alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.26


                          TERMINATION OF SPLIT DOLLAR
                            LIFE INSURANCE AGREEMENT


     This Termination of Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreement (the
"Termination"), is effective September 17, 2004, between AUTOCAM CORPORATION, a
Michigan corporation, of 4070 East Paris Ave., Kentwood, Michigan 49512
("Company"), and John R. Buchan ("Owner").


                                   BACKGROUND

     A.   On one or more dates prior to the date here of Company and Owner have
executed one or more Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreements (the "Plans").

     B.   The Plans were intended to qualify as a life insurance employee
benefit plan as described in Rev. Rule 64-328.

     C.   Company and Owner now desire to terminate all of the Plans.

                                   AGREEMENT

     The parties agree as follows:

     1.   Distribution of Amounts Due. Pursuant to the employment agreement all
of the Plans are terminated and company has release and distributed to Owner
all amounts due to Company under the Plans ($80,981.95).


     2.   Notice of Termination. This Termination serves as written notice of
termination of all of the Plans.

     3.   Acknowledgement of Termination. Owner and Executive acknowledge
release of the amounts due under the Plans and this Termination.

     4.   Future Premiums. Company shall continue to pay the premiums on each
of the policies and the premiums paid will be compensation to the Owner as
agreed upon pursuant to an employment agreement between Owner and Company.

     5.   Effective Date. This Termination is effective as of the date set
forth above.




AUTOCAM CORPORATION, a
Michigan Corporation


By      /s/ John C. Kennedy                       /s/ John R. Buchan
  __________________________________         ____________________________

       John C. Kennedy, President                  John R. Buchan
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1**NO. 12-01-00044-CV**

**IN THE COURT OF APPEALS**

**TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT**

**TYLER, TEXAS**

***JAMES W. THOMPSON,§APPEAL FROM THE 173RD***

***APPELLANT***

***V.§JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF***

***CARMEN KAY WARE, INDIVIDUALLY***

***AND AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CARMEN***

***THOMPSON, M.E. GOODMAN, III., §HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS***

***PEYTON L. GOODMAN ADAMS AND***

***DAVID MONK,***

***APPELLEES***

***PER CURIAM***

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).  Appellant perfected his appeal on February 7, 2001.  Thereafter, the record was filed on May 2, 2001, making Appellant’s brief due on or before June 1, 2001.  When Appellant failed to file his brief within the required time, this Court notified him on June 15, 2001 that the brief was past due, and it warned that if no response explaining the delay was received by June 25, 2001, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P.  42.3(c) and Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  

As of July 3, 2001, Appellant has neither tendered his brief nor otherwise responded to this Court’s notice.  Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3.(b).

Opinion delivered July 11, 2001.

*Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.*

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              Financial Data Schedule - Q1 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         319379
<NAME>                        PSC Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-02-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                5,090
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        35,809
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,575
<INVENTORY>                          21,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     65,066
<PP&E>                               34,949
<DEPRECIATION>                       20,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      172,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                50,388
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               1
<COMMON>                                119
<OTHER-SE>                           45,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        172,417
<SALES>                              59,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     59,145
<CGS>                                33,540
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        20,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,217
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   2,091
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          2,091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.15
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anoteros, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ George G. Chachas By: George G. Chachas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: March 3, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                               DISTRICT OF NEVADA


OSPREY GOLD CORPORATION, et al.,        )
                                        )
     Plaintiff(s),                      )
                                        )     CV-S-05-133 RCJ(LRL)
                                        )
vs.                                     )     MINUTES OF COURT
                                        )
GEORGES BENARROCH, et al.,              )     September 26, 2005
                                        )
     Defendant(s).                      )
----------------------------------------)

PRESENT:  THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPUTY CLERK:  B. J. PRICE                    RECORDER:  LILIA ABARCA DE CARTER
               ----------------------------              -----------------------

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S):  GREGORY L. WILDE
                           -----------------------------------------------------

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S):  W. C. WICKER & MICHAEL KEANE
                           -----------------------------------------------------

PROCEEDINGS:  ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF'S IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND FOR SANCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS (#86) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES (#92)

9:10 a.m.  THE CASE IS CALLED.

The Court hears the arguments of Counsel.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court will grant the motion for sanctions and the
complaint will be stricken. The Court will allow the issuance of shares.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the time set for is continued to TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006
AT 8:30 A.M. Calendar call is continued to WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006 AT 8:30
A.M.

Counsel is directed to prepare and submit an order for the Court's signature.

10:17 a.m.  THE NEXT CASE IS CALLED.


                                               LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK


                                               BY:  /s/ B. Price
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                            Deputy Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Corporation for National and Community Service

The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:

# Date and Time: 

Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 12:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.

# Place:

The Almas Shriner Center, 1315 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20005. Call in number: (202) 898-1688.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters To Be Considered:

12:30-1:15 p.m.

I. Chair's Opening Remarks.

II. Consideration of Prior Meeting's Minutes.

III. CEO Report.

                    IV.                     *Committee Reports:*                     Management, Audit and Governance Committee; Program and Evaluation Committee; Strategic Partnerships Committee                

1:15-2:30 p.m.

V. Public Testimony on the Implementation of the Serve America Act.

# Accommodations:

Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify the Corporation's contact person by 5 p.m. Monday, February 4, 2008.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

                        Emily Samose, Office of the CEO, Corporation for National and Community Service, 10th Floor, Room 9613C, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone (202) 606-7564. Fax (202) 606-3460. TDD: (202) 606-3472.                         *E-mail: esamose@cns.gov.*

Dated: May 12, 2009.

Frank R. Trinity,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E9-11416 Filed 5-12-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-16

Lower Tribunal No. 13-37976

________________

AM-RO Holdings, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto 

Diaz, Judge.

Henriques Law + Mediation Group, P.A., and G.O.L. Henriques, for 

appellant.

Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, PLC, and Warren B. Kwavnick (Fort 

Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Fla. Stat. § 627.4136(1) (2019) (“It shall be a condition 

precedent to the accrual or maintenance of a cause of action against a 

liability insurer by a person not an insured under the terms of the liability 

insurance contract that such person shall first obtain a settlement or verdict 

against a person who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause 

of action which is covered by such policy.”).
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LORENZO DUARTE

No. 653P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, -S.E.2d-(2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Wadiak, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 902]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J), rendered September 29, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two years, with two years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. A review of the Pennsylvania accusatory instrument establishes that his conviction in that state was for the equivalent of the New York felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree *(see*
      *573
      *People v Gonzalez,*61 NY2d 586, 590-591 [1984]; *People v Tyler,*4 AD3d 183 [1st Dept 2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 808 [2004]). The theft of over $2,000 is an essential element of defendant’s Pennsylvania felony, and his present argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.**EXHIBIT 18**
July 18, 2002  

Sears, Roebuck and Co.3333 Beverly RoadHoffman Estates, Illinois

Board of Directors and Management:

At your request, we have read the description included in your QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q/A to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 30, 2002, of the facts relating to your change in the method used todetermine the allowance for uncollectible accounts. We believe, on the basis ofthe facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by appropriateofficials of the Company, that the accounting change described in your Form10-Q/A is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under thecircumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Sears, Roebuckand Co. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any periodsubsequent to December 29, 2001. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we donot express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form10-Q/A, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company,or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for anyperiod subsequent to December 29, 2001.

Yours truly, 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
Dated:             March 28, 2008                                         By: /s/Bruce Kaiserman Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp. Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2007-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:LaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianPNC Bank, N.A., as ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee
#### Bourne *v.*Ross.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

August 25, 1883.)

Seamen’s Wages—Suit in Admiralty—Attachment mom State Court.

The right of a seaman to sue in admiralty *in personam*for his wages is not taken away or suspended by an attachment of his wages by trustee process from a state court in an act ion at. law. *liossv. Bourne,*14 Ted. Hep. 858, affirmed.

In Admiralty.

*E. L. Barney,*for Bourne.

*G. T. Bonney,*for Boss.

Lowell, J.

To the reasons given by Net son, J., in *Ross*v. *Bourne,*14 Fed. Rep. 858, for entering a decree for the libelant, I assent. I have given my view of the law relating to attachments in a foreign jurisdiction in a late case in the district of New Hampshire. *Lynch*v. *Hartford. Ins. Co., ante,*627. As a general rule such attachments should be respected out of comity; but the attachment of seamen’s wages is so unusual that it has been held to be impossible by Judge Benedict, in *The City of New Bedford,*4 Fed. Rep. 818; and though Mr. Justice Gbay has doubted the reasoning and conclusions of that case, in a very learned opinion from which I do not dissent, (see *Eddy*v. *O’Hara,*132 Mass. 56,) still, I am of opinion that comity does not require us to hang up a summary action in the admiralty in favor of a seaman, to await the dilatory proceedings in a court of common law. In ordinary cases I should be inclined to go further than most of the courts have gone in the direction of comity. I have always regretted the narrow rulings in favor of domestic attachments as against foreign bankruptcies and assignments, especially when neighboring states are treated as foreign; but the present case is one in which the admiralty court is bound to give that prompt and speedy justice which is one of the principal reasons for its existence.

Decree affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11038]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 52-012-COL, ASLBP No. 09-885-08-COL-BD01 and 52-013-COL]


South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company; Establishment of 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and the 
Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 
2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the 
following proceeding:

South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (South Texas Project 
Units 3 and 4)

    This proceeding concerns a Petition for Intervention and Request 
for Hearing dated April 21, 2009 from the Sustainable Energy and 
Economic Development Coalition, et al., that was submitted in response 
to a February 20, 2009 Notice of Order, Hearing, and Opportunity to 
Petition for Leave to Intervene (74 FR 7934). Petitioners challenge the 
application filed by the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company 
pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 for a combined license for the 
South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, to be located in Matagorda County, 
Texas.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
Randall J. Charbeneau, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in 
August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May 2009.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-11038 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Williams *v.*Shuler.

1. In procuring a second writ of *certiorari*after a first writ in the same case has been dismissed, the second proceeding being a renewal of the first, as provided for in the code, $2932, it is not necessary to produce to the clerk, or file, a new certificate as to the payment of costs. The certificate already filed with the first petition being still on file, may be treated by the clerk as sufficient evidence on which to base the second writ, inasmuch as the second proceeding would relate alone to the state of facts, relatively to the justice’s court, which existed when the first proceeding was instituted.

2. A certificate by the proper officer, stating the case and certifying that “all the costs have been paid,” fairly construed, means that all costs which may have accrued on the trial below have been paid. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 30, 1894.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Milner. Catoosa superior court. August term, 1898.

Defendant moved to dismiss the *certiorari,*on the ground that no certificate of the presiding magistrate that all costs had been paid which had accrued on the trial below, was filed with the petition and bond. Plain*661tiff offered in evidence the certificate purporting to have been filed with the first petition for *certiorari*in this case, which petition was dismissed at the February term, 1893. Said certificate was dated April 19, 1892, was signed by the justice who tried the case, and stated the following: “Received of James Shuler $10.90 dollars in full payment of cost in case of James Shuler *vs.*J. C. Williams, before jury in the 1109th district G. M., Catoosa county; and I certify that all the costs have been paid.” It was objected that this was not such certificate as required by law, and not filed with the other papers. The objection and the motion to dismiss were overruled, and the *certiorari*was sustained. Defendant excepted.

W. E. Mann, for plaintiff' in error.

R. J. & J. McCamy, *contra.*