alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 10.5**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Jeff Gittelman (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER III Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solelyfor the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER III Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall be subjectto all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including, but notlimited to, terms related to the amount, time and form of benefits.  By execution of this Agreement, theExecutive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, as amended andrestated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequently amended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severancebenefits.  The Executive furtheracknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant toSection 7.1 of the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE                | ANDREW CORPORATION                           |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                         |
|                     |                                         |
| /s/ M. Jeffrey Gittelman |                                         | /s/ Ralph E. Faison |   |
| , individually           |                                         | By: Ralph E. Faison |
|                     | Its: President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |                                              |  |  |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2343 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2343

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral 
 Economic Assistance, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia 
                         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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral 
 Economic Assistance, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR BILATERAL ECONOMIC 
              ASSISTANCE, ASSISTANCE FOR EUROPE, EURASIA, AND CENTRAL 
              ASIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Bilaterial Economic 
Assistance, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $500,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000317340
<NAME> MIKROS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          29,682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    531,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               698,579
<PP&E>                                         691,126
<DEPRECIATION>                               (513,562)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 969,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,288,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     28,266
<COMMON>                                        88,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,633,446)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   969,049
<SALES>                                        628,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               628,791
<CGS>                                          974,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  974,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               626,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,053,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,053,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,053,639)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

1) the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2) the informationcontained in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: December 9, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION
I, John A. Luce, Chief FinancialOfficer of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") certify that: 

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10–Q of the Company for the fiscalquarter ended July 31, 2007; 

2.    Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periodpresented in this report; 
4.    The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e)and 15d–15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the Company andhave: 

(a)   designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report was being prepared; 

(b)    evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and 

(c)    disclosed inthis report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 
5.    The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’sboard of directors: 

(a)    all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b)    any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 
Dated: September 14, 2007 

/s/ John A. Luce 

Chief Financial Officer 

Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 08-6049

________________

In re: *

*

Larry Gene Englund and Marianne *

Englund, *

*

Debtors. *

*

Larry Gene Englund and Marianne *

Englund, *

* Appeal from the United States

Debtors - Appellants, * Bankruptcy Court for the District of

* South Dakota

v. *

*

SBS Financial Services, Inc., *

*

Creditor - Appellee. *

_____

Submitted: January 30, 2009

Filed: February 19, 2009

_____

Before MAHONEY, SCHERMER, and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges.

_____

Per Curiam.

This an appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying the Debtors’ motion for

contempt against creditor SBS Financial Services, Inc. for alleged violations of the

discharge injunction. The motion was denied on purely procedural grounds; the
1 See, e.g., In re Zumbrun, 88 B.R. 250, 252 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1988); In re

Bock, 297 B.R. 22, 32 (Bankr. D. N.C. 1976). See also Budget Service Co. v.

Better Homes of Virginia, 804 F.2d 289, 291 (4th Cir. 1986) (granting motion for

monetary sanctions for violation of automatic stay).

2

bankruptcy court concluded that the Debtors were required to file an adversary

proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001 – instead of a motion

– because they sought to recover monetary damages from SBS Financial. We have

jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b).

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 specifically states that motions for

contempt are governed by Rule 9014 – the rule under which contested motions are

brought. The fact that a motion for contempt seeks monetary damages does not

transform the action into one that must be pursued as an adversary proceeding.1

 

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 provides essentially the same due process

requirements for contested matters that are applicable to adversary proceedings and

should alleviate any concerns the bankruptcy court might have for the creditor’s due

process protections.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order is reversed and the matter is

remanded for further proceedings.
|   | (1) | the      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| November      13, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Thomas J. Meaney                                                                                        |   |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Thomas      J. MeaneyPresident      (Principal Executive Officerand      Principal  Financial Officer) |   |
#### J.F.J. Fuel, Inc., Doing Business as Valley Oil Co., Appellant, v Tran Camp Contracting Corporation et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 680]

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered February 22, 2012, which granted the defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Estate of Albert Tranquillo, Jr., Estate of Rosalie Tranquillo, Daria Contracessa, and Angela Grasso.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to submit papers to the Supreme Court in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Estate of Albert Tranquillo, Jr., Estate of Rosalie Tranquillo, Daria Contracessa, and Angela Grasso, and the motion was granted on default. No appeal lies from an order or judgment granted upon the default of the appealing party *(see*CFLR *9095511; *Washington Mut. Bank v Valencia,*92 AD3d 774, 774 [2012]; *HSBC Mtge. Corp. [USA] v MacPherson,*89 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2011]; *D'Agostino Law Off., P.C. v Parlante,*58 AD3d 668, 669 [2009]; *Sanchez v Village of Ossining,*271 AD2d 674 [2000]; *Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co.,*117 AD2d 588 [1986]). Since the order appealed from was entered upon the plaintiffs default in opposing the motion, the appeal must be dismissed *(see Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. u Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co.,*117 AD2d 588 [1986]).

Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Juan Antonio VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Texas Chairman-Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles; Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-20694.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 14, 2006.

Juan Antonio Velasquez, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Rosharon, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Antonio Velasquez, Texas prisoner # 1055310, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim and as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Velasquez asserts that the district court was wrong to dis*343miss his § 1983 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e) because he had not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Although Velasquez had not moved to proceed IFP in the district court, the magistrate judge ordered that the filing fee for his § 1983 complaint be paid in installments, and, thus, the magistrate judge effectively granted Velasquez IFP status with respect to his § 1983 suit. Moreover, any misapplication of § 1915(e)(2)(B) was harmless given the existence of an alternative frivolity provision applicable to fee-paid complaints. *See*§ 1915A(b)(l).

Velasquez also argues that the district court erred in ruling on the claim raised in his § 1983 suit because the claim was pending first in another court via a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Velasquez has not shown that there was any motion pending in the instant case which would have prevented the district court from ruling on his § 1983 complaint. He offers no other argument to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 suit as malicious and for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, Velasquez’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King, 707*F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983).

Velasquez is advised that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 suit each count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g) and that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996); § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20224

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALAN RAMIREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-380-1

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Alan Ramirez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 9, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Form S-3 and related Prospectus of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., of our report dated October 21, 2003 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2003. 

 

San Diego, California 

December 18, 2003
##### 



---

---

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For January 26, 2004

EXTENDICARE INC.

(Translation of registrants name into English)


3000 Steeles Avenue East
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9W2

(Address of principal executive offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F   o
    
    Form 40-F   x


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Yes   o
    
    No   x


If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):
82-



---

---





---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX

ExhibitNumber
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    News Release dated January 26, 2004






---



##### 



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

EXTENDICARE INC.Date: January 26, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/   MARK W. DURISHANMark W. DurishanVice-President, Finance andChief Financial Officer
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 192 

AN ACT 

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United 

States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights 

Amendment Act of 2022. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 192 EH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DIS2 TRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS. 

3 An individual who is not a citizen of the United 

4 States may not vote in an election for public office in the 

5 District of Columbia or in any ballot initiative or ref6 erendum in the District of Columbia. 

7 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS 

8 AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022. 

9 The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act 

10 of 2022 (D.C. Law 24–242) is repealed, and any provision 

11 of law amended or repealed by such Act shall be restored 

12 or revived as if such Act had not been enacted into law. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 192 

AN ACT 

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the 

dent Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022. trict of Columbia and to repeal the Local ResiUnited States from voting in elections in the Dis-