alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

 

	
Jeffery Masciadrelli
    	
 
    	
May 12, 2015
    
	
21 Nicholas LH
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Westfield, MA 01085
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

Dear Jeff:

 

I would like to confirm our verbal offer to you as Senior Vice President- Operations.  As discussed, your starting rate of pay will be $4,423.08 per week (Annualized $230,000).  Three weeks vacation will be prorated for 2015. You will be eligible for an annual discretionary bonus of up to 25% of your base salary based on the attainment of specific goals and objectives. Benefits will be effective on the 1st of the month, following 30 days of employment.  You will be an employee at will, which means your employment will be subject to termination at any time, with or without cause.

 

Colt will pay Severance Benefits of 6 months paid out over six months to you shall be subject to delivery of an executed Agreement and General Release in the event of your employment being terminated on a “Without Cause Basis”.

 

All offers of employment are contingent upon your successful completion of a drug screen.  Please call the Connecticut Occupational Medicine Partners at the office most convenient for you to schedule an appointment upon formal acceptance of our offer.  We have enclosed a letter you may present to the clinic at the time of your exam; it includes directions to the clinic.  It also contains the addresses and phone numbers of the Clinic’s locations.  You must complete this physical within one week of receipt of this letter or this offer will be rescinded.

 

All offers of employment are also contingent upon your completion of the enclosed questionnaire.  Under the provisions of the recently amended Gun Control Act, firearm manufacturers are required to obtain and keep on file the information contained in the questionnaire.  An affirmative or untruthful answer in any item a. through j. may result in the withdrawal of our offer of employment.  In addition, I have enclosed our Notice to All Applicants, which reaffirms our compliance with all state and federal regulations governing the employment relationship.  You will note that the reverse side of this notice includes the listing of acceptable documentation for proof of employment authorization.  Please bring the appropriate documentation to your orientation.

 

Offers of employment are also contingent upon a criminal background check.  Please complete and return the enclosed General Authorization Release for American Screening, LLC.

 

Please feel free to contact me at (860) 244-1359 with any questions or concerns.  We look forward to working with you and welcome you to the Colt team!

 

Sincerely,

 

	
/s/ Stephen C. Welford
    	
 
    


Stephen C. Welford

Director, Human Resources

 











 

Please sign below to indicate that you have accepted our contingent offer of employment and return this letter by mail or fax 860-244-1474 within 7 days of the above date.

 

 

	
Signature: 
    	
/s/ Jeffery P. Masciadrelliz
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
May 13,   2015
    
	
 
    	
Jeffery P.   Masciadrelliz
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1961 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Immunization and Respiratory Diseases for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention Immunization and Respiratory Diseases for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1961 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

4 PREVENTION IMMUNIZATION AND RES5 PIRATORY DISEASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Cen9 ters for Disease Control and Prevention Immunization and 

10 Respiratory Diseases for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $448,805,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2006 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, The Agency for Heathcare Research and Quality 

for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, The Agency 

for Heathcare Research and Quality for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV5 ICES, THE AGENCY FOR HEATHCARE RE6 SEARCH AND QUALITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 

7 2024. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

9 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:00 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2006.IH H2006

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2006 IH

1 able for Department of Health and Human Services, The 

2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for fiscal 

3 year 2024 may not exceed $338,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Sylwester Dechnik, Plaintiff, v Fortunato Sons, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. JD Martin Renovation, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 915]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 7, 2007, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the third-*794party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution. In response to the third-party defendant’s showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, no triable issue of fact was raised *(see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc.,*3 NY3d 408 [2004]; *DePaola v Albany Med. Coll.,*40 AD3d 678 [2007]; *O’Berg v MacManus Group, Inc.,*33 AD3d 599 [2006]; *Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank,*285 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.
12331.

#### Pittman *et al. v.*Smith.

Decided May 2, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. January 24, 1921.

*James & Bedgood,*for plaintiffs in error.

*H. A. Btheridge,*contra.

Hill, J.

The undisputed evidence showing that the plaintiff was the bona fide holder, for value and before maturity, of the promissory note sued on, and, the verdict'for attorney’s fees being supported by the evidence, the motion for new trial was properly overruled. No error of law appears.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                        6468
<SECURITIES>                                   178
<RECEIVABLES>                                10315
<ALLOWANCES>                                   625
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             19083
<PP&E>                                        9749
<DEPRECIATION>                                7999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               22607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6365
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    271
<COMMON>                                       144
<OTHER-SE>                                   15815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 22607
<SALES>                                      21413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             25196
<CGS>                                         3510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                16836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             11116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               340
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3048)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3048)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3048)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.21)


</TABLE>
#### Pollard, Appellant, *v.*O’Connor, Appellee.

(No. 7232

Decided May 15, 1950.)

*Mr. Frecl L. Hoffman,*for appellant.

*Mr. Robert G. McIntosh,*for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff, who was a passenger in an automobile being driven west on Losantiville avenue by her husband, was injured when it collided with an automobile being driven south on Fairhurst avenue by the defendant in the northwest quarter of the intersection of -such avenues.

The streets named are of equal sanction, so that, although defendant, approaching from the right, had the right of way, no question of contributory negligence on the part of the husband may be imputed to this plaintiff.

The court instructed a verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and the appeal on questions of law is from that judgment.

It was dark, there had been a drizzle and the surface of the streets was wet.

Plaintiff’s husband testified in substance that the front of his car had reached a point approximately five feet west of the east curb line of Fairhurst avenue when he saw defendant’s car approximately 30 feet north of the north curb line of Losantiville avenue; that when he reached a point where the front of his car was about 10 feet west of the west curb line of Fairhurst avenue, leaving about six feet of the rear part of the ear in the northwest quarter of the intersection, *6defendant, while making a right turn, struck the right rear fender and wheel of his car; that defendant first denied, then admitted that he did not stop at the intersection ; and that defendant did not blow his horn.

This testimony is corroborated by the witness Vogt, who was standing about a 100 feet away on the south sidew'alk of Losantivillé avenue.

There are certain ambiguities in the testimony of the defendant, called as on cross-examination, which must be resolved against him for the purposes of the motion, such as:

“Q. Now Mr. O’Connor, you didn’t blow' your horn before you entered the intersection? A. Yes sir.”

Construing this testimony most strongly in favor of the plaintiff for the purposes of the motion, it raises the issue of whether the defendant had lost his preferential right and exercised due care by turning in the intersection. Upon such issues, it seems to the court, reasonable minds might differ, so that it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant.

• The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

*Judgment reversed.*

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 18.1**

 

March 15, 2006

 

Huntsman International LLC

500 Huntsman Way

Salt Lake City, Utah 84108

 

Dear Sirs/Madams:

 

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Huntsman InternationalLLC and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, andfor each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005,included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and ExchangeCommission and have issued our report thereon dated March 15, 2006, whichexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs concerning(1) the consolidated financial statements reflecting the financialposition and results of operations and cash flows as if Huntsman International HoldingsLLC, Huntsman LLC, Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC and Huntsman InternationalLLC were combined for all periods presented for which these companies wereunder common control, (2) the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 46R,*Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities*,on January 1, 2005 and FASB Interpretation No. 47, *Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations*, on December 31,2005, and (3) the change of the measurement date for the Company’s pensionand other post retirement benefits plans from December 31 to November 30.  Note 2 to such consolidated financialstatements contains a description of your adoption during the year ended December 31,2005 of the change of the measurement date for the Company’s pension and otherpost retirement benefits plans from December 31 to November 30.  In our judgment, such change is to analternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

 
| Yours truly,                       |
|------------------------------------|
|                               |
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|                               |
| Houston, Texas                     |

 

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

S eptember 21 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk September 21 , 2020

1 6 2 02 9 ( 2 6 )

In re MENEFEE.

____________ __________________________

RICO MEN EFEE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 162029

v COA: 352920

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_______ ______________________________ _ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to suspend fees is considered and it is

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order as acknowledgement of his

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being

administratively dismissed.

If appellant timely c omplies with this order, monthly payments shall be made to the

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. That amount shall then be

remitted to thi s Court.

Generally, appellant may not file a new civil action or appeal in this Court until the

filing fee in this case is paid in full. MCL 600.2963(8).

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return

a copy of app ellant’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Preferred Investment Solutions Corp., the Managing
Owner of World Monitor Trust II  Series F (Registrant), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer        
|Kenneth A. Shewer            
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|March 30, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000316736
<NAME>                        FIELDPOINT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         145,926
<SECURITIES>                                   2,880
<RECEIVABLES>                                  326,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (74,192)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               410,875
<PP&E>                                         2,901,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (714,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,620,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          587,589
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       63,819
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,472,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,620,964
<SALES>                                        328,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,120
<CGS>                                          146,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,128
<INCOME-TAX>                                   15,954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            128,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,082
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.02



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          68,157
<SECURITIES>                                 1,746,125
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,898,058
<PP&E>                                          76,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,613,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        94,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,392,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,613,461
<SALES>                                        162,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                515,192
<INCOME-TAX>                                   148,556
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            366,636
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   366,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
#### C. J. Jewell *v.*A. G. Howard, et al.

Real Estate — Survey—Conveyance.

Where the owner of real estate has the boundaries thereof fixed by survey and then conveys to a purchaser according to such boundaries, who conveys same to a person, for a valuable consideration, who has no notice or knowledge of a'mistake in the acreage first conveyed, the first grantor has no cause of action against the last purchaser.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

September 30, 1874.

*Sweeney & Stuart, for appellant.*

*Owen & Ellis, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

After appellant sold to Givens he caused the tract of land to be surveyed, and the boundaries to be marked and the corners established. The mistake of which he now complains is that one line is ten poles longer than is shown by the survey, and hence that the tract contains about seven acres more than appeared from the calculation of the surveyor. Appellees bought from Givens without notice of this mistake. They bought to the marked boundaries and to the corners established by appellant. He conveyed to them instead of to Givens, and his deed conveys all the land within the marked boundaries. The corners and calls of the survey are set out in the deed, but by mistake one line is described as 64poles in length instead of *JAYz-*Appellees do not ask for the correction of their deed. They are in possession, and are satisfied with their title. Appellant seeks either to disregard this deed, or to have the court determine that, because of the mistake of the survey, the corners, the marked boundaries, and the established corners, must yield to the statement of distances. This would be to reverse the rule upon which this court has always acted. If appellant has any remedy (a matter we do not decide), it is against Givens, and not against the appellees.

Judgment *affirmed.*

Judge Cofer did not sit in this case.