Income Tax Treaty, GTEI or one of its affiliates will reimburse you up to a maximum of CAD $10,000 per taxation year for the loss of your annual RRSP contribution amount.  The amount of the annual reimbursement will be calculated as follows:


		
	•
	Amount of Reimbursement = CAD $10,000 * (Lost RRSP Contribution Room as a result of Canadian taxation non-residence status / Canada Revenue Agency RRSP Contribution Limit) * (number of days employed by GTE ULC during the taxation year / 365 days).




For example,


		
	•
	For the 2013 taxation year, since you earned no Canadian employment income, the Lost RRSP Contribution Room = $24,270.


		
	•
	For the 2013 taxation year, the Canada Revenue Agency RRSP Contribution Limit = $24,270.


		
	•
	For the 2013 taxation year, you were employed 365 days by GTE ULC, therefore:




		
	◦
	For the 2013 taxation year the Amount of Reimbursement = CAD $10,000 * ($24,270 / $24,270) * (365 / 365) = CAD $10,000.




This payment is net after tax and will be paid in the month of May in the year following the taxation year. 


If the foregoing is satisfactory, please acknowledge your acceptance by countersigning (below) and returning to me a copy of this letter.


If you have any questions, please contact Wes Carter, Director Human Resources. 


Sincerely,
Gran Tierra Energy Canada ULC






/s/Dana Coffield




Dana Coffield
President



1




Expatriate Agreement – Amendment – Duncan Nightingale


I acknowledge and agree to the above: 




/s/Duncan Nightingale 
Duncan Nightingale


Date “21/04/14” 

2
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Fernando Solinger, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June 19, 1956.

*80
      *David Fisher*for Walter B. Salinger and another, petitioners.

*John M. Johnston,*special guardian for Victoria M. Salinger, an infant, respondent.

William T. Collins, S.

In respect of the discretionary power to invade principal, the objections of the special guardian are explicitly stated to be directed to the exercise of the discretion by the joint act of the two trustees, including the trustee-beneficiary. He makes no contention that the payments constituted an abuse of discretion. The proof submitted by the corporate fiduciary shows that each request for payment of principal was carefully studied by three different persons and that the decision of the trustee was made independently of the decision of any cotrustee. An officer stated that “[W]here, as here, the trust company has sole decision in questions of discretionary invasion, the opinions of Co-Trustees are not solicited or considered.” The corporate fiduciary assumes full responsibility for its decision. The objection of the special guardian is overruled.

The objections to the annual payments from principal are likewise overruled. The will directs the trustees to pay to the testator’s son such principal sums “as he may, in his sole, absolute and uncontrolled discretion, request or require ”, within certain specified limits. The trustees have no discretion with respect to such payments within the limits fixed by the will. ‘ ‘ In such a case the amount to which the life beneficiary is entitled depends wholly upon his own desires, and the trustee has no discretion to withhold any part of the principal which the life beneficiary requests should be paid to him.” (1 Scott on Trusts [1939 ed.], p. 671.) Section 141 of the Beal Property Law has no application to such payments. The right is given to the son as beneficiary, not as trustee. No rule of public policy prevents a testator from giving such right to a beneficiary.

The compensation of the attorneys for the petitioners will be fixed upon the settlement of the decree. An affidavit of legal services is directed to be filed by them.

Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.
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





The undersigned, Andrew R. Boll, Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 23rd day of February, 2012.




/s/ Andrew R. BollAndrew R. BollVice-President of Accounting and Public Reporting(Principal Financial Officer)





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





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,190
<INVENTORY>                                     94,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,612
<PP&E>                                         147,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,224
<BONDS>                                         94,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,406
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,775
<SALES>                                        584,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               584,240
<CGS>                                          471,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,796
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,434
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        



</TABLE>
177 La. 821

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earl CALLENDER and Elderwin Delanoix.

No. 32364.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1933.

Dudley L. Weber, of Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Ered Odom, Dist. Atty., of Baton Rouge (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

The defendants were jointly charged, convicted, and sentenced for the larceny “of a Packard automobile of the value of one thousand dollars,” and have appealed.

No bill of exceptions was taken to any proceeding in the ease; no assignment of error has been filed; and an examination of the record fails to disclose any error patent on the face thereof. Hence, there is no question of law presented for review.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, David Gorodyansky, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC.;



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;



Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within

those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal

control over financial reporting; and



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  April 14, 2008



/s/David Gorodyansky



David Gorodyansky

Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.4

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



November 2, 2005
                                               /S/ STEVEN D. DAVIS
                                             ______________________
                                               Steven D. Davis
                                               Chief Financial Officer
RESOLUTION

                           DIRECTORS' FEES

                             May 21, 1998
 


    RESOLVED, that  Sections 10(b) and 10(c) of the 1995 Stock 
Incentive Plan be amended to provide as follows:

   (b)  Award Upon Election.

        Each Outside Director who is elected by the Board to fill a 
   vacancy on the Board after May 21, 1998, shall receive a
   Nonqualified Stock Option for 2,000 Shares on the date of the
   Board's regular meeting in December following his or her election.

   (c)  Annual Awards.

        Effective May 21, 1998, each Outside Director shall receive 
   a Nonqualified Stock Option for 1,000 Shares on the date of the 
   Board's regular meeting in December of each year he or she 
   serves as Outside Director, other than a year in which the 
   Outside Director receives an award under Section 10(b) above.








                                                         Exhibit (10)(n)(iv)
Exhibit 4.1  NUMBER 0 02007
  SHARES VOID Osiris* THERAPEUTICS, INC. SEE REVERSE FOR INCORPORATED UNDER THE
  LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS COMMON STOCK CUSIP 68827R
  10 8 THIS CERTIFIES THAT: IS THE OWNER OF VOID FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE
  SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF $.001 PAR VALUE EACH OF OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC.
  transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
  attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This
  certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the
  Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the
  Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
  DATED: COUNTERSIGNED: STOCKTRANS, A BROADRIDGE COMPANY 44 WEST LANCASTER AVE.,
  ARDMORE, PA 19003 TRANSFER AGENT BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE SECRETARY & CFO
  PRESIDENT & CEO OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC. CORPORATE SEAL 2010 MARYLAND


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face
  of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in
  full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in
  common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian TEN ENT- as tenants by the
  entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of under
  Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act in common (State)
  Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For
  Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT
  SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR
  TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the stock represented by the
  within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney
  to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
  full power of substitution in the premises. Dated NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS
  ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
  CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
  CHANGE WHATSOEVER. THE SIGNATURE TO THE ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND TO THE
  NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
  WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER, AND MUST BE
  GUARANTEED BY A COMMERCIAL BANK OR TRUST COMPANY OR A MEMBER FIRM OF A
  NATIONAL OR REGIONAL OR OTHER RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH A
  SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM. COLUMBIA FINANCIAL PRINTING CORP. -
  www.stockinformation.com
#### CLARK COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-35449. D.C. No. CV-01-05172-FDB/ELM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2003.

Decided July 31, 2003.

*713Before REAVLEY,* TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

In its complaint, the Clark County Natural Resources Council identified three dozen or so variances between the County’s code, as revised, and the PSB Manual, each of which the Council contends violates the equivalency requirement of the County’s discharge permit. Washington’s Department of Ecology wrote that the revised code meets the requirements of the County’s discharge permit. Ecology’s one-page letter acknowledged that there were “differences” between the revised code and the PSB Manual but found that “these differences do not affect the ‘equivalency’ of the ordinances.” The district court concluded that Ecology’s interpretation of its own term — “equivalent to” — was entitled to “great deference,” and therefore declined “to perform a meticulous review of [the County’s] [c]ode revisions and compare them to the [PSB Manual].” The district court agreed with Ecology’s equivalency determination but did not otherwise discuss its reasonableness.

We have previously held that a state agency’s interpretation of a state-issued NPDES permit is entitled to “substantial deference.”1 However, Ecology’s determination that the County’s revised code is “equivalent to” the PSB Manual is entitled no deference if it is unreasonable. The reasonableness of Ecology’s determination cannot be gauged without assessing the significance (if any) of the variances between the revised code and the PSB Manual. We cannot determine whether the district court afforded the Council meaningful judicial review under the Clean Water Act’s citizen suits provision2 unless the record indicates that an inquiry into the reasonableness of Ecology’s determination has been undertaken. This record does not reveal that Ecology articulated its reasons for finding that these variances do not *714undermine the equivalency of the revised code according to the standard of equivalency announced in Ecology’s guidance manual, and there is no trace of explanation by the district court as to why the differences are insignificant. Consequently, we can neither determine whether the Council has been afforded meaningful judicial review nor can we assess the reasonableness of Ecology’s equivalency determination. We therefore vacate the district court’s award of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *Russian R. Watershed Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa,*142 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1998).

2

. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) (2001).
EX-35 (g)


[LOGO] WELLS FARGO


Commercial Mortgage Servicing
MAC A0357-030
P.O. Box 4036, Concord Ca 94524
1320 Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
800-986-9711


ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

RE: Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-TOP21


In accordance with Section 13.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
"Agreement") dated January 1, 2006 executed by and between Morgan Stanley
Capital I, Inc., (as "Depositor"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, (as
"Master Servicer"), ARCap Servicing, Inc., (as "Special Servicer"), LaSalle Bank
National Association, (as "Trustee"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
(as "Paying Agent" and "Certificate Registrar"), as authorized officer of the
Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, I certify that (A) a
review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Master Servicer under this
Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision and (B) to the best of
such officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year or portion thereof.



Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
"Master Servicer"



/s/ Kathryn O'Neal
Kathryn O'Neal
Head of Commercial Mortgage Servicing
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6619 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6619

To prohibit the Secretary of Education from providing Federal funds to 
a local educational agency unless in-person instruction is available to 
all students and parents may opt out of student mask mandates, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2022

 Mrs. Hinson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Education from providing Federal funds to 
a local educational agency unless in-person instruction is available to 
all students and parents may opt out of student mask mandates, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Unmask Our Kids Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS.

    (a) In General.--No funds shall be made available under any 
applicable program to a local educational agency unless--
            (1) in-person instruction is available to all students at 
        each public elementary school and secondary school under the 
        jurisdiction of such agency; and
            (2) a parent of a student at any such school may elect to 
        opt out of any requirement that the student wear a face 
        covering.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Applicable program.--The term ``applicable program'' 
        has the meaning given the term in section 400(c) of the General 
        Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221(c)).
            (2) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local 
        educational agency'', ``parent'', and ``secondary school'' have 
        the meanings given such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
                                 <all>
```