alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.32

  [Letterhead of John T.
    Dickson]

    President & CEO  











  December 22, 2003

Ms. Rae F. Sedel

  Managing Director

  Russell Reynolds Associates Limited

  24 James Square

  London SW1Y 4HZ

Subject: Kevin Pennington
  – Capital Loss Agreement

Dear Rae,

In confirmation of our conversation
  in London on December 16th, I propose that we extend the agreement (attached)
  covering Kevin’s investment in his Lehigh Valley property through to December
  27, 2007. If you agree, would you please initial this memo and the attachment
  and return it to me.

Thank you.

/s/ John T. Dickson

John T. Dickson

Att.

Copy to:

  Jean Rankin

  Hap Wagner

	 	 	 
	Rae
      F. Sedel	 	Date










[Letterhead
  of John T. Dickson]

  President & CEO  





July 27, 2001



Dear Kevin:

This letter will modify
  your employment agreement dated December 27, 2000 (the “Letter”).
  Terms used herein and not defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the
  Letter.

Agere Systems Inc. (“Agere”)
  agrees that if, prior to December 27, 2003, your employment with Agere is terminated
  for any reason other than “cause,” and if you have not entered into
  a contract for the sale of your house for a contracted sale price at least equal
  to the “minimum price” within three months after any such termination,
  and provided that you have used your best efforts to sell your house for at
  least the minimum price, Agere will, at its option, either (i) purchase the
  house from you at the minimum price or (ii) reimburse you for any difference
  between the minimum price and actual price at which you contract for the sale
  of

  your house. For purposes of this Letter, the “minimum price” is
  your initial purchase price and up to $350,000 of additional documented capital
  improvements.

If you agree, please indicate
  by signing the enclosed copy of this letter.

	/s/ John T.
      Dickson	 	 
	 	 	 
	John T. Dickson	 	 
	 	 	12/21/03 Proposed
      to

      Extend to 12/27/2007
	 	 	 
	Accepted and
      Agreed:	 	/s/ John T.
      Dickson
	 	 	 
	/s/ Kevin P.
      Pennington	 	Agreed/Declined
      ----------
	Kevin P. Pennington	 	Rae Sedel
#### W. S. Elam *v.*E. D. Powell.

Vendor and Purchaser — Abandonment of Lien — Renewal of Note.

Where the holder of a purchase-money note renews the same and takes surety thereon, hut states in the renewal note that it is given *156for land and that a lien is retained, the renewal of the note and the taking of surety does not amount to an abandonment of the lien.

APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 8, 1873.

*Vance, Merriott, W. P. D. Bush, for appellant.*

*Turner & Trafton, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge PRYOR:

The appellant by accepting surety on the renewal of the note for which a lien was retained in the deed from Beverley to Williams released his lien unless there are facts connected with the transaction showing no intention on his part to abandon it. The acceptance of a new rióte with surety or the renewal even without surety would ■manifest a disposition to abandon the lien, and if left unexplained the chancellor would so adjudge. In this case, however, it is shown by the evidence of Williams that the appellant refused to surrender his lien and in order to save it, or rather to retain evidence of the fact that such was not his intention, the note given on the renewal expressly states that it was given for this land and that the lien is retained. This court in the case of *Clark v. Hunt,*3 J. J. Marshall 553, says: “The true rule of equity is, that the vendor retains his lien unless he shall have done something which evinces his intention to abandon it or have done something which manifests that he never relied on it, *etc.”*The chancellor has no right under this equitable principle to take appellant’s lien from him, as it clearly appears that he never intended to abandon it. The judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded with directions to apportion the proceeds of this land between the appellant and appellee. The appellant can only claim the amount of his original debt so far as he attempted to enforce this lien as against the rights of the appellee with the interest. In other words he is not entitled to compound interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY 1999 ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,782,168
<SECURITIES>                                15,834,044
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,259,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                   409,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,390,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,473,452
<PP&E>                                     112,564,200
<DEPRECIATION>                              78,397,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,991,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,637,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,331,285
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,888,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,991,381
<SALES>                                    109,475,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           109,475,532
<CGS>                                       87,686,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               87,686,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,954,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,300,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,654,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,654,429
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32


</TABLE>
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                         MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1998      1997      1996      1995      1994
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (3)......  $1,018.1  $1,050.3  $1,002.8  $  863.1  $  477.3
    
 b) Single Business Tax (2) ..      30.9      20.5      31.4      26.2      28.3

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1) (2)..      12.0      12.5      12.2      13.1      11.8
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) through 1(c).  $1,061.0  $1,083.3  $1,046.4  $  902.4  $  517.4
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $   83.4  $   82.9  $   85.1  $   90.3  $   97.1
    
 b) Capitalized interest.....       1.3       1.3       1.9       1.7       1.5

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......      12.0      12.5      12.2      13.1      11.8
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $   96.7  $   96.7  $   99.2  $  105.1  $  110.4
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................    10.97     11.20     10.55      8.59      4.69
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
     return on capital.
     
(2)  Earnings are income before income taxes and fixed charges.  Since the
     Single Business Tax (the Tax) and rental expense have already been
     deducted, the Tax and the one-third portion of rental expense considered
     to be fixed charges are added back.
     
(3)  The results for 1995 reflect a $64.9 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $174.4 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work
     force restructuring.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Subsidiary
    
    State of IncorporationMorgans Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.
    
    OhioMorgans Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaMorgans Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc.
     (fka Morgans Weirton Foods, Inc.)
    
    West VirginiaMorgans Foods of Missouri, Inc.
    
    MissouriMorgans Restaurants of New York, Inc.
    
    New YorkMorgans Tacos of Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
 44
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 )

VS. ) CR. NO. 05-00136-CG

 )

DUSTIN LAVENDER, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the United States’ Motion pursuant to Rule 35, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc. 55). The United States asks the court to reduce the

defendant’s sentence by fifty per cent (50 %) because he provided, post-sentencing, substantial

assistance in the prosecution of his co-defendant, Theodric Childs.

 Upon due consideration of the ground presented, the court finds that the United States’

motion is well taken and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reason stated in the motion.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendant DUSTIN LAVENDER’s sentence hereby is

amended, and his term of imprisonment hereby is reduced from twenty-four (24) months to

twelve (12) months, to run consecutively to any sentence imposed by the state court. All other

terms and conditions of the sentence and judgment remain the same.

Done this 13th day of July, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cr-00136-CG-C Document 56 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 1
To: —

Subject: Feedback for CSF 2.0
Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 11:29:48 AM
Attachments: image001.pnq

Dear NIST.

A short note on one specific area of the new CSF 2.0 proposal

We remain surprised that Cyber Threat Intelligence is not either its own category or has a more significant
presence generally in subcategories. As a generally accepted standard practice to have intelligence led
security operations, to have an operational and strategic intelligence capability to drive strategy and
tactical intelligence to support detection and response, it seems odd not to have it more prominent and
defined.

We would recommend that, as we see international legislation mandate intelligence functions it should be
its own ‘Predict’ function or at the very least a Category of Identify

CTI help assess and predict current and future threats. It helps inform security control decisions based on
threat actor TTPs. It informs testers and red-teams on attack TTPs to simulate in their tests. It supports
incident response with attribution and assessment of other or TTPs and helps defence detection at a
technical indicator and behaviour levels — all of this remains missing from CSF but is a critical part of our
day to day security operations.

Best regards

Rob

Rob Dartnall
Access and Use Policy  

for the NIST‐Guest Network

Users of devices connecting to NIST‐Guest will require acceptance of access and use rules.  The access

and use rules are presented to the user as follows:  

Please review the complete Access and Use Policy by scrolling to the bottom of the window.  To

acknowledge that you agree to the terms identified, select ACCEPT.  If you choose DECLINE, access to the

NIST‐Guest WIFI Network will not be permitted.   

This is a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) networking system.  To protect this

system from unauthorized use, activities on this system are monitored, recorded, and subject to audit.  

THERE IS NO RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN THIS SYSTEM.  System personnel may disclose any potential evidence

of crime found using NIST networking to appropriate authorities.  USE OF THIS SYSTEM BY ANY USER,

AUTHORIZED OR UNAUTHORIZED, CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO THIS MONITORING, INTERCEPTION,

RECORDING, READING, COPYING, CAPTURING, and DISCLOSURE OF COMPUTER ACTIVITY.

I understand that my device will be connected to a government‐owned network, the NIST Wireless

Guest Network, and my use shall be limited to activities that adhere to legal and ethical conduct.   I also

understand that in order to use the NIST Wireless Guest Network, I must configure my computer

according to the following criteria:

 Antivirus software installed and the signatures updated.

 All security‐relevant patches installed.

 Peer2peer file sharing software (e.g., eDonkey, FlashGet, LimeWire, Kazaa, BearShare, etc.)

disabled/turned off and must not be activated while the computer is on NIST networks.

I will not connect this device to any other NIST network that is not designated for guest’s use.    In the

event of a security incident, my device may be disconnected without notice.   I understand that no

support for remediation of security incidents (e.g., malware) will be available, and that my device will be

prohibited from reconnecting until I resolve security issues associated with my device. I also understand

that the use of devices on this network are at my own risk, and the security of my device and

information is not the responsibility of NIST.  

I understand that I have no right to privacy in my use of NIST networks, and that such use may be

monitored for inappropriate or illegal activities.  Known inappropriate and malicious sites are blocked.  

NIST reserves the right to maintain records of my usage and to provide these records to law

enforcement officials.  NIST will immediately terminate my privilege to use the NIST network should it

become aware that I have used the network for the conduct of inappropriate or illegal activities.

ACCEPT     DECLINE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SULLIVAN WILKERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0787-CG-C

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN :

RESOURCES,

:

Defendant. 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issuesraised,

and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

Complaint be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2005.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00787-CG-C Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4639

To ensure that advertising campaigns paid for by the Federal Government 

are unbiased, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2004

Ms. DELAURO (for herself, Mr. STARK, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. COOPER, Mr. 

CONYERS, and Ms. SLAUGHTER) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To ensure that advertising campaigns paid for by the Federal 

Government are unbiased, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Advertising 

5 Reform Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

8 (1) a February 2004 Congressional Research 

9 Service report states that the advertising industry 
2

•HR 4639 IH 

1 estimates the Federal Government spends over 

2 $1,000,000,000 each year on advertising; 

3 (2) under the rules and regulations that apply 

4 to the Federal Government and advertising cam5 paigns run by the Federal Government, there are 

6 few restrictions on advertising by the Federal Gov7 ernment; and 

8 (3) currently, there is no single agency charged 

9 with tracking and overseeing advertising expendi10 tures by Federal agencies. 

11 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to—

12 (1) ensure that advertising campaigns paid for 

13 by the Federal Government are unbiased and do not 

14 contain a political message or covert propaganda; 

15 (2) highlight the lack of oversight and evalua16 tion of advertising campaigns paid for by the Fed17 eral Government; and 

18 (3) ensure that advertising campaigns in excess 

19 of $10,000,000 per year are evaluated and approved 

20 by an independent entity such as the General Ac21 counting Office. 

22 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—In any fiscal year, if the amounts 

24 appropriated to an agency exceed $10,000,000 to prepare 

25 or produce print, radio, or television advertising cam-
3

•HR 4639 IH 

1 paigns, as well as video news releases, uses of outdoor 

2 media, and Internet advertisements on websites not oper3 ated by the Federal Government, those amounts shall not 

4 be expended by the agency unless—

5 (1) any proposed advertisement is submitted to 

6 the Comptroller General of the United States for re7 view; and 

8 (2) the Comptroller General determines that the 

9 proposed advertisement does not contain a political 

10 message, and is not false, misleading, or deceptive. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

12 (1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

13 meaning provided that term by section 105 of title 

14 5, United States Code. 

15 (2) FALSE, MISLEADING, OR DECEPTIVE.—The 

16 term ‘‘false, misleading, or deceptive’’ has the mean17 ing provided that term under rules and regulations 

18 promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc.     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 5, 2005/s/ Gary L. Dreher
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1




HUDSON UNITED BANCORP

DIRECTOR SEVERANCE PLAN


In light of the extensive time and education demands on Directors and the fact that Hudson United Bancorp and its subsidiaries have no retirement plan or benefits for Directors, the Board hereby
adopts, effective as of the date of this meeting, the Hudson United Bancorp Directors Severance Plan (the “Plan”).


Under the Plan, a director of Hudson United Bancorp who served on the Board of Hudson United Bancorp on or after July 1, 2005, who has served more than 12 months on the Board of Directors of Hudson
United Bancorp, and who ceases to be a director of Hudson United Bancorp for any reason whatsoever (other than a removal for cause involving a breach of the Hudson United Bancorp Code of Conduct) (such directors, the “Eligible Directors”),
shall be entitled to be paid, within 10 business days following termination of service, a lump sum amount equal to the fees paid in the calendar year immediately prior to termination. Subject to the final approval by the court of a settlement
agreement, as substantially embodied by the memorandum of understanding between the parties in the matter of In Re Hudson United Bancorp Shareholders Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Case No. C-26805, the lump sum amount payable above will
be reduced by an amount equal to those fees paid for the director’s attendance at board committee meetings. If the settlement agreement is rejected by the court, an amount equal to the committee meeting fees will be included in the lump sum
payment, or subsequently paid, to directors.  This Plan may be amended or terminated at any time by the vote of two-thirds of all the directors then in office. This Plan shall be administered by the Board of Directors of Hudson United
Bancorp.