alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.6









1605 Chase Hammock Road, Merritt Island, Florida 32953
 
 Office: 321-454-6310 ♦ Fax: 321-454-6998 ♦ E-mail: TC5170@aol.com
  March 21, 2014
  Kyle Kennedy
 Seafarer Exploration
 14497 N. Dale Mabry Highway
 Suite 209-N
 Tampa, FL 33618
  Dear Mr. Kennedy,
  It was a pleasure meeting with you. As per our discussion, Land & Sea Surveying would like to submit the following proposal to provide surveying services in support of your exploration of a potential historic site off the coast of Cape Canaveral.
  Scope
 Land & Sea Surveying will provide a 40-foot survey vessel with captain to support diver operations. We will also provide multi-beam data collection and processing. Data will be collected daily of an area as specified by the client. Processed data will be provided as a geo-referenced tif file together with a plan view map in a hard copy and electronic delivery showing all multibeam data, mag data as supplied by client super-imposed and one-foot contours shown of the project site bathymetry.
  Terms
 Land & Sea Surveying will provide services as described for a daily rate of $3,500 plus all fuel costs. Amount of fuel used will be determined by the calculated difference in fuel amount as measured at the start of day and end of day. Fuel price will be the current price at Bluepoints Marina. Payment of fees will be due upon return to the dock at end of day.
  Any invoices not paid within 30 days will be charged a finance charge of 4% for every month or portion of a month past due.
  Land & Sea Surveying understands the need for discretion in the historical shipwreck recovery business. All personnel agree to maintain full confidentiality of all locations and findings they become privy to in the course of providing services to Seafarer Exploration. Findings discovered during operations and surveying will be disclosed only to the client and his designated representative.
  Future services will be provided at a daily rate of $1850 plus company stock equal to or greater than a value of $2,000 with a written guarantee as to the minimum value of the stock. Client will also be responsible for all fuel costs.
 
 Any additional costs, including, but not limited to attorney or legal fees, incurred in the collection of payment for this project will be the responsibility of the client.
  
 
 1
 
 This proposal represents our entire agreement. Once accepted the proposal becomes a binding contract and may only be modified in writing with agreement of both parties.
 
 This proposal is valid for only forty-five days from the above date.
  This letter signed below and returned to us, shall indicate your acceptance of our proposal and serve as our notice to proceed with the services described herein.
  If you have any questions, please contact me at 321-454-6310 or 321-258-9734.
 
 
 Sincerely,
    Tim Carlile, PLS
 President
  
 
 
 
 APPROVED AND ACCEPTED
   By: /s/ Kyle Kennedy

Kyle Kennedy(Signature)

(Printed Name & Title)For: Seafarer Exploration Corp.

3/24/2014(Company)

(Date)
 
 
 2
Exhibit
13.1





Certification of CEO
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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ClickSoftware Technologies
Ltd. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dr.
Moshe BenBassat, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(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.




















/s/
Dr. Moshe BenBassat


Name:
Dr. Moshe BenBassat


Title:
Chief Executive Officer


Date:
April 16, 2008











A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Case 1:11-mj-02018-AMD   Document 1   Filed 03/11/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1

Case 1:11-mj-02018-AMD   Document 1   Filed 03/11/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 2

Case 1:11-mj-02018-AMD   Document 1   Filed 03/11/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 3
#### Buffalo Ins. Co. *v.*Providence & Stonington Steam-Ship Co.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 16, 1886.)

Witness—Mtleage—How Taxed as Costs.

The traveling- fees of a witness residing out of the district can only be taxed to the extent of 100 miles.

Appeal by the plaintiff from taxation of the clerk disallowing traveling fees for more than 100 miles of a witness residing in Buffalo, who attended the trial of this cause in the Southern district of New York.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for plaintiff.

*Miller, Peckham & Dixon,*for defendant.

Coxe, J.

The taxation by the clerk is correct. The law is well settled in this circuit that the traveling fees of a witness residing out of the district- can only be taxed to the extent of 100 miles. *Anon.,*5 Blatchf. 134; *The Leo,*5 Ben. 486; *Beckwith*v. *Easton,*4 Ben. 357. It is true that this rule may work injustice in some instances, but still greater injustice might ensue from the establishment of a rule permitting the successful party to tax the fees of witnesses brought from the remote corners of the Union to testify upon a collateral or inconsequential issue, when their testimony could as well have been taken by commission. Taxation affirmed.
10.24KEDCPFirstAmendment




Exhibit 10.24


First Amendment 
to the 
Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan Title II
Effective January 1, 2013


The Phillips 66 Key Employee Deferred Compensation Plan Title II (Effective for benefits earned or vested after December 31, 2004) effective May 1, 2012 (Plan) is amended effective January 1, 2013 as provided below: 


1.  A new Section 15(e) is added to provide as follows:


		
	“(e)
	Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any right or interest of a Participant under this Plan is subject to forfeiture or recoupment, in whole or in part, under applicable law, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.  A Participant’s rights or interests under this Plan are also subject to forfeiture or recoupment in the event such Participant’s negligence or misconduct results in materially misstated financial or other data, as determined by the Human Resources & Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee of the Board.”


 


        

1
#### ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACTSOFT, INC., Ohio House Monitoring Systems, Inc. and U.S. Home Detention Systems and Equipment, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2012-1066.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 1, 2013.

Michael G. Martin, Lathrop *&*Gage LLP, of Denver, CO, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Philip S. Lorenzo and James E. Dallner.

*975Kyle B. Fleming, Renner, Otto, Boisselle *&*Sklar, LLP, of Cleveland, OH, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Todd R. Tucker and Nicholas J. Gingo, for Actsoft, Inc., et al. Of counsel on the brief were Richard E. Fee and Kathleen M. Wade, Fee *&*Jeffries P.A., of Tampa, FL, for Actsoft, Inc.

PROST, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Coastal Media Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon Suk, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
7th day of February 2008.


/s/ Jon Suk
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1265 

To amend the Oil Region National Heritage Area Act to reauthorize the 

Oil Region National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Oil Region National Heritage Area Act to 

reauthorize the Oil Region National Heritage Area, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Oil Region National 

5 Heritage Area Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT. 

7 (a) SUNSET.—Section 608 of the Oil Region National 

8 Heritage Area Act (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 3372) 

9 is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1265 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 608. SUNSET. 

2 ‘‘The authority of the Secretary to grant or provide 

3 any assistance under this title shall terminate on Sep4 tember 30, 2026.’’. 

5 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

6 612(a)(2) of the Oil Region National Heritage Area Act 

7 (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 3373) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

K E VIN R. CHAMPAGNE , Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION , Appellee

.

No. 4D 23

- 365

[ June 1, 2023 ]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

, RAAC 22

- 01950

.
Kevin R. Champagne

, Miramar, pro se

.

Amanda L. Neff , Deputy General Counsel of Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , F ORST and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Green Standard Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending May 31, 2016, I, Sean Webster, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  May 18, 2016

Green Standard Technologies, Inc.

By: /s/
Sean Webster

Sean Webster
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5039 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5039

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ``Eva 
                        Holtzman Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5039

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ``Eva 
                        Holtzman Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at United 
States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Eva Holtzman Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eva Holtzman Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 2, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00252

- CV

Jean Eckford HARDAWAY, Et al

. ,

Appellant

v.

Lou Eda Korth Stubbs NIXON, Et al.,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 09

- 0188

- CVK Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appell ees’ brief

s were originally due on February 23, 2017

. There are two sets of appellees: the Stubbs Nixon appellees and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP. Each appellee group has been granted two previous extensions to file their briefs , the latest until April 26, 2017. On April 26, 2017, appellees each filed separate motions requesting a third extension
until Ma y 26, 2017.

The motion s are GRANTED and appellees are hereby ORDERED to file their respective
briefs no later than May 26, 2017 . NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE
GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 2nd day of May, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
#### The State of Kansas v. Joseph Langley.

No. 550. *

Practice, District *Court—Jury—Compromise Verdict.*An unsworn statement by one of the jurors in open court that the verdict in the hands of the trial judge and not yet filed was a compromise verdict does not vitiate the same, where the jury thereafter retire to the jury-room and subsequently return into court with the verdict corrected in certain particulars, and no-further complaint or criticism respecting the action of the jury is-made by any member thereof, and the nature of the alleged compromise is not stated.

Error from Allen district court; L. Stillwell, judge.

Opinion filed June 14, 1899.

Affirmed.

*Q. R. Gard,*county attorney, *G. A. Amos,*and *Travis Morse,*for The State.

*W. A. Choguill,*and *Oscar Foust & Son,*for appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Milton, J.:

The appellant was convicted in the

district court of Allen county on ten counts of an indictment containing fifteen counts, charging violations of the prohibitory law. The questions presented in the record, except as stated below, are the same as those considered in the case of *The State v. Joseph Nagley,*just decided, and as to such questions that decision will be here followed.

The additional question arose on the hearing of the motion for a new trial. The affidavit in support thereof set forth the following facts : When the jury brought in their verdict it was handed to the court by the foreman, and the court thereupon stated to the jury that they had evidently made a mistake in the *816verdict. At that juncture, one of the jurors declared in a loud voice that the verdict was a compromise verdict. The court then directed the jury to return to the jury-room and to correct the verdict in certain particulars. The jury accordingly retired, and afterward returned into court with their verdict, which, as so returned and filed, specified the counts of the indictment on which they had found the defendant guilty. We think the foregoing facts did not vitiate the verdict. No complaint concerning the verdict was made by any juror after it was returned the second time. The nature of the compromise to which the juror referred is not shown, and his statement was not sworn testimony tending to impeach the verdict. In principle the question here presented is like that considered by the supreme court in *The State v. Rhea,*25 Kan. 576. The court did not err in receiving the verdict of the jury and in entering judgment thereon. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1343
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1344
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1345
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 1346
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 1347
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 1348
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 1349
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 1350
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 106 Filed 10/24/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 1351
Case 2:11-cv-01057-PGS -ES Document 22 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 803
Case 2:11-cv-01057-PGS -ES Document 22 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 804
Case 2:11-cv-01057-PGS -ES Document 22 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 805
PRK-EX4.12-2012.12.31-10K






Exhibit 4.12


PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
50 North Third Street
Post Office Box 3500
Newark, Ohio 43058-3500
(740) 349-8451
www.parknationalcorp.com


February 26, 2013






United States Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549




Re:     Park National Corporation
Commission File Number:  1-13006
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
Ended December 31, 2012


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Park National Corporation, an Ohio corporation (“Park”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (“Park's 2012 Form 10-K”).
Neither (i) Park nor (ii) any of Park's consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt under which the total amount of long‐term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Park and Park's subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Park hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of Park or (ii) the rights of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of Park, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to Park's 2012 Form 10-K.


Very truly yours,
PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
/s/ Brady T. Burt    
Brady T. Burt
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Art. 5 Restated FDS for 1998
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,184
<INVENTORY>                                    183,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               304,262
<PP&E>                                       1,307,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                 392,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,491,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          256,777
<BONDS>                                        410,679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                     643,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,491,165
<SALES>                                        968,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               968,008
<CGS>                                          837,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  837,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,681
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>