alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F, as amended by thisAmendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the “Company”) forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrea Guerra, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|        | By:    | /s/ ANDREA GUERRA       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Andrea Guerra           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Dated:  August 2, 2006

This writtenstatement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2903 

To reauthorize the programs and activities of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Mr. DENHAM (for himself, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. HANNA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the programs and activities of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

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 ‘‘FEMA Reauthoriza5 tion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF URBAN SEARCH AND RES7 CUE RESPONSE SYSTEM. 

8 Section 634 of Public Law 109–295 (6 U.S.C. 722) 

9 is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

10 following: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2903 IH

1 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the system 

3 $35,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

5 ASSISTANCE COMPACT GRANTS. 

6 Section 661 of Public Law 109–295 (6 U.S.C. 761) 

7 is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

10 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

11 $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

12 Such sums shall remain available until expended.’’. 

13 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MAN14 AGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION. 

15 Section 699 of Public Law 109–295 (6 U.S.C. 811) 

16 is amended: 

17 (1) by striking ‘‘administration and operations’’ 

18 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘management 

19 and administration’’; 

20 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘and’’; 

21 (3) in paragraph (3) by striking the period and 

22 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

23 (4) by adding at the end the following: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2903 IH

1 ‘‘(4) for fiscal year 2012, $813,000,000, includ2 ing amounts transferred from the Disaster Relief 

3 Fund; and 

4 ‘‘(5) for fiscal year 2013, $813,000,000, includ5 ing amounts transferred from the Disaster Relief 

6 Fund.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15302 and #15303; Florida Disaster Number FL-00130]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017.
 DATES: Issued on 09/10/2017. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/09/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/11/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/10/2017, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *Incident:*
                     Hurricane Irma. *Incident Period:*
                     09/04/2017 and continuing. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Pinellas, Sarasota. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Florida: Broward, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Pasco, Polk. The Interest Rates are:
                    ( print page 43441) Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.500Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.750Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.610Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.305Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.305Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153028 and for economic injury is 153030. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2017-19569 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Description of the Virgin Media Inc. 2011 Bonus Scheme



 Exhibit 10.46 
 2011 Bonus Plan 
 The Company has implemented annual incentive bonus programs for its
employees intended to reward them only if the Company achieves specific quantitative and qualitative goals, aligned with driving significant operational performance to increase stockholder value. On January 13, 2011, the Committee approved
the Company’s 2011 annual bonus scheme (the “2011 Bonus Plan”) covering almost half of the Company’s employees, including the Company’s named executive officers. The 2011 Bonus Plan offers employees an opportunity to receive
a bonus equal to a percentage of their base salary. The percentages range from 5 - 100% of base salary (depending on employee level) for on-target performance of a number of performance targets, with a potential maximum payment of double the
on-target percentage payable. Employees also have the opportunity to earn up to 1.5 times the calculated bonus amount depending on the employee’s performance during the year. 
 In order for any bonuses to be payable, the Company is required to achieve a qualifying financial performance target. If the qualifying target is not achieved, no bonus payments will be made under the
2011 Bonus Plan. If the qualifying target is achieved, bonuses would be payable according to achievement against the Company performance targets, together with a personal performance multiplier based on achievement of individual targets over the
course of the year. The performance metrics for the named executive officers measure: (i) operating cash flow; (ii) customer satisfaction; (iii) customer net additions and (iv) gross margin. Subject to the achievement
of the performance conditions, bonuses will be paid on or around March 31, 2012. Ten per cent. of any bonus payable to certain senior executives in March 2012 will be deferred for twelve months and paid in the form of restricted stock
units. The grant date of these restricted stock units will be the date on which the bonus is to be paid and will vest on the date of the first year anniversary. Payments made under the 2011 Bonus Plan will be approved by the Committee.

 Employees who are not in the 2011 Bonus Plan are subject to local schemes which reflect the specific business requirements in that area. For
instance, employees in sales related roles are generally in commission schemes which are designed based upon the sales mix for that area of the business and reviewed regularly to ensure they are targeted appropriately. Other employees who are not in
the 2011 Bonus Plan are in bonus schemes based upon targets which are tied into local business objectives.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. John Gilbert ACHESON, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 2, 1960.

S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., for Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, for U. S., George F. Roberts, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.

John T. Moran, Jr., New York City, for defendant,

McGOHEY, District Judge.

The indictment, in two counts, charges the defendant with mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1708. Defendant moved under Criminal Rule 41 (e), 18 U.S.C.A., to suppress certain evidence allegedly seized illegally and, under Criminal Rule 16, for discovery and inspection of his unsigned statements made between arrest and arraignment.

After consideration of the authorities and of the history and purpose of Rule 16, I am of the opinion that a defendant’s statements do not come within its scope. Shores v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 838, 11 A.L.R.2d 635; Schaffer v. United States, 5 Cir., 221 F.2d 17, 54 A.L.R.2d 820; United States v. Peltz, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 394; United States v. Cohen, D.C., 15 F.R.D. 269; United States v. Gogel, D.C., 19 F.R.D. 107; United States v. Kiamie, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 421. Even assuming that such a statement is within the rule, there is no showing of circumstances necessitating its production, United States v. Stallings, D.C., 168 F.Supp. 828, and I deny the motion upon that ground also. There can be no prejudice to the defendant if the government does not offer the statement at the trial. If, on the other hand, the statement is offered the government must then make it available to him. Whether it should be admitted, can then be determined in light of the facts. Nothing is lost at this time save the opportunity to tailor the defense around the statement. See United States v. Malizia, D. C., 154 F.Supp. 511. The motion under Rule 16 is denied.

The affidavits submitted upon the motion to suppress are in conflict as to material facts, and so a hearing is necessary. The hearing is set down for June 8, 1960 at 10:30 A. M.

So ordered.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.1


                           Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 
Community Bancorp, Inc.
Thornton, Colorado

     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of COMMUNITY 
BANCORP, INC. as of December 31, 1997 and the related consolidated statements 
of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in 
the period ended December 31, 1997. These financial statements are the 
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express 
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.  

     We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free 
of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, 
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statement.  
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and 
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall 
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a 
reasonable basis for our opinion.

     In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above 
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of COMMUNITY 
BANCORP, INC. as of December 31, 1997, and the results of its operations and 
its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 
1997, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

                                   /s/ Baird, Kurtz & Dobson



Denver, Colorado
January 23, 1998
exhibit101h.htm


                                                                                                            Exhibit 10.1h


                                                   


        Georgia Department of Community Health                                                                                                                                             2 Peachtree Street, NW



	
                                                                         Atlanta, GA 30303-3159







       David A. Cook, Commissioner                                                                   Nathan Deal, Governor                                                                     www.dch.georgia.gov











                     February 17, 2011












Mr. Patrick M. Healy


President and Chief Executive Officer


Peach State Health Plan


3200 Highlands Parkway SE, Suite 300


Smyrna, Georgia 30082


 


Re:  Extension of Contract No.: 0653







Dear Mr. Healy:







Our contractual arrangement under the above referenced Contract number is to provide Medicaid managed care services for the Department’s Georgia Families program, a managed care program with over 1.6 Million enrolled Medicaid and PeachCare for KidsTM members. This Contract between DCH and Peach State Health Plan expires June 30, 2012.







Before entering into a re-procurement for services provided to Georgia Families’ members, DCH desires an opportunity to further assess the current Georgia Families program and the future programmatic solutions to address the growing Medicaid population and expenditures the State has and will continue to face over the upcoming years. At a minimum, this assessment will include opportunities to redesign or modify the program; evaluate the population(s) included in the ultimate solution; review additional covered services; and explore opportunities for enhanced administrative efficiencies. To that end, DCH requires additional time to conduct such an assessment and design the resulting solution.







To facilitate the assessment, DCH requested an extension of the current CMO contracts by one (1) additional year with and additional (1) year renewal option which was approved by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS). This extension will provide continuity of the existing contract through an outermost date June 30, 2014. The Georgia Families program is critical to DCH, and this contract extension will ensure the continuity of care and provision of health care services for the Medicaid and PeachCare for KidsTM members while DCH finalizes and implements the future business solution.









A contract amendment with the terms of this contract extension will be forwarded for your consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (404) 651-8681.







Sincerely,







/s/ Jerry Dubberly







Jerry Dubberly, Chief


Medicaid Division







cc: David A. Cook, DCH, Commissioner


     Richard Greene, DCH, General Counsel


     Lindsey Breedlove, DCH, Acting Director of Contracts Aministration
ZAVON DESHAWN TAYLOR , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3435

___ __________________________/ Opinion filed February 26, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James H. Daniel , Judge

. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Wendy S. Loquasto, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appella nt. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Zavon DeShawn Taylor appeals from his judgment and sentence for unarmed carjacking. Although the circuit court attempted to strike certain costs pursuant to Taylor’s request in a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), the circuit court did so after its jurisdiction under that rule expired.2 Therefore, we must declare the corrected judgment and sentence a n ullity and remand for re

- entry of that order. See Calidonio v. State , 951 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining that an order entered after the expiration of the time for ruling on a motion under R ule 3.800(b)(2) is a nullity); Sessions v. State , 9 07 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We also reverse a s to an error in the separate order of probation. The circuit court improperly imposed a condition requ iring Taylor to “obtain ” a GED or high school diploma

. See Rodriguez v. State , 768 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), overruled on other grounds as stated in Mier
v. State , 58 So. 3d 319 , 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We remand for the court to modify this condition to conform to the requirements of section 948.037(1), Florida Statutes (2012) , which w ould require Taylor to make a “good faith effort” to achieve such skills or diploma

. We affirm as to Taylor’s remaining arguments. As the acts required by this opinion are ministerial in nature, Taylor need not be present for the court to undertake th em . AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
WETHERELL , RAY , and KELSEY , J J

. , CONCUR.
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304

Gerard Poliquin,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-20421 Filed 9-20-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001017358
<NAME>                        Sprint Spectrum Finance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,497
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
J.

give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel if they are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong but review the district court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, Sudberry claimed that counsel told him there was a plea offer but never said what the offer was. He also argued that he never received the offer in writing. Both trial counsel testified that the plea offer was communicated to Sudberry, both orally and in writing, and that Sudberry was adamant about refusing any offer that was not a dismissal of all charges. A letter hand-delivered by counsel to Sudberry, spelling out the terms of the plea offer, was admitted into evidence. The district court found that Sudberry's testimony was not credible and that the testimony of prior counsel was credible. Because the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly wrong, we conclude that Sudberry has failed to demonstrate deficiency and therefore he is not entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pickering Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(D) I947A are.cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Scott W. Edwards Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

<t)) t947A.