alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document



	 	
      Exhibit
      10.32








	 	
      February
      11, 2005
	 









Mr. James
S. Tisch

667
Madison Avenue

New York,
New York 10021




Dear Mr.
Tisch:




Reference
is made to your Employment Agreement with Loews Corporation (the “Company”),
dated January 1, 1999, as amended by agreements dated
as of
January
1, 2002, January
1, 2003 and as
of January
1, 2004 (the
“Employment Agreement”).




This will
confirm our agreement that the Employment Agreement is amended as
follows:




1.
Term
of Employment. The
period of your employment under and pursuant to the Employment Agreement is
hereby extended for an additional period through and including March 31,
2007 upon
all the terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement, as hereby
amended.




2.
Compensation. You
shall be paid as basic compensation (the “Basic Compensation”) for your services
to the Company and its subsidiaries under and pursuant to the Employment
Agreement a salary at the rate of Nine Hundred
Seventy-Five
Thousand
($975,000)
Dollars per annum through
March 31,
2007. Basic
Compensation shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll
practices as in effect from time to time, and shall be subject to such increases
as the Board of Directors of the Company, in its sole discretion, may from time
to time determine. 




3.
Incentive
Compensation Plan. In
addition to receipt of Basic Compensation under the Employment Agreement, you
shall participate in the Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers of
the Company (the “Compensation Plan”) and shall be eligible to receive incentive
compensation under the Compensation Plan as may be awarded in accordance with
its terms. 




4.
Other
Compensation. The
compensation provided pursuant to this Letter Agreement shall be exclusive of
compensation and fees, if any, to which you may be entitled as an officer or
director of a subsidiary of the Company.




Except as
herein modified or amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

 

 




 




















Mr. James
S. Tisch

As of
February 11, 2005

Page
2







If the
foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, would you please sign the
enclosed duplicate copy of this Letter Agreement at the place indicated below
and return the same to us for our records.





	 	 	
      Very
      truly yours,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
      LOEWS
      CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
      By:
	
      /s/
      Gary W. Garson
	 
	 	 	
      Gary
      W. Garson
	 
	 	 	
      Senior
      Vice President
	 







	
      ACCEPTED
      AND AGREED TO:
	 
	 	 
	
      /s/
      James S. Tisch
	 
	
        James
      S. Tisch
	 








 







2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11409 and #11410]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/26/2008. *Incident:*
                         Tropical Storm Fay. *Incident Period:*
                         08/18/2008 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         08/26/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/27/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/26/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business Administration,Processing and Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/26/2008, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans)*: Brevard. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Florida: Indian River, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Volusia. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.750Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 114098 and for economic injury is 114100. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E8-20450 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Mrs. Estelle D. HARTMAN v. Buffington S. MAYER, Jr., et al.

No. 3090.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 7, 1949.

Benj. W. Miller and A. J. Jones, both of Bogalusa, for appellant.

Harrison G. Bagwell and Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller, all of Baton Rouge, for defendant Buffington S. Mayer, Jr.

*166DORE, Judge.

For the reasons this day assigned in the consolidated cases of Mrs. Estelle D. Hartman v. Buffington S. Mayer, Jr., et al., and Buffington S. Mayer, Jr. v. Joseph H. Slaughter et al., La.App., 39 So.2d 166, it is ordered that the judgment in the above numbered and entitled cause in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Joseph H. Slaughter, be amended by reducing the award made from the sum of $15,-142.85 to the sum of $10,642.85 and as thus amended it be affirmed. The costs of this appeal to be paid by plaintiff and all other costs to be paid hy defendants.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Powell
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Thomas W. Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



Date:    August 26, 2002                      /s/   THOMAS W. POWELL
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Thomas W. Powell
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Fernando VIERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-10192.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

*340PER CURIAM.*

Fernando Viera appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Sprint United Management Company in his claim alleging breach of contract. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards used in that court. *Rogers v. International Marine Terminals,*87 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.1996).

Viera argues that the district court erred in granting Sprint summary judgment on his breach of contract claim. He claims that according to the Texas statute of frauds, the offer letter contained clear language which in effect took him out of an at-will employment status into a specified term. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 26.01. The district court found that the offer letter contained ambiguous language and did not unequivocally demonstrate Sprint’s intent to limit in a meaningful and special way its ability to terminate Viera. *Midland Judicial District Cmty. Supervision and Corr. Dept. v. Jones,*92 S.W.3d 486 (Tex.2002). We agree because Viera failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the language of the offer letter established Sprint’s intent to be bound by a specified term. Specifically, Viera failed to adduce evidence suggesting the letter specified a sufficiently definite salary and committed time period to constitute a term employment contract.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6578 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6578

  To direct the Secretary of State to seek to enter into negotiations 
 with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to rename 
    its office the ``Taiwan Representative Office'', and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2022

Mr. Curtis (for himself and Mr. Pappas) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of State to seek to enter into negotiations 
 with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to rename 
    its office the ``Taiwan Representative Office'', 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 ``Taiwan Representative Office Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF AND REFERENCES TO TAIWAN REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE.

    (a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United 
States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et 
seq.) and the Six Assurances, to provide the people of Taiwan with de 
facto diplomatic treatment equivalent to foreign countries, nations, 
states, governments, or similar entities, and, consistent with this 
policy, to rename the ``Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office'' in the United States as the ``Taiwan Representative Office''.
    (b) Renaming.--The Secretary of State shall seek to enter into 
negotiations with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office to rename its office in Washington, DC, the ``Taiwan 
Representative Office''.
    (c) References.--If the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office is designated as the Taiwan Representative Office, any reference 
in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the 
United States Government to the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Representative Office shall be deemed to be a reference to the Taiwan 
Representative Office, including for all official purposes of the 
Government of the United States, all courts of the United States, and 
any proceedings therein.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed as entailing restoration of diplomatic relations with the 
Republic of China (Taiwan) or altering the position of the United 
States with respect to the international status of Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 35.1**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toLong Beach Securities Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of  May 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, and Deutsche BankNational Trust Company, as Trustee,  the following with respect to Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

Dated as of February 22,2007.                       

                                                                       

                                                                          /s/H. John Berens
| __________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           EXHIBIT 11-1


                                PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES, INC.

                        Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
               for the Three and Six Month Periods Ended June 30, 1997 and 1996



                                         Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended     
                                         1997          1996           1997          1996    

<S>                                  <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
Income (loss) before subsidiary's
  preferred stock dividends          $    469,000  $    (93,000)  $  8,874,000  $  7,516,000

Subsidiary's preferred stock
  dividends                               318,000       383,000        671,000     1,020,000

Net income (loss)                    $    151,000  $   (476,000)  $  8,203,000  $  6,496,000

Earnings (loss) per share of
  common stock                       $        .02  $       (.05)  $        .85  $        .60

Computations of additional common
  shares outstanding

  Average shares of common stock        9,643,642    10,088,268      9,629,606    10,825,160

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the daily average market price         58,349        17,102         51,908        15,306

  Average common shares as adjusted     9,701,991    10,105,370      9,681,514    10,840,466

  Average shares of common stock        9,643,642    10,088,268      9,629,606    10,825,160

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the more dilutive of daily
    average or ending market price         62,827        18,996         50,341        16,578

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                             9,706,469    10,107,264      9,679,947    10,841,738

Earnings (loss) per share of
  common stock
  
  Average common shares as adjusted  $        .02  $       (.05)  $        .85  $        .60

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                          $        .02  $       (.05)  $        .85  $        .60



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FESTUS KANDJABANGA,

Petitioner

v.

DREXEL UNIVERSITY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 497 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification
of Chief Financial Officer

I, David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment #1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company;

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.



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: December 17, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce    
|                         |  |  |  | David B. Pierce        
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey S. Perrin, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Since destruction of the dispatch tape by the police was inadvertent, the sanction of dismissal was not necessary to rectify whatever harm defendant may have suffered by the loss of this evidence *(see, People v Rice,*75 NY2d 929, 932; *People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940; *People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516, 520-521; *People v Beam,*161 AD2d 1153). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an adverse inference charge as a lesser sanction for the failure to preserve the tape. The court properly refused to charge unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree as a lesser included offense because there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support it *(see, People v Green,*56 NY2d 427). Defendant’s contentions regarding the court’s charge and evidentiary rulings do not require reversal. On this record defendant’s sentence is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
## NO. 12-08-00235-CR NO. 12-08-00236-CR NO. 12-08-00237-CR NO. 12-08-00238-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

KORRE NTHIN DWAY

NE BAK ER, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Appellant plea ded g uilty

to two counts of ag g ravated assault with a deadly wea pon and two counts of ca

pital murder. The trial court a s s es sed punishment at imprisonment for life. We have re c e ive d th e tr ia l c ourt ’s c ert if ica tio n in e a c h c a us e sh ow ingthat App e lla nt w a ive d h is r ig ht t o appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) . T he c e rt if ic a tions are sig ne d b y

Ap pe lla nt a nd his c ouns e l. Acc ording ly , these a

ppeals a re dism issed for want of ju risdiction

. Opinion delivere d J une 11, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)
#### Sam Block, Plaintiff, *v.*Metropolitan Elevator Co. Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Pretrial Term, Kings County,

January 4, 1957.

*Louis M. Schachter*for plaintiff.

Louis L. Friedman, J.

Heretofore the court preferred this action under rule *151*of the Rules of Civil Practice and set the matter down for trial for April 1, 1957 at Trial Term Part I. The preference was also granted under rule 8 of the Trial Term Rules of . this, court. By letter written to this court under date of December 22, *1956,*the attorney for the defendant pointed out that - another Justice of this court refused to granj; a rule 9 preference and asks that the court reconsider its determination setting this matter down for April 1, 1957 for trial.

This is a case where plaintiff sues for personal injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant in the man*1069ner in which it owned, maintained and operated a certain elevator located in a building in New York City. Plaintiff contends, and there seems to be no dispute, that he was on an elevator which fell four flights. Plaintiff claims that as a result of the accident he sustained a spinal cord injury, with paralysis of his left extremity and the entire left side of his body, a rupture of his left knee, a fracture of the capitate bone and other serious injuries. Plaintiff contends that although he was not hospitalized immediately after the accident happened (Jan. 21, 1955), he was obliged to go to the hospital in the early part of 1956 and was there confined for three weeks. When the matter came before this court for pretrial conference, the defendant’s attorney indicated that he would make no offer of settlement because his client was uninsured.

In the interests of justice, and since there seemed to be very little question that at least prima facie the defendant was liable for this accident, the court felt that the defendant should not have the lapse of time between the present time and the time when the case would ordinarily be reached upon the calendar of this court, and within which time there was a possibility that any judgment which plaintiff might subsequently secure would be worthless. Accordingly, the court set the matter down for trial for April 1, 1957 and such determination was made under rule 8 of the Trial Term Rules of this court.

The court is of the opinion that the Justice who did not grant the rule 9 preference apparently did not have all of these facts before him. This court reiterates its decision that in the interests of justice this case should be speedily tried, with the end in view that if plaintiff is successful in securing a judgment, he should at least have an opportunity to collect it. The matter is therefore set for trial for April 1, 1957 in Trial Term Part I of this court. Submit order.