alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

[Form of Grant Letter] 
 May 29, 2015 

Dear                     : 

Congratulations on your transfer to Talen Energy Corporation. 

This letter confirms that you have been granted a performance-contingent restricted stock unit (RSU) award for your performance in 2015, prorated for the
months worked at PPL. The actual number of RSUs will be determined in 2016 at the same time as awards are granted to active PPL employees. The grant will be determined using the following formula: 

RSU Grant = three years’ earnings per share from ongoing operations’ achievement x (base salary x RSU Target) x (5/12) 

The terms of the award are as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	The grant date is May 29, 2015. 

  

	 	•	 	Vesting date is spin closing date or June 1st. FICA taxable, like all other grants, in early 2016 when the actual awards are determined. 


 

	 	•	 	Distribution date will be 3 years from early 2016 (early 2019) – the same as those granted to active PPL employees. 


If you have any questions, please contact
                    . 
 Sincerely yours, 

Peter B. Hook 
 Compensation & Benefits Vice President
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-132553, 333-124382, 333-118905, 333-96889, 333-48560, 333-41648 and 333-88817) pertaining tothe 1996 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Directors’ Stock Option Plan and 2000Non-Executive Stock Option Plan of Foundry Networks, Inc. of ourreports dated June 12, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Foundry Networks, Inc., FoundryNetworks, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Foundry Networks,Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ERNST & YOUNG LLPPalo Alto, California
12072.

#### Parks *v.*Stevens.

Luke, J.

In this case the maker of the note sued on sought to set up a defense which might - have been good against the original payee, but was not good as against an innocent holder for value. The court ex-*604eluded evidence by which it was attempted to show equities existing between the maker and the original payee. *Held,-.*It was not error to exclude such evidence. The maker of the note could not, as against the holder who was suing, and who by the evidence was shown to be an innocent holder for value, testify to a state of facts which would render the note a conditional promise to pay. If there was a failure of consideration in the note, the subsequent taker, the plaintiff, was protected against such defense. See *Burch*v. *Pope,*114 *Ga.*334(1) (40 S. E. 227). It was not error for the court to direct a verdict against the defendant for the sum sued for.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Hall county- — -Judge J. B. Jones presiding. November 15, 1920. ,

*E. V. Johnson, B. P. Gaillard Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph G. Collins,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>                                            5
<S>                                                  <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                       JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               4,079
<SECURITIES>                                         93
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                         29
<INVENTORY>                                          3,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     10,307
<PP&E>                                               5,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                       812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       44,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,505
<BONDS>                                              10,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             138
<OTHER-SE>                                           22,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         44,839
<SALES>                                              1,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,041
<CGS>                                                2,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (7,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (1,215)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (8,494)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (9)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (8,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.63)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRENCE DION WASHINGTON, : 

 Petitioner, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0286-CG-C 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-0286-CG 

 Respondent. : 

ORDER

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

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which 

objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. '

636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 5, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00286-CG-C Document 61 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Johan Albrecht, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: June 30, 2020



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert P. Capps, certify that:
(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TeraForceTechnology Corporation; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004     /s/ ROBERT P. CAPPS   Robert P. Capps Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1947 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

Bureau of International Labor Affairs 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 Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Ways and Means, 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 provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1947 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF INTER3 NATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

4 2024. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

6 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail7 able for Department of Labor, Bureau of International 

8 Labor Affairs for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

9 $59,825,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
11718.

#### NORMAN *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquors was authorized by the evidence; and, the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without jurisdiction to set it aside.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Indictment for possession of liquor; from Randolph superior court — Judge Worrill. May 29, 1920.

*Charles*IF. *Worrill,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Luke, J.

The defendant and John Gilbert were tried together for the offense of possessing intoxicating liquors, and both were convicted. The defendant’s motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds, and two grounds which were merely amplifications of the general grounds. The judge charged the jury, in part, as follows: *“*If you believe, from the evidence, that Prank Norman was in possession of the office in which the whisky was found, [and] if you believe, from the evidence, that John Gilbert brought the whisky there or had it brought there, with Prank Norman’s knowledge, [and] that Norman permitted it to remain there, Prank Norman would be in possession, [and] if Prank Norman allowed him to bring the whisky in there and allowed it to remain in there, he would be guilty also, if the evidence shows there was any whisky in the office of which Prank *63Norman was in possession. . . I charge you that if John Gilbert brought the whisky into or had it brought into the hall or had it brought in there, if you believe that Frank Norman had control of the hall and used it as an office, and if John Gilbert carried it in there or had it brought in there with Frank Norman’s knowledge, and Frank Norman allowed it to remain in there temporarily, he would be guilty. If John Gilbert carried the whisky in there or had it brought in there, without Frank Norman’s knowledge or consent and [Norman] did not know that the whisky was brought in there, he would not be guilty. ” No exception whatever was taken by the defendant to the charge of the court, and, under the portion of the charge just quoted (in which we find no material error), the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt and to amply authorize his conviction. Furthermore, the defendant introduced no evidence; and neither his statement nor the statement of John Gilbert (his codefendant) demanded, or even authorized, a contrary finding by the jury, since it clearly appeared, from both statements, that the whisky was brought, with the defendant’s knowledge and consent, into a room of which he was in possession, and that he permitted it to remain in there temporarily. See, in this connection, State *v.*Johnson, 60 N. C. 144 (86 Am. Dec. 434). It follows that the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.(1)

The following is a list of the subsidiaries of OMNOVA Solutions Inc., an Ohio corporation (the Corporation) as of November 30, 2009. The common stock of OMNOVA Wallcovering (USA), Inc., OMNOVA Wallcovering (UK) Limited,
OMNOVA Performance Chemicals (UK) Ltd. Muraspec N.A. LLC, OMNOVA Decorative Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd., OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and OMNOVA Decorative Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd. is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by
the Corporation.



|                                               |  |                                        
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Name of Corporation                            |  | State of Incorporation                 
|OMNOVA Wallcovering (USA), Inc.                |  | Ohio                                   
|OMNOVA Wallcovering (UK), Limited              |  | United Kingdom limited company         
|OMNOVA Performance Chemicals (UK) Ltd.         |  | United Kingdom limited company         
|Muraspec N.A. LLC                              |  | Delaware limited liability company     
|OMNOVA Decorative Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd |  | Thailand limited company               
|OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd |  | Chinese wholly foreign owned enterprise
|OMNOVA Decorative Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd  |  | Chinese wholly foreign owned enterprise



|(1) | The Corporation also controls, directly or indirectly, eleven other companies that, in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary, as such term is defined in Rule 1-02 (w) of Regulation S-X.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50833

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARNULFO PULIDO-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

__________________________________________________________________

Consolidated with No. 19-50834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE ARNULFO PULIDO-MENDEZ, also known as Jose Arnulfo P M, also 

known as Jose Arnulfo Pulido, also known as Jose Pulido-Mendez, also known 

as Jose Mendez-Pulido, also known as Jose Arnulfo Mendez-Pulido,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-242-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-221-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50833 Document: 00515375854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-50833

c/w No. 19-50834

2

Before WIENER, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Arnulfo Pulido-Mendez appeals from a judgment revoking his 

previously-imposed supervised release and a judgment of conviction on his 

guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that 

the enhancement of his sentence based on his prior conviction pursuant to 

§ 1326(b)(1), which increased the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to 

10 years and the statutory maximum term of supervised release to three years 

for his new illegal reentry offense, is unconstitutional because his prior 

conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the 

offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging 

that Pulido-Mendez’s argument is foreclosed.

The parties are correct that Pulido-Mendez’s argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 19-50833 Document: 00515375854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

K. A. HINTON, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0311-CG-N 

BP AMERICA, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER

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

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and 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 this action be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00311-CG-N Document 5 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-148307) of
iBasis, Inc. of our report dated June 19, 2007, except for Note 2 "Net income per share" and Note 18 "Foreign currency translation", as to which the date is
March 14, 2008, relating to the 2006 and 2005 combined financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.,

The
Hague, March 14, 2008
PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V.

|/s/ H.C.WürstH.C. Würst R A |  | 
|--------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | 1. | Registration Statement No. 333-155731 on Form S-3 of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Registration Statement No. 333-162305 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Registration Statement No. 333-160509 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | Registration Statement No. 333-100558 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. | Registration Statement No. 333-88145 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 6. | Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 7. | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8 pertaining to the OMNOVA Solutions Retirement Savings Plan;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated January 29, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. and
our report dated January 29, 2010, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of OMNOVA Solutions Inc., both included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. for the year ended
November 30, 2009.

/s/ Ernst & Young

Akron, Ohio

January 29, 2010
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-124382, 333-118905, 333-96889, 333-48560, 333-41648 and 333-88817) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Directors’ Stock Option Plan and 2000 Non-Executive Stock OptionPlan of Foundry Networks, Inc. of our reports dated March 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Foundry Networks, Inc., Foundry Networks, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Foundry Networks, Inc. included in the AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ERNST & YOUNG LLPPalo Alto, California