alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of: ) 

### ) NOUVEAU LABORATORIES, ) 

### ) LLC d/b/a COVERMARK USA ) 

### ) Respondent ) Docket No. FAA-2011-0488 Case No. 2010S07000318 Requestfor Admissions

Respondent asks Complainant FAAto admit ordeny, for purposes ofthis matter, the following statements oflaw orfact. Ifobjection is made, please state the reason for it. Ifthe statement is denied, please set forth in detail why you cannot truthfully admitthe matter, and in requested admissions 11, 12, and 13 please specify in whatway the proposed admission is incorrect. Ifyou neither admit nor deny the statement, please setforth your reasons, and ifpossible state what additional information you need in orderto be able to admitor denythe statement. 1. The skin cleanser LOL Lotion is an aqueous solution. 2. The lotion contains 23.8 percent ofSO alcohoi40B. 3. Ifthe lotion contained 24 percent ofSD alcohol 408, its shipmentwould not have violated the hazardous materials transportation act. 4. Respondent shipped fewerthan 500 pieces in each ofthe years 2008, 2009, and 2010, ofwhich only 30 pieces were sent by air in 2010. 5. In conference with the Complainant, Respondent offered to terminate all air shipments ofthe LOL Lotion.6. Respondent promptly complied with Complainant's suggestion that its executive take a course in hazardous material transportation. 7. Respondent received an HMT-S30 Hazardous Materials Transportation Certificate. 8. Respondent employs 5 full time workers and 4 part-time workers. 9. Respondent has never previously been charged with an FAAviolation ofany kind, nor any violation ofthe hazardous substance regulations. 10. Exhibit F in Respondent's Motion for Decision or, .in theAlternative, Answer dated June 13, 2011 is a true statement of Respondent's profits and losses for the years 2008through 2010. 11. Complainant calculated the proposed civil penalty by assessing a separate penalty for each ofthe 19violations ofthe HMRs, adding them together, and rounding offthe resultant figure to the proposed $10,000. 12. In determining the proposed civil penalty, Complainant relied on the civil penalty range of$250 to $100,000 specified in 49 CFR 2150.3, Appendix C 1 d, "Violation ofthe HMRs" and the considerations specified in 49 CFR 2150.3, Appendix C 2, "Consideration ofStatutory Criteria" and 49 CFR 2150.3, Appendix C 3, "Consistency of Penalty Sanctions." 13. In determining the proposed civil penalty, Complainant did not rely upon any rules, determinations, prior administrative or legal rulings, or otherwritten guidelines apartfrom those specified in request 12.

### Dated: June 8, 2012

Keith Roberts Attorney for Respondent

Cc: FAA (original + 

### 3copies) Hon. J.E. Sullivan Gerald 

### A. Ellis
### §7232. Study of mandatory rotation of registered public accounting firms

#### (a) Study and review required

The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and review of the potential effects of requiring the mandatory rotation of registered public accounting firms.

#### (b) Report required

Not later than 1 year after July 30, 2002, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives on the results of the study and review required by this section.

#### (c) Definition

For purposes of this section, the term "mandatory rotation" refers to the imposition of a limit on the period of years in which a particular registered public accounting firm may be the auditor of record for a particular issuer.

(Pub. L. 107–204, title II, §207, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 775.)
Chris,

Thanks for the clarification, it helped. However, we do have a few comments on the presentation you attached, as follows:

1 – We believe that another draft Trial Standard Level (dTSL7) should be added to the analysis that would be defined as: TSL7 – Shortest Payback

EC1 EC2

DL1 DL2 DL3 DL4 DL5

TSL7 EL2 EL1 EL2 EL2 EL1

2 – We are confused and believe we need better definition on TSL4, which is defined as Materials Constraint. It appears to us that the planned Efficiency Levels chosen do not provide for use of domestically available materials, esp. domestic core steels. From our look at the competitiveness of the designs at each Efficiency Level, the ELs chosen are too high. But we would like this better explained. We feel the EL should be derived from the point where amorphous can compete economically with M3, and vise versa. BTW – this may not be at an existing EL, it might be between existing Efficiency Levels.

3 – We would like to see the National Impact Results for MV Liquid Immersed, by Efficiency Level be shown as combined, rather than by each Equipment Class (EC1 and EC2). This would provide a better look at what energy savings are derived and costs incurred for the entire MV Liquid Immersed products. This

would look as follows:

Summary Results for MV Liquid Immersed

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Equip Cost ($B) 64.84 -5.3 -11.64 -13.65 -14.96 -22.96 -36-86 -43.04

Operating Savings ($B) 77.2 10.7 17.87 20.64 24.0 30.21 36.75 38.87

Cumm

Source Savings (Quads) .74 1.21 1.38 1.58 1.96 2.35 2.49

NPV @3%($B) 5.38 6.23 7.0 9.04 7.26 -.11 -4.16Let me know if you have comments or questions.

Greg Coulter
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org May 18, 2009

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 465

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 465, Polyester Resin Operations, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 465 was amended by the District’s Board of Directors on June 4, 1998, and recently amended again on September 25, 2008. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:

1. SIP Checklist Rule 465 2. 1998 Underline/Strikeout Version 3. 2008 Final Version of Rule 465 4. 2008 Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 465 5. Public Notice Evidence 6. Resolution 7. Public Comments 8. Rule Evaluation Form 9. Board Memo 

### 10. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
cffi_Ex_10_15


		
			Exhibit 10.15
		

		
			 
		

		
			SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION
		

		
			OF
		

		
			C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		

		
			 
		

		
			Effective January 1, 2016
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						    

					
					
						    

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Amount

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Annual Retainer Fees 1

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Service as a Director

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						10,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Service as Chairman of Audit Committee

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						6,000 (additional)

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Service as Chairman of Compensation Committee

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						5,000 (additional)

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Meeting Fees 2

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Base per day

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						600 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Secondary meeting(s) per day

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						300 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Equity Compensation

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors are eligible to receive equity-based 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						awards under the Corporation’s 2013 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan, as determined in the Board’s

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						discretion.

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		


		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1
			

			
	
			
			The retainer fees are payable in quarterly installments.  




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 2
			

			
	
			
			All non-employee directors receive a base meeting fee of $600 per day for Corporation board, C&F Bank board, C&F Bank subsidiary board or committee meeting attendance and a fee of $300 for secondary meeting attendance for each additional Corporation board, C&F Bank board, C&F Bank subsidiary board or committee meeting held on the same day as a meeting for which the base meeting fee is paid. 





		 


		

			1
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Jackie Robinson-Burnette 

#   Jackie Robinson-Burnette   

Associate Administrator

Office of Government Contracting & Business Development

            Download high-resolution image          

Jackie Robinson-Burnette serves as Associate Administrator of the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development (GCBD). This position oversees all functions within GCBD and works to enhance small business programs through partnerships with other SBA programs, federal agencies, private sector industries, and the small business community to improve the development of policies, regulations, and statutory changes.

Ms. Robinson-Burnette has an extensive background in small business development in both the public and private sectors. From 2014 to 2017, Jackie served as the Deputy Associate Administrator for the Office of Government Contracting & Business Development at SBA. During this time, the team developed Certify.SBA.gov to automate and simplify application processes; streamlined 8(a) application procedures; implemented the All-Small Mentor Protégé Program; and exceeded small business contracting goals. She also served as the Associate Administrator for the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program.

In 2014, Jackie served in the Pentagon as the Deputy Director for Small Business Programs, Office of the Secretary of the Army (Pentagon) leading over 150 small business specialists across Army installations. From 2010- 2013, she served as the HQ US Army Corps of Engineers, Associate Director for Small Business Programs, where she led the Corps to exceed all small business goals for the first time in its history. Her 34-year career with the Department of Defense as a Senior Contracting Officer and Procurement Analyst included assignments in Korea, Germany, Virginia, and Washington DC.

Jackie holds a Bachelor’s in Business Management from the University of Maryland.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Gustavo Gomez, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TELECONNECT INC. for
the three month period ended December 31, 2006;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepare

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

February 13, 2007


By: /s/ Gustavo Gomez
    -------------------------
    Gustavo  Gomez
    Director, Chief Executive Officer,
    President and  Treasurer
# C_2011095EN.01000501.xml

| 26.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2011 — Société Air France S.A. v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts and Luz-Tereza Folkerts

(Case C-11/11)

2011/C 95/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Air France S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period which is below the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period which is below the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative:
  For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the case of a flight consisting of several stages, should reference be made to the individual stages or to the distance to the final destination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the case of a flight consisting of several stages, should reference be made to the individual stages or to the distance to the final destination?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2382-2383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-574]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for a license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight 
Forwarder (OFF)--Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to 
section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 
409 and 46 CFR 515). Notice is also hereby given of the filing of 
applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying 
Individual (QI) for a license.
    Interested persons may contact the Office of Transportation 
Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by 
telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f607b666f49424c01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="38776c71785e555b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.

A.W.L.I Group of Florida, Inc. (OFF), 1358 NW 78th Avenue, Miami, FL 
33126. Officers: David Rosendorf, Director/President, (Qualifying 
Individual), Keith Milliner. Application Type: Name Change.
Crescent Line Inc. dba Globe Express Services (NVO & OFF), 535 Regal 
Row, Dallas, TX 75247. Officers: Gilbert Khoury, President/Secretary/
Director, (Qualifying Individual), George Romanos, Vice President/
Director. Application Type: Trade Name Change.
Globe Shipping Inc. (NVO), 820 S. Garfield Avenue, <greek-i>202, 
Alhambra, CA 91801. Officers: Eric G. Qian, CEO, (Qualifying 
Individual), Jian Q. Sun, Secretary. Application Type: New NVO License.
Hydra Logistics, Inc. dba Globe Express Services (NVO & OFF), 14205 
Westfair West Drive, Houston, TX 77041. Officers: Gilbert Khoury, 
President/Director, (Qualifying Individual), Jim Swann, VP/Secretary/
Director. Application Type: Trade Name Change.
JSJ Express, Inc. (NVO), 140-15 Holly Avenue, Suite 201, Flushing, NY 
11355. Officer: Yaokun Chen, President/VP/Secretary/Treasurer, 
(Qualifying Individual). Application Type: New NVO License.
Salinas International Freight Co. (OFF), 535 Regal Row, Dallas, TX 
75247. Officer: Gilbert R. Khoury, President, (Qualifying Individual). 
Application Type: Trade Name Change.
Sealaska Global Logistics LLC (NVO & OFF), 1691 Phoenix Blvd., Suite 
170, Atlanta, GA 30349.Officers: Angela Higgs, Vice President Ocean 
Freight, (Qualifying Individual), Wade

[[Page 2383]]

Zammit, President/CEO. Application Type: QI Change.

     Dated: January 7, 2011.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-574 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 725.5 Council studies.

All studies and appraisals performed by the Council pursuant to section 102 of Pub. L. 89-80 and any recommendations based on these activities shall include specific analyses for reflection of and opportunities to meet the objectives of E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990. The Council's Floodplain Management Guidelines (43 FR 6030), E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990 provide the basic evaluation tools for these analyses.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Dean Wesley Wyman

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00855

- CR

Trial court case number: 2100499

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 4 of Harris County

The clerk’s record filed on September 26, 2018 does not contain appellant’s application for

writ of habeas corpus, filed on or about November 24, 2015

, or an amendment to that application,

filed on or about January 28, 2018.

Accordin gly, we order the trial court clerk to file within 10 days of the date of this order a

supplemental clerk’s record containing appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, filed on

or about November 24, 2015, and an amended application

, filed on or ab out January 28, 2018. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: O c tober 4, 2018
#### Riker Operating Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Martinique Restaurant, Inc., Respondent.

First Department,

July 2, 1943.

*488*Max Schmer*of counsel *(Raphael II. Rhodes*with him on the brief; *Schmer, Shapiro & Wechsler,*attorneys), for appellant.

*I. Arnold Eimber*of counsel *(Jacob Gerstein,*attorney), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

As defendant’s canopy, erected adjacent to plaintiff’s property and extending over the sidewalk from the building line to the curb, interferes with plaintiff’s easement of light and obstructs the view of plaintiff’s restaurant from prospective customers, we think that upon the evidence plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief directing its removal except between the hours of nine p. m. and four a. m. *(Brown-Brand Realty Co., Inc.,*v. *Saks & Co.,*126 Misc. 336 [opinion by O’Malley, J.], affd. 218 App. Div. 827.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and a judgment entered decreeing the removal of the canopy during the hours indicated.

Townley, TJntermyeb, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., concurs in result.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and judgment directed to be entered decreeing the removal of the canopy during the hours indicated in opinion. Settle order on notice.
#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Horton.

Lumpkin, J.

1. In an action for a personal injury received, from the starting of a train while a passenger was in the act of alighting, where the engineer testified that he moved the train on a signal given with the air whistle, and the conductor, porter, and baggage-master testified that they did not give such signal, and it was shown that the fireman was out of the State, it was not error to refuse to charge, on request, that “if the engineer received the proper signal.to start his train, and such signal was not given by the conductor in charge of said train, nor by any of the train crew, then the act of the engineer in starting his train while passengers wore alighting therefrom would not be an act of negligence for which the defendant would be held liable in this ease.”

2. When considered in connection with the. entire charge, none of the charges to which exceptions were taken were subject to the criticisms made upon them, or were such as to require a new trial.

*19February 17, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Beagan. Fayette superior court.

January 15, 1909.

*Charlton E. Battle*and *Howell Hollis,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. W. Wise,*contra.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing • to grant a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*