alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

BASE SALARIES FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

On January 24, 2005, the Compensation and Benefits Committee (the "Compensation
Committee") of the Board of Directors of American Express Company (the
"Company") approved the annual base salaries (effective as of such date) of the
Company's executive officers after a review of performance and competitive
market data. The following table sets forth the annual base salary levels of the
Company's Named Executive Officers (which officers were determined by reference
to the Company's proxy statement, dated March 10, 2004) for 2005 and 2004:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       NAME AND POSITION         YEAR   BASE SALARY
------------------------------   ----   -----------
<S>                              <C>    <C>
Kenneth I. Chenault
   Chairman and Chief            2005    $1,100,000
   Executive Officer             2004     1,000,000

James M. Cracchiolo
   Group President               2005       475,000
   Global Financial Services     2004       475,000

Gary L. Crittenden
   Executive Vice President      2005       575,000
   and Chief Financial Officer   2004       500,000

Edward P. Gilligan
   Group President
   Global Corporate Services     2005       575,000
   and International Payments    2004       460,000

Alfred F. Kelly, Jr.
   Group President
   U.S. Consumer and Small       2005       575,000
   Business Services             2004       475,000
</TABLE>
IB 

Union Calendar No. 186 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6454 

[Report No. 117–256] 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office of Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

MARCH 7, 2022 

Additional sponsor: Mr. MFUME

MARCH 7, 2022 

Reported from the Committee on Small Business; committed to the Committee 

of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6454 RH

A BILL 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 

for other purposes. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6454 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Advo5 cacy Improvements Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PRIMARY FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES 

7 OF THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY OF THE SMALL 

8 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. 

9 (a) PRIMARY FUNCTIONS.—Section 202 of Public 

10 Law 94–305 (15 U.S.C. 634b) is amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and the 

12 international economy’’ after ‘‘economy’’; 

13 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘complete’’ 

14 and inserting ‘‘compete’’; and 

15 (3) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘serviced-dis16 abled’’ and inserting ‘‘service-disabled’’. 

17 (b) DUTIES.—Section 203(a) of Public Law 94–305 

18 (15 U.S.C. 634c) is amended— 

19 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

20 end; 

21 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at 

22 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

23 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(7) represent the views and interests of small 

25 businesses before foreign governments and interVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:10 Mar 08, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6454.RH H6454

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 6454 RH

1 national entities for the purpose of contributing to 

2 regulatory and trade initiatives which may affect 

3 small businesses.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 186 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6454 

[Report No. 117–256] 

A BILL 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the 

istration, and for other purposes. Office of Advocacy of the Small Business AdminMARCH 7, 2022 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |    |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 17, 2009 |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | By |  | /s/    MARY E. SULLIVAN                             
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |    |  | Mary E. Sullivan                                    
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Annual Microprocessor Price Index,2007,100.0002008,59.1452009,39.6672010,21.2612011,15.8512012,11.1642013,6.555 See notes on data sources and index construction in accompanying text file.,
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge, 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.


Date: November 12, 2004                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6692 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds relating to the Climate 

Change Professionals Program and any other program, project, or activity relating to climate change of the Department of Homeland Security, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mr. PERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds relating 

to the Climate Change Professionals Program and any 

other program, project, or activity relating to climate 

change of the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6692 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE 

2 PROFESSIONALS PROGRAM AND ANY OTHER 

3 PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR ACTIVITY RELATING 

4 TO CLIMATE CHANGE OF THE DEPARTMENT 

5 OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

6 The Secretary of Homeland Security may not obli7 gate or expend any funds— 

8 (1) to carry out the Climate Change Profes9 sionals Program of the Department of Homeland 

10 Security; 

11 (2) to establish or maintain a program to train 

12 individuals relating to climate change; or 

13 (3) for any program, project, or activity relating 

14 to climate change. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
THEATTORN~Y GENEHAL OIFTEXA~

Febrmry 3, 1939

Mr. Stirling

T. Phelps CoumtyAttorney Webb county Laredo,

Texas DearMr. Phalps: OpinionNo. O-255 RE: May Webb Comty Issue Ponds or Warrants to Raise Funds with which to Acquire Property and Erect Buildings

for the @urposes covered

by Art. 2372D, Il.

C. S. 1925, CountyHorticultural and Agricultural

Exhibits,

Section 1
In reply to your letterof January'& submitting the above captioned 

### question

to this department



### for an opinion,

pIsam be advisad;that we are hereby adoptingthe opinionof this department as rendered

November4, 1938, and which opinion

was in answer to ~a similarquestionsubmitted on October 24, 1938.. 

### As indicated

in your recent letter,t&Fe has been 8ome change in the plans of the Convaissicner' Court with reference to the set-up for the buildings 

### as set forth in your first inquiry. We are of the opinion that such change, as in suggested

in your last conrmunication, does not in anywiseaffect our previous

ruling in this matter. Accordingly,

you are respectfully advised that the Commissioners' Court of Webb County has the right, under the law, to order an electionto determine whether or not bonds shouldbe issued for the purpose of building the necessary building

pursuant

to Articla 2372D. It is our furtheropinionthat the Commissioners' Court would have the right to issuewarrants for this purpose, but must be issuedas provided by Articie 2368~.
Yours respectfully CEC-6 A!ECORNEY OENERAL,OF

TEXAS APPROVED: m GERALDC.MAnn ATTORNkYCETEBALOFTEXAS Clarence C. Crowe Assistant
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation



I, Katrin Watkins, Assistant Secretary of John Deere Capital Corporation,
state:



A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period
from November 2, 2020 through October 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance
under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 25, 2018 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and
John Deere Owner Trust 2018-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital
Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.





|Date: January 10, 2022 |     | John Deere Capital Corporation
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|                       |     |                               
|                       |     |                               
|                       | By: | /s/ Katrin Watkins            
|                       |     | Katrin Watkins                
|                       |     | Assistant Secretary
#### TRAINER v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 15045.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 21, 1935.

Eugene H. Walet, Jr., and Robert A. Ains-worth, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Philip S. Pugh, Jr., of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

LECHE, Judge.

Plaintiff was employed as a laborer on the docks by the board of commissioners of the port of New Orleans. His work consisted principally in trucking and reefing bales of cotton. On May 18, 1927, while engaged in trucking cotton to the compress, the hand truck, upon which he was rolling a bale of cotton, struck a steel buckle, causing petitioner to be catapulted into the air and to fall upon the handle of the truck.

Plaintiff was paid 65 per cent, of his average weekly wage, or the sum of $11.85 per week, for 273 weeks. On or about October 22, 1932, compensation payments were discontinued, and the plaintiff was ordered back to work. He did not resume the duties in which he was involved at the time of the injury, but was given lighter work in order that he might not be. subjected to the strain of'heavy labor after being laid off so long. On October 21, 1933, plaintiff filed this suit, claiming that he was unable to do work of any reasonable character, and that he suffered.severe pain in his back, being frequently confined to bed, all as a result of the injury sustained, and that he is entitled to compensation for a period of 400 weeks at the rate of $11.85 per week, allowing defendant credit for the 273 weeks’ compensation previously paid.

Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit, and plaintiff has appealed.

The only question involved, one of fact, is whether or not the results of the injury sustained are such as to entitle plaintiff to the additional compensation claimed. He received weekly compensation for a period exceeding five years, and our learned brother below, who saw and heard the witnesses and who also had the opportunity of observing plaintiff, was of the opinion that he was properly discharged as cured at the end of the 273 weeks. A review of the transcript does not convince us that the learned trial judge was in error. Reputable physicians testified as to plaintiff’s condition, and the fact that, upon being ordered b'ack to work, he was assigned to lighter duties instead of his usual heavy labor, does not indicate that he had not entirely recovered from the effects of the injury, but that his considerate employer, in view of his long absence from hard labor, believed it was the reasonable and 'sensible thing to do in order that his body might gradually become accustomed to the kind of labor he had formerly been in the habit of performing.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
LETTER AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 22, 2003



 Exhibit 10.6 
  

			
	

	 	   Richard F. Walsh
   Senior Vice President
   Human Resources

	 	   PerkinElmer, Inc.
   45 Wiliam Street
   Wellesley, MA 02481-4078 USA
   Phone: 781-431-4122
   Fax: 781-431-4183


  
 Via UPS and E-mail 

November 22, 2003 
  
 John A. Roush 
  

  

  
 Dear John, 
  
 This is to confirm the terms of the cash bonus; restricted
stock grant; and guaranteed severance provided to you by the Company. 
  
 Cash Bonus: 
  
 The Company has granted you a cash bonus
of $100,000 which is to be repaid if you voluntarily leave the Company before November 18, 2005, according to the following schedule: 100% of the bonus is to be repaid if you leave before November 18, 2004; and 50% if you leave after November 18,
2004 but before November 18, 2005. In the event of involuntary separation or a Change in Control of PerkinElmer, Inc. the requirement to repay all or any portion of the bonus is waived. 
  
 Restricted Shares: 
  
 The Company has granted you 5,000 restricted shares of PerkinElmer stock. These shares will vest on November 18, 2005 provided you remain employed by the Company through
that date. In the event your employment is involuntarily terminated for reasons other than cause, the restricted shares vest on your termination date. In addition, the shares vest upon a Change in Control of PerkinElmer, Inc. In the next few days,
we will send you a restricted stock agreement confirming the provisions relating to the grant. 
  
 Guaranteed Severance: 
  
 In the
event that your employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated, you will receive a severance payment equal to a minimum of nine months of your base salary in effect at the time of separation. 
  
 This letter does not provide a guarantee of future employment nor does it constitute a
contract of employment with PerkinElmer. 
  
 John, we are all very pleased that
you have decided to continue your employment with PerkinElmer and we wish you much continued success. 
  
 Best Regards, 
  

	
	
	/s/    RICHARD F. WALSH        
	Richard F. Walsh

  

	cc:	Greg Summe 

 John Murphy 
 Tom Goulet 
 Lynda Walker
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: YO USIF H. HALLOUM,

Debtor.

______________________________

YOUSIF H. HALLOUM,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL G. KASOLAS, Trustee,

Appellee. No. 14

- 60086

BAP No. 14

- 1170

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

(“BAP”) order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

APR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 60086

approving a settlement agreement between Halloum’s chapter 7 trustee and his

secured creditor. We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for

clear error factual findings about mootness and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op

Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.) , 771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir.

2014). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed H alloum’s appeal as moot because Halloum

did not object to, or take an appeal from, the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing

the sale of estate assets. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co.

( In re Thorpe Insulation Co.) , 677 F.3d 869, 880

- 81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing

factors to be examined when determining equitable mootness). Halloum has

permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is

inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. See id

.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Halloum’s arguments

regarding the underlying merits of the settlement agreement.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00182-CV

Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P.

v.

Andrew Gardiner and Shannon 

Gardiner

§

§

§

§

§

From the 431st District Court of 

Denton County (2008-40133-362)

November 13, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

Concurrence and Dissent By 

Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial

and to allow the Gardiners to add the abnormal and out-of-place variation of their 

nuisance claim.

It is further ordered that appellees Andrew Gardiner and Shannon Gardiner 

shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy_________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTWAN ASKIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00258-BEL-4; 1:04-cv-02914-BEL) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 5, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwan Askia, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antwan Askia seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Askia has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Askia’s motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. 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