alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 293.20 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the resolution of disputes for breach of the compact?

Yes. A compact or amendment may include provisions addressing how the parties will resolve a breach of the compact or other disputes arising from the compact including mutual limited waivers of sovereign immunity. If a Tribe is concerned that an agreement or other document including, but not limited to, any dispute resolution, settlement agreement, or arbitration decision, constitutes a compact or amendment, or if the Tribe is concerned that the agreement or other document interprets the Tribe's compact or amendment to govern matters that are not directly related to the operation of gaming activities, the Tribe may submit the document to the Department as set forth in § 293.4. The inclusion of provisions addressing dispute resolution outside of Federal court in a manner that seeks to avoid the Secretary's review may be considered evidence of a violation of IGRA.
UAV No Fly Zone:

Built into the software of the DJI Phantom 2 and Inspire 1 that will not allow the UAV to operate in a Category A or Category B Airspace. Also in the software is safety Item that will only allow the height of 394 feet of the UAV. Attached is the UAV No

- Fly zone for Michigan
# C_2007042EN.01000801.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/05) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading 8704 10 - Vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)

(2007/C 42/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.A.S. Trucks BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Tariff classification of a vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway — Whether or not it should be classified under CN subheading 8704 10 as a ‘dumper designed for off-highway use’

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8704 10 of the combined nomenclature, in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers dumpers within the meaning of that subheading which are designed specifically and primarily for use off paved, public roads. The fact that dumper trucks have distinctive characteristics which enable them to be driven, incidentally, on paved, public roads does not preclude their classification as dumpers within the meaning of that subheading.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

1

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



 
 

Exhibit 10.29    
    


[GT
Solar International. Inc. Letterhead] 


April 4,
2007



Ernest
L. Godshalk

6758 Hale Street

Beverly, MA 01915



Dear
Ernie: 


        As
discussed, this letter amends certain provisions of the letter agreement dated August 8, 2006 between you and GT Solar Incorporated, formerly GT Equipment
Technologies, Inc., ("Letter Agreement"). 


        First,
you have agreed that you will no longer serve on the Board of GT Solar Incorporated, but will instead serve on the Board of Directors of GT Solar International, Inc., the
parent of GT Solar Incorporated, and that the Letter Agreement is amended accordingly. 


        Second,
the compensation provisions of the Letter Agreement are amended to reflect the following schedule of annual fees for Board and Committee service, to a maximum total annual
compensation of $75,000: 



Board
fee: $30,000

Audit Committee Chair fee: $15,000

Supplemental pre-IPO Audit Committee Chair fee: $15,000

Compensation Committee fee: $5,000

Supplemental pre-IPO Compensation Committee fee: $10,000

Governance and Nominating Committee fee: $5,000

Supplemental pre-IPO Governance and Nominating Committee fee: $10,000 


Total
annual fees (maximum): $75,000 




        We
have agreed that this schedule will apply to your Board and Committee service in 2006, but will be prorated to 50% to reflect your length of service in 2006, and that your total
compensation for service during 2006 will be $37,500. The Company will send you a check for the difference between that compensation and amounts already paid to you. Fees for 2007 will be paid in
semi-annual installments, in January and July. 


        Finally,
we have agreed that, in the event of a Change in Control of the Company (as defined in your Stock Option Agreement) resulting in your removal from the Board of Directors of GT
Solar International, Inc, within one year following a Change in Control, the vesting of stock options granted to you will accelerate and become fully vested and exercisable on the effective date of
your removal from the Board. 








        Please
confirm your acceptance of the foregoing amendments to the Letter Agreement by signing in the space provided below. Again, thank you for your commitment to our company. 



	Sincerely,	 	 
	

/s/ J. Bradford Forth
 J. Bradford Forth

Chairman of the Board of Directors	
 	

 





cc:
Richard Landers 



	 	 	Accepted:
	

 	
 	

/s/ E Godshalk
 Ernest L. Godshalk
	

 	
 	

Date:	

4 April 2007














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.29
#### Joseph White, Respondent, v. James A. Douglas, Appellant.

Motion denied, on payment of ten dollars costs and on condition that appellant have his appeal' ready for the May term.
**CERTIFICATION** **EXHIBIT 31.1**
I, Nello Gonfiantini, III, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Specialty Trust, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s Boardof Directors (or persons performing 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 registrant’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 registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.      /s/ NELLO GONFIANTINI III Dated this 16th of August, 2004   Name: Nello Gonfiantini III  *Title:* *Chairman of the Board, President*   *and Secretary*   *(Principal executive officer)*  
30
### §2267. Jurisdiction and enforcement

The Farm Credit Administration may in its discretion apply to the United States district court, or the United States court of any territory, within the jurisdiction of which the home office of the institution is located, for the enforcement of any effective and outstanding notice or order issued under this part, and such courts shall have jurisdiction and power to order and require compliance herewith; but except as otherwise provided in this part no court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any notice or order under this part, or to review, modify, suspend, terminate, or set aside any such notice or order. For purposes of this section, any directive issued under section 2154(b)(2), 2154a(e), or 2202a(h) of this title shall be treated as an effective and outstanding order issued under section 2261 of this title that has become final.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.31, as added Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §204, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1700; amended Pub. L. 100–233, title VIII, §804(a)(1), Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1714; Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5411(32), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4683.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–334 substituted "2202a(h)" for "2202a(i)".

1988—Pub. L. 100–233 inserted at end "For purposes of this section, any directive issued under section 2154(b)(2), 2154a(e), or 2202a(i) of this title shall be treated as an effective and outstanding order issued under section 2261 of this title that has become final."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective thirty days after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–205, set out as an Effective Date of 1985 Amendment note under section 2001 of this title.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2012-GCJ7 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2020

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY, INC. 2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




THIS AGREEMENT is by Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (the “Sponsor”),



W I T N E S S E T H:




WHEREAS, the Sponsor maintains the Plan known as the “Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. 2005
Long-Term Incentive Plan” (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Sponsor retained the right in Section 12.1 of the Plan to amend the Plan from
time to time; and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Sponsor approved resolutions on April 10, 2008 to amend
the Plan subject to the approval of the Sponsor’s stockholders;



NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor agrees that, effective as of the approval of the Company’s
stockholders, Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



3.1 Number of Shares. (a)  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12.2
and this Section 3.1, the total number of Shares authorized for grant under the Plan
shall be 10,250,000, reduced by the total number of Shares subject to any options or
awards granted under the Prior Plans during the period commencing on January 1, 2005
and ending on the effective date of this Plan (the “Pre-Effective Period”). Any
Shares that are subject to Awards of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights, whether
granted under this Plan or a Prior Plan during the Pre-Effective Period, shall be
counted against this limit as one (1) Share for every one (1) Share granted. Any
Shares that are subject to Awards other than Options or Stock Appreciation Rights,
whether awarded under this Plan or a Prior Plan during the Pre-Effective Period,
shall be counted against this limit as one and six tenths (1.6) Shares for every one
(1) Share awarded. In connection with the granting of a Performance Unit
denominated in dollars, the number of Shares that shall be counted against this
limit shall be an amount equal to the quotient of (i) the dollar amount in which the
Performance Unit is denominated, divided by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a Share on
the date the Performance Unit is granted.



Approved and Adopted by the Board of Directors April 10, 2008



Effective June 5, 2008
§ 17.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
#### § 67.1 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Act* means the Act of Congress approved April 30, 1990, Public Law 101-277, 104 Stat. 143, which authorizes the use and distribution of funds awarded the Seminole Indians in Dockets 73, 151, and 73-A of the Indian Claims Commission.

*Adopted person* means a person whose natural parents' parental rights have been terminated by court order and persons other than the natural parents have exercised or do exercise parental rights with regard to the adopted person.

*Applicant* means a person who is making application for inclusion on the roll prepared by the Secretary pursuant to the Act of April 30, 1990, by either personally filing an application or by having a sponsor complete and file an application on his or her behalf.

*Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs or authorized representative.

*BIA* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

*Commissioner* means the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or authorized representative.

*Director* means the Area Director, Eastern Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs or authorized representative.

*Lineal descendant(s)* means those persons who are the issue of the ancestor through whom enrollment rights are claimed; namely, the children, grandchildren, etc. It does not include collateral relatives such as brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc., or adopted children, adopted grandchildren, etc.

*Living* means born on or before and alive on the date specified.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior or authorized representative.

*Sponsor* means any person who files an application for enrollment or an appeal on behalf of another person.

*Superintendent* means the Superintendent, Seminole Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs or authorized representative.
#### George Morris, Appellant, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
- Home
- Regulations and Compliance

# PHMSA Guidance

Although some of the materials that can be accessed from this page may fall outside the definitions of “guidance” set forth in 49 CFR 5.25(c), PHMSA has determined that they include potentially useful information for stakeholders and is including them in this database in an effort to make these materials easier for members of the public to find. You may also find useful information that is potentially not accessed from the page in the links below:
                      - PHMSA FAQs
                      - PHMSA Advisory Bulletins
                      - Pipeline Enforcement Guidance
                      - Pipeline Glossary
                      - Pipeline Guidance Manuals
                      - Pipeline Operator Resources
                      - Pipeline Technical Resources
                      - Hazardous Materials Publications
                      - Hazardous Materials Safety Field Operations and Enforcement Guidance
                      - Hazardous Materials Emergency Waivers

Members of the public may submit comments on draft guidance documents noticed in the Federal Register through Regulations.gov. Comments on any guidance document; requests for issuance, reconsideration, modification, or rescission of any guidance document; or concerns about PHMSA’s compliance with the OMB Good Guidance Bulletin regarding existing guidance documents may be submitted to PHMSA_Guidance@dot.gov. Please identify the guidance document in your request.

**Search Instructions**
                      - To search for PHMSA Guidance Documents (not including Interpretations), use the Keywords or Issued Date fields on the left side of the search box below. Your search results will display in the table below.
                      - To search for PHMSA Regulations Interpretations, use the Interpretations Keyword Search on the right side of the search box, or click the “PHMSA Interpretations Advanced Search” link. Results using the Interpretations Keyword Search will open in a new browser window.

PHMSA Interpretations Advanced Search

# Pagination

-  «« First 
-  ‹‹‹ 
- …
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
-  10 
-  11 
-  12 
- …
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0968

_____________________________

MARK and PAMELA GACEK,

Appellants,

v.

AVALON DUNES CONDOMINIUM 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Judge.

November 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l).

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Casey K. Weidenmiller and Jessica F. Tolin of Woods, 

Weidenmiller, Michetti & Rudnick, LLP, Naples, for Appellants.

No appearance for Appellee.
# C_2007056EN.01003801.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/38

---

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission

(Case T-22/07)

(2007/C 56/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: US Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovak Republic) (represented by: E. Vermulst, S. Van Cutsem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission's Decision D/59829 of 22 November 2006 concerning the application of the sales cap to Bulgaria and Romania; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission's Decision D/59829 of 22 November 2006 concerning the application of the sales cap to Bulgaria and Romania; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision D/59829 of 22 November 2006 extending the application of the sales cap provided in Title 4, point 2(a)(i) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession so as to include Bulgaria and Romania. The contested decision determined that the sales cap for 2007 and subsequent years had to be recalculated taking into account 2001 sales data for Romania and Bulgaria. To this end, it required the Slovak Republic to provide the applicant's 2001 sales data for these countries.

The applicant benefits from aid in the form of tax exemption, on the basis of transitional measures in the field of state aid that the Slovak Republic is permitted to apply to one beneficiary in the steel sector.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the contested decision is illegal insofar as it requires the applicant to modify its sales policy and cap its sales of certain steel products to customers in Bulgaria and Romania in order to benefit from aid authorized under Community law.

The applicant submits that the contested decision imposes an additional condition that did not exist when the Act of Accession entered into force and, thus, contradicts the wording, the spirit and the general scheme of the Act of Accession. According to the applicant the term ‘enlarged EU’ referred to in Annex XIV, Title 4, point 2(a)(i) does not include Romania and Bulgaria.

In addition, the applicant claims that the contested decision must be annulled since the Commission acted where it had no competence, violated the applicant's legitimate expectations and failed to respect the principle of proportionality.

---
### SUBCHAPTER II—OFFICE OF SELF-HELP DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE