alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.19

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3

                             WATTS INDUSTRIES, INC.

                   MANAGEMENT STOCK PURCHASE PLAN, AS AMENDED


March 1, 2001


     The Watts Industries, inc. Management Stock Purchase Plan, As Amended
("Management Plan"), is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   The last two sentences of SECTION IV. PARTICIPATION, C. ELECTION TO
          PARTICIPATE, are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with
          the following:

             IV. Participation

                  C. ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE. ...Subscription Agreements must be
             received by the Company no later than June 30 of the fiscal year
             for which such bonus amount will be determined. A participant who
             is not subject to the short-swing profits rule of Section 16 of the
             Act may revise his or her Subscription Agreement with respect to
             the amount of elected RSU s no later than December 1 of the fiscal
             year for which such bonus will be determined.

     2.   Except as provided for in the Amendment No. 3, all of the terms and
          conditions of the Management Plan shall remain in full force and
          effect.

     EXECUTED as of the date first set forth above.


                                             Watts Industries, Inc.


                                             By: /s/ William C. McCartney
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 William C. McCartney
                                                  Treasurer, Secretary and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

XYZ Corporation

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−03281

Honorable Andrea R.

Wood

The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A"

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, June 19, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for

6/23/2020 is stricken. Plaintiff's motion to extend the temporary restraining order [20] is

granted. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend the sealed temporary restraining

order entered 6/9/2020 [19] for an additional 14 days. The sealed temporary restraining

order shall expire on 7/7/2020. By 7/2/2020, Plaintiff shall either (1) file a motion for a

preliminary injunction, or (2) file a status report indicating how else Plaintiff intends to

proceed. Telephonic status hearing set for 7/7/2020 at [time]. To ensure public access to

court proceedings, members of the public and media may call in to listen to telephonic

hearings. The call−in number is (888) 557−8511 and the access code is 3547847. Counsel

of record will receive an email 30 minutes prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with

instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of

the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court

proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of

court−issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future

hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice. (dal, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03281 Document #: 23 Filed: 06/19/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:319
EXHIBIT 4.1

                      [Letterhead of Jackson Steinem, Inc.]

August  12,  2003

Gilles  Cloutier,  President
Medical  Licensing  International  Corp.
300  St.  Sacrement  St.,  Suite  414
Montreal,  Quebec  H2Y  1X4

     RE:     PROPOSED  REORGANIZATION
             ------------------------

Dear  Gilles:

     This letter agreement serves as the agreement between the Medical Licensing
International  Corp. (the "Company") and Jackson Steinem, Inc. ("JSI") regarding
compensation  for  non-legal  services provided by JSI to the Company, including
but  not  limited  to  services  in  connection  with  the  Company's  proposed
reorganization  transaction (the "Reorganization").  For JSI's services to date,
the  Company  shall  duly  issue and deliver, or cause to deliver, to JSI 50,000
shares  of  the  Company's  common  stock  at  a  value  of  $.10  per  share.

     The  Company,  under  a  separate  agreement  ("Retainer  Agreement"),  has
retained  the  legal  services  of  Gottbetter  &  Partners,  LLP ("G&P") as its
corporate and securities counsel.  The Company and JSI agree that this agreement
and  the  consideration  being  paid  hereunder  are  not  in exchange for legal
                                                      ---
services,  and no legal services have been or will be provided to the Company by
JSI.  In  addition,  JSI  has  not  been  asked  to  perform, is not required to
perform,  and  has  not  performed  any  due  diligence  with  respect  to  the
above-referenced transactions, nor has it advised or counseled the Company as to
the  financial  viability  or  likelihood  of  success  of  the above-referenced
transactions.

     G&P  and  JSI consist of the same principal owners.  The Retainer Agreement
includes  disclosures,  waivers  and consents regarding the conflict of interest
raised  by G&P's legal representation of the Company and JSI's relationship with
the  Company hereunder, which are specifically incorporated herein by reference.

     The  Company  acknowledges  that  the  value  of  JSI's shares could have a
substantially higher value than the value of the services provided by JSI.  This
Agreement is to be governed by New York law.  It may be modified only in writing
signed  by  JSI  and  the  Company.

     We  look  forward to working with you in developing the Company's business.

Sincerely,

/s/  Adam  S.  Gottbetter

Adam  S.  Gottbetter
President

AGREED  AND  ACCEPTED:

Medical  Licensing  International  Corp.

By:     /s/  Gilles  Cloutier
        ---------------------
Name:   Gilles  Cloutier
        ----------------
Title:  President
        ---------


<PAGE>
No. 07-14-00101-CR

Victoria Morin

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the County Court at Law No. 2

 of Lubbock County

November 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 16, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Exhibit 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of Tower Group, Inc.
  Jurisdiction of



PercentageName

Incorporation

Parent

OwnershipTower Insurance Company of New York (TICNY)

New York

Tower Group, Inc.


100
%(TGI)Tower Risk Management Corp.

New York

TGI


100
%Tower National Insurance Company

Commonwealth of

TGI


100
%MassachusettsPreserver Group, Inc. (PGI)

New Jersey

TGI


62.6
%TICNY


37.4
%Preserver Insurance Company

New Jersey

PGI


100
%Mountain Valley Indemnity Company

New Hampshire

PGI


100
%North East Insurance Company (NEIC)

Maine

PGI


100
%North Atlantic Underwriters, Inc.

Maine

NEIC


100
%Ocean II Corporation

Delaware

TGI


100
%Ocean I Corporation

Delaware

Ocean II Corp.


100
%
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant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.
  /s/  Eric W. FinlaysonEric W. FinlaysonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Louise A. Helm *v.*Hubbard D. Helm, etc.

Trial — 'Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice After Submission — Discretion of the Court.

In tbe exercise of a sound discretion a court may sustain a motion to dismiss without prejudice, but after tbe cause bas been regularly beard and submitted to tbe court for its decision on tbe *533merits, the plaintiff cannot, as a matter of right, avoid the result of the trial by dismissing the cause without prejudice to another suit.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 20, 1871.

Opinion by.

Judge Hardin:

As to the decision of this case on the submission on its merits, it will suffice to say that we find the opinion of the circuit court to be accurate in its statements and deductions, and correct in its conclusion, and we can perceive no error in the refusal of the court to set aside the judgment on either application of the plaintiffs counsel, for unfairness or surprise in the submission of the case.

The only question requiring more particular notice is whether the court erred in refusing, on the motion of the plaintiffs counsel after the submission of the case, to allow the action to be discontinued, or dismissed without prejudice to a future action.

In the exercise of a sound discretion and with a view to the ends of justice, the court might, perhaps, have sustained the motion, but after the cause had been regularly heard and submitted to the court for its decision on the merits, the plaintiff could not, as a matter of right, avoid the result of the trial, by dismissing the cause without prejudice to another suit, for a re-litigation of the same matter of controversy and there was no abuse of the discretion of the court in overruling this motion. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”)on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnCirrincione, Chief Operations Officer and Acting General Manager of theAuthority, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1)    | The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | (2)    | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority. |

 
| By:                                                  | /s/  JOHN CIRRINCIONE |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| John  Cirrincione                                    |                  |
| Chief  Operations Officer and Acting General Manager |                  |
| March 31,  2009                                 |                  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the River Rock Entertainment Authority and will be retained by theRiver Rock Entertainment Authority and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Final Decision of the Ad hoc Independent Review Panel for the Appeal of ASTM Standard E2548-11, 

Standard Guide for Sampling Seized Drug for Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Date:

November 22, 2016

Panel Members:

Mark Stolorow, FSSB Representative

Kris Cano, QIC Representative

Arlene Hall, QIC Representative

Mark Ruefenacht, Forensic Metrologist/Statistics

Anna Deakin, Forensic Chemist/Controlled Substances Expert

Comment on Section 5.5.1

The panel agrees with the adjudication of this comment as non-persuasive and that there is a 

misunderstanding of the language and an issue with the term being used in the document. The 

document references ASTM E1732 – Standard Terminology Relating to Forensic Science where the terms

“sample” and “sampling” are defined. Although the terminology may not be clear, there is a reference 

to the terms used in the document. It is suggested that in the next revision of the document that these 

key (primary) terms are clearly defined in the body of the document. However, this does not reverse the 

previous determination of this comment as non-persuasive, and, consequently, the appeal of this 

comment is denied.

Comment on Figure 1

Comment 1: The panel agrees with the adjudication of this comment as non-persuasive. The panel 

commented that a drug chemist would know what is depicted in this figure and supports that this would 

be a management decision based on jurisdiction. The appeal to this comment is denied. 

Comment 2: The panel agrees with the adjudication of this comment as non-persuasive. Sampling is 

defined in the referenced terminology document. 

Comments on Need for Complete Reporting

The panel affirms the appeal on the two editorial comments referencing that the subject of reporting 

will be the subject of another document. The panel determined that the comment is not editorial and 

should be re-adjudicated. Referring to a document that does not currently exist is not addressing the 

comment or concern that the reporting is incomplete. As a possible solution, the panel suggests the 

option of removing the reference to reporting if there will be a subsequent document that will address 

reporting.
Subject: RE: ABA Comments on Proposed Changes to the CSF v2.0 Core 

Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:17:24 PM 

Thanks for acknowledging receipt. 

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:09 PM 

Subject: RE: ABA Comments on Proposed Changes to the CSF v2.0 Core 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please use careful judgement before clicking on 

any links or opening any attachments. 

From: John Carlson 

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 4:15 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: ABA Comments on Proposed Changes to the CSF v2.0 Core 

To: Cherilyn Pascoe, National Institute for Standards and Technology Cybersecurity 

Framework Program Lead 

Subject: ABA Comments on Proposed Changes to the CSF v2.0 Core 

Dear Ms. Pascoe: 

The American Bankers Association (ABA) values the opportunity to provide comments to the 

National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Discussion Draft of the 

Cybersecurity Framework Core 2.0.[1] The ABA commends the continued efforts of NIST to 

ensure that the next version of the CSF is forward-looking, clear, addresses developments in 

technology and risk, and improves alignment with national and international cybersecurity 

standards and practices. We also appreciate your participation in discussions with ABA 

member banks on NIST’s ongoing efforts to update and refine the CSF.[2] 

We appreciate that NIST included a “Govern” Function in the next version of the NIST CSF. 

We know that good governance is critical for cyber risk management, and it helps enable and 

your needs and further our valued relationship. If you prefer not to 

receive any further messages from us, just reply to this e-mail and let 

us know. Thanks. 

******************************************************************
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,467
<PP&E>                                         944,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 939,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,834
<BONDS>                                        515,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                     295,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   939,130
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,175
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,393
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
Order entered January 2 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00904
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF D .P.B. AND D.Z.B., CH ILDREN On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 05
- 12682



### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. By order dated November 7, 2017, we abated this appeal pending resolution of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus. On December 19, 2017, the Court conditi onally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to issue a ruling vacating the June 16, 2017 default contempt order. The trial court has complied. Because the order that is the subject of this appeal has now been vacated, it appears this appeal is now moot. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file, within ten days , a motion to dismiss this appeal or a letter explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed. We caution appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissa l of the appeal without further notice.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Marc Munday *v.*John W. Leathers.

Attorney and Client — False Imprisonment — Contract for Services to Secure Release.

Tbe arrest and imprisonment being unlawful, tbe contract to pay appellant for services to be rendered to effect tbe appellee’s release was not unlawful or against tbe policy of tbe law, nor was it without consideration.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The appellee alleged in his answer in substance and effect, that his arrest and imprisonment were without lawful authority; and the evidence conduces to sustain the allegation; this being *456so, the contract to pay the appellant for services to be rendered to affect the appellee’s release or escape from apprehended danger, was not necessarily unlawful or against the policy of the law as was in effect decided in the recent case of *Thompson v. Wharton;*and the judgment can not be sustained on the ground that the consideration* of the draft sued on was missing, the answer not alleging either fraud or duress on the part of the appellant, practiced by himself or others in colusión with him, as an inducement to his employment. Nor can we affirm the judgment on the only other ground of defense, presented by the answer, viz.: that the draft was given for no consideration, as it appears that said service was rendered by which the appellant was temporarily, at least, released from prison and restored to his liberty, of which it seems he was unlawfully deprived by the exercise of arbitrary power. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and for other proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Rankin, Hawkins, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, for appellee.*