alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12(b)**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Richard Solomons, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 31, 2006 By:  /s/ Richard Solomons    Name:  Richard Solomons    Title:  Finance Director
Sunoco Partners LLC Executive Summary Compensation Sheet



 Exhibit 10.15 

 
 Sunoco Partners LLC 

Executive Compensation Summary Sheet 
 for 2011 
  
 The
table below presents 2011 summary information for named executive officers of Sunoco Partners LLC, with regard to annual base salary. 
  

2011 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION1  
  

			
	 Name and Title
	  	2011 Base Salary
($)
		
	 Lynn L. Elsenhans

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	
 n/a

	 Brian P. MacDonald

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	
 n/a

	 Michael J. Hennigan

President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	
 $488,300

	 David A. Justin

Vice President, Operations
	  	
 $285,455


  

Notes to table: 
  

	(1)	The base salaries shown in the foregoing table were approved at the January 27, 2011 meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Sunoco
Partners LLC. Ms. Elsenhans and Mr. MacDonald are employees of Sunoco, Inc. The Compensation Committee of Sunoco’s Board of Directors sets the components of their compensation, including base salary. Sunoco Partners LLC has no control over this
compensation determination process.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,285
<PP&E>                                       1,152,076
<DEPRECIATION>                               (305,589)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,219,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,259
<BONDS>                                        504,881
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        416
<COMMON>                                         3,217
<OTHER-SE>                                     381,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,219,377
<SALES>                                      2,105,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,133,566
<CGS>                                        1,914,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,914,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               291,270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (105,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (38,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (67,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,205)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.42)
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2743 

To provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of National Forest System 

land in Pound, Virginia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of National 

Forest System land in Pound, Virginia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, MULLINS AND STURGILL 

4 CEMETERY AND ADJOINING TRACT, JEFFER5 SON NATIONAL FOREST, VIRGINIA. 

6 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Ag7 riculture shall convey, without consideration, to the 

8 Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery Association of Pound, Vir9 ginia (in this section referred to as the ‘‘recipient’’), all 

10 right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2743 IH

1 a parcel of National Forest System land in the Jefferson 

2 National Forest in Wise County, Virginia, consisting of 

3 not more than 1.25 acres and containing the Mullins and 

4 Sturgill Cemetery and its access road. 

5 (b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance 

6 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that 

7 the recipient accept the real property described in such 

8 subsection in its condition at the time of the conveyance, 

9 commonly known as conveyance ‘‘as is’’. 

10 (c) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage 

11 and legal description of the real property to be conveyed 

12 under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satis13 factory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be 

14 borne by the recipient. 

15 (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The 

16 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi17 tions in connection with the conveyance under subsection 

18 (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 

19 interests of the United States. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2901 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2901

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increase the 
     rehabilitation credit applicable to Heartland disaster relief.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2011

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increase the 
     rehabilitation credit applicable to Heartland disaster relief.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rebuilding Communities Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASE IN REHABILITATION CREDIT APPLICABLE TO 
              HEARTLAND DISASTER RELIEF.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 702(d)(5) of the 
Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 (relating to increase in 
rehabilitation credit) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w17






Exhibit 10.17




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010




     WHEREAS, Republic Services, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Republic Services, Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2010; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to vest in the Company’s Retirement Benefits
Committee the responsibility to determine the timing and manner of reallocations to and from the
Republic Services Stock Investment Fund.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 6, 2011, by substituting
the following for Section 3.9(d)(i) of the Plan:




A Participant may elect to allocate any portion of his or her future Annual Deferral Amounts
(other than any amounts that are required to be allocated to the Republic Services Stock
Unit Fund), Company Contribution Amounts, Company Restoration Matching Amounts and Company
Additional Matching Amounts, and/or re-allocate any portion of his or her Account Balance
(other than any amounts that are required to be allocated to the Republic Services Stock
Unit Fund) to the Republic Services Stock Investment Fund. The Committee may, in its sole
discretion, establish limitations as to the timing and manner of allocations or
reallocations into or out of the Republic Services Stock Investment Fund. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Section 3.9 the Committee may, in its sole
discretion, disallow any allocation or reallocation which is made during a period in which
the Participant is prohibited (by Company policy or otherwise) from acquiring or disposing
of the Company’s equity securities.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the Plan to be amended as set forth herein as of
January 6, 2011.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.

 	 
	 	By: /s/ Michael P. Rissman	 
	 	
 
	 
	 	Name: 	Michael P. Rissman 	 
	 	Title: 	Executive Vice President and

General Counsel
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

June 8, 2018 

By the Court: 

No. 17-3163 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF 

INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC., et 

al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:16-cv-00763-TWP-DML 

Tanya Walton Pratt, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Defendants-appellants have requested en banc review in this case limited to the 

question of the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 16-34-3-4, which regulates the disposal 

of fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage. A majority of the judges in active 

service have voted to grant the state’s petition. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing 

en banc is GRANTED. Part II.B of the panel’s opinion of April 19, 2018, Planned 

Parenthood of Ind. and Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r of the Ind. State Dept. of Health, 888 F.3d 300, 

307–10 (7th Cir. 2018), is VACATED, and the judgment is also VACATED insofar as it 

affirmed the district court’s decision to enjoin enforcement of the fetal disposition 

statute. The court will set a date for the en banc oral argument by separate order.
** **

**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

****

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 24,2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’sadoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an Interpretation of FASB StatementNo. 109, effective January 1, 2007”), and the effectiveness ofLuxottica Group S.p.A.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearingin this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A for the yearended December 31, 2007.

 

 

 

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche S.p.A.

Milan, Italy

June 24, 2008

 
| Ancona Bari Bergamo Bologna Brescia Cagliari Firenze  Genova Milano Napoli Padova Parma             |   | A Member of                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
| Roma Torino Treviso Verona Vicenza                                                                  |   | **Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu** |
|                                                                                                |   | ** **                   |
| Sede Legale: Via Tortona 25 - 20144 Milano - Capitale  Sociale: Euro 10.328.220,00 i.v.             |   |                         |
| Partita IVA/Codice Fiscale/Registro delle Imprese  Milano n. 03049560166 - R.E.A. Milano n. 1720239 |   |                         |

 

----
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Dana L. Olson v. Jean H. Pearson et al.

January 19, 1983

Case No. (Law) 22179

By JUDGE THOMAS R. MONROE

Pending before me is the decision of the Court as to the appearance of counsel for the Defendant, Jean H. Pearson, on October 29, 1982, whether special or general.

Counsel for the Defendant, in his Opposition to Motion for Entry of Default, indicated that he was appearing specially for the purpose of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default only.

An examination of his brief in opposition shows that counsel did not confine his argument only to service of process. Counsel went into the entire history of process commencing with notice issued on December 8, 1980, and continuing to Plaintiff’s affidavit and requested issuance of a Notice of Motion on December 14, 1981.

Defendant does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Court because there was no service of process, nor does Defendant argue that process was defective. Defendant argues that Rule 3:3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides in part "no judgment shall be entered against a defendant who is served with process more than_ one year after the commencement of the action against him unless the *77court finds as a fact that the Plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service on him."

The Supreme Court of Virginia, in *Maryland Casualty Company*v. *The Clintwood Bank, Inc.,*155 Va. 181 at 186 (1930), stated: "Any action on the part of defendant, except to object to the jurisdiction, which recognizes the case as in court, will amount to a general appearance."

The Court rules that the appearance by counsel for Defendant, Jean H. Pearson, on October 29, 1982, was a general appearance. Defendant is allowed twenty-one days following entry of the Order to file her pleadings in response.
Exhibit
32.2




CFO
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 Annual Report of Emclaire Financial Corp. (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Amanda L. Engles, Principal Accounting Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
      Corporation.




/s/Amanda L. EnglesAmanda
      L. EnglesPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerMarch
      22, 2010
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

#### John J. Bowden, Jr. v. Phillip E. Johnson et al.

December 14, 1983

By JUDGE JOHN A. JAMISON

I have gone over Defendant’s brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and award a new trial in the above matter. Likewise, I have studied the Plaintiff’s reply in which he used the argument portion of the Defendant’s brief and interlined in longhand comments and arguments in response to statements in Defendant’s argument.

This case is very much like several other recent cases in which the verdict appeared to Plaintiff’s counsel to be inadequate and not responsive to the evidence. Even though the Court itself may have agreed that the jury was entirely too frugal, I have had to deny these motions.

One of Mr. Harris’s arguments is that his special damages total $765.92 but the jury awarded only $657.08. This same thing occurred in at least two of the series of cases cited by the Defendant and in the cases I cited in my Memorandum of Opinion in *Payne v.*Robertson  in this Court, dated August 22, 1983. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this disparity is not enough to set side the verdict.

In several of the cases I have considered lately, there was a pre-existing injury but that is not the case here, nor does it appear to be so in the most recent one of *Doe*v. *West,*222 Va. 440, 281 S.E.2d 850 (1981), *79where Judge Purcell set aside the verdict as inadequate, because he felt that the jury had disregarded the Court’s instruction on the elements of damages to be considered. Apparently the Supreme Court felt that, "the verdict should not be disturbed if it is supported by a logical interpretation of the factual issues."

After additional study of the principle involved here and of [the] respective arguments and memoranda, I must decline to set aside the verdict as being inadequate or as bearing no relation to the evidence and must enter judgment on the verdict.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2561 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, Arizona, as the ‘‘Lori Piestewa Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2011 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, Arizona, as 

the ‘‘Lori Piestewa Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LORI PIESTEWA POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, 

6 Arizona, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lori 

7 Piestewa Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2561 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lori Piestewa Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2020

No. 04-19-00889-CR

Cameron Antoine ROBY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6809

The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Appellant’s Brief is due December 4, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 268 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the limit 

on the amount of certain contributions which may be made to a candidate 

with respect to an election for Federal office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2011 

Mr. CAPUANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

reduce the limit on the amount of certain contributions 

which may be made to a candidate with respect to an 

election for Federal office. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR 

4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL CAN5 DIDATES. 

6 (a) REDUCTION IN LIMIT.—Section 315(a)(1)(A) of 

7 the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 268 IH

1 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and in2 serting ‘‘$1,000’’. 

3 (b) APPLICATION OF INDEXING.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(c)(1)(B) of such 

5 Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1)(B)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘after 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘after 2002 (or, in the 

7 case of the limitation established under subsection 

8 (a)(1)(A), after 2014)’’. 

9 (2) DETERMINATION OF BASE PERIOD.—Sec10 tion 315(c)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 

11 441a(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

12 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

13 end; 

14 (B) in clause (ii)— 

15 (i) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)(A),’’, and 

16 (ii) by striking the period at the end 

17 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

18 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

19 clause: 

20 ‘‘(iii) for purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A), 

21 calendar year 2013.’’. 

22 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

24 respect to elections occurring after December 2012. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS