alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Home
- Newsroom

# Archived Press Releases

                - November 20, 2020 Media Advisory - November 20, 2020 (Seaway Employees Receive U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary’s Award) 
MEDIA ADVISORY

Friday, November 20, 2020

For Immediate Release

Contact: Nancy Alcalde

Telephone: (202) 366-0091

**Seaway Employees Receive U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary’s...**

                - August 18, 2020 Media Advisory - IMKE UPDATE 
MEDIA ADVISORY

August 18, 2020

SLSDC Contact:  Nancy.Alcalde@dot.gov

**IMKE UPDATE**

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development...

                - July 20, 2020 Press Release - New Seaway Tugboat Arrives in Massena, New York 
SLSDC 04-20

Monday, July 20, 2020

Contact: Nancy.Alcalde@dot.gov

**New Seaway Tugboat Arrives in Massena, New York**
...
                - June 23, 2020 Press Release - SLSDC Names New Associate Administrator for Massena, New York Operations 
SLSDC 03-20

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Contact: Nancy.Alcalde@dot.gov

**SLSDC Names New Associate Administrator for Massena, New York Operations**

...

                - May 14, 2020 Media Advisory - Seaway Visitors’ Center Remains Closed 
SLSDC 02-20

May 14, 2020

Contact:  Josef Walker

Tel.: (315-764-3218)

**Seaway Visitors’ Center Remains Closed**

Due to the ongoing public health emergency, the Saint...

                - May 6, 2020 Press Release - SLSDC Announces Port Winners of 2019 Pacesetter Award 
SLSDC 01-20

May 6, 2020

Contact:  Nancy Alcalde

Tel.:  (202) 366-0091

**Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Announces Port Winners of 2019 Season “Pacesetter Award”**...

                - April 28, 2020 Marine Safety Information Bulletin - Update (Change 4) 
Commandant

MSIB Number: 02-20 (Change 4)

U.S. Coast Guard

Date: April 23, 2020

Inspections and Compliance Directorate

2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, STOP 7501

Washington, DC 20593-7501

E-Mail...

                - April 1, 2020 Marine Safety Information Bulletin - Update (Change 3) 
Commandant

MSIB Number: 02-20 (Change 3)

U.S. Coast Guard

Date: March 16, 2020

Inspections and Compliance Directorate2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, STOP 7501Washington, DC 20593-7501

E-...

                - April 1, 2020 Marine Safety Information Bulletin - Novel Coronavirus – Port and Facility Operations 
Commandant

MSIB Number: 07-20U.S. Coast Guard

Date: March 18, 2020

Inspections and Compliance Directorate2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, STOP 7501Washington, DC 20593-7501

E-Mail:...

                - January 17, 2020 Media Advisory - POSSIBLE UNSTABLE ICE COVER NEAR SNELL LOCK 
For Immediate Release

Contact:  Josef Walker

Telephone:  (315) 764-3218

Email:  Josef.Walker@dot.gov

**POSSIBLE UNSTABLE ICE COVER ...**

# Pagination

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.127 Indigent prisoners.

The U.S. Parole Commission is authorized to exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 3569 of title 18, U.S. Code, to make a finding that a parolee is unable to pay a fine in whole or in part and to direct release of such parolee based on such finding.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  Marketing Plan Example 

# Marketing plan example

## About this document and download

This marketing plan template shows how to create a marketing plan for your small business.

  Download  .pdf
(November 28, 2006)

#### A-1 Realty Network of Homes, Inc., Respondent, v Kwang Ho Kim et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[826 NYS2d 331]

In an action, inter alia, to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the defendants Kwang Ho Kim and Myung Sun Kim appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County *706(Werner, J.), entered July 15, 2005, as, upon so much of an order of the same court dated June 2, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action against them, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and so much of the order dated June 2, 2005, as searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action against the appellants is vacated.

In March 2003 the plaintiff negotiated a sales agreement on behalf of the appellants, pursuant to which the defendants Fran Azzilonna and Greg Shesh (hereinafter collectively referred to as the purchasers) would purchase the appellants’ property for the sum of $1.1 million, and the plaintiff would receive a brokerage commission in the sum of $50,000. The appellants and the purchasers closed on the property on December 31, 2003 for the price of $1.1 million and the appellants did not pay the plaintiff a commission. In March 2004 the plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, inter aha, that the appellants owed it a commission in the sum of $50,000. The appellants thereafter moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the appellants’ motion and searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action against the appellants for the recovery of the $50,000 real estate brokerage commission.

“To recover a commission, a broker must establish that he or she is duly licensed, that he or she has a contract, express or implied, with the party charged with paying the commission, and that he or she was the procuring cause of the sale or lease” *(Brandenberg v Waters Place Assoc., L.P.,*17 AD3d 615, 616 [2005]). A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. The Supreme Court therefore erred in awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action against the appellants.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.8

                              THIRD AMENDMENT
                                 TO THE
               HANNAFORD BROS. CO. 1993 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

     The Hannaford Bros. Co. 1993 Long Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") was
adopted by the Board of Directors, subject to shareholder approval, February
9, 1993, and approved by shareholders on May 19, 1993.  The Plan was
thereafter amended on two occasions and is hereby further amended in the
following respects.

     1. The terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in
the Plan unless the context indicates otherwise.

     2. Section 5 is hereby amended to read:

          5. "Actual Awards."  The amount of the Actual Award, if any, that 
is earned by a Participant during an Award Period shall be determined 
initially as follows:

          (a) if the Corporation's actual performance equals the Low Goal, the
Actual Award shall be the percentage of the Basic Award established by the
Compensation Committee at the beginning of the Award Period; and

          (b) if the Corporation's actual performance equals the High Goal,
then the Actual Award shall equal 100% of the Basic Award.

          If actual performance exceeds the High Goal, in no event shall a
Participant's Actual Award exceed 150% of the Basic Award.  Further, no Actual
Award shall be paid if the Corporation's actual performance is less than the
Low Goal.  If the Corporation's actual performance exceeds the Low Goal but
does not equal the High Goal, then the Actual Award shall equal a percentage
(not less than the percentage established for attainment of the Low Goal and
not more than 100%) of the Basic Award as determined by the Compensation
Committee at the beginning of the Award Period. 

          The Compensation Committee shall have the right to adjust the Actual
Award if it finds such adjustment necessary to provide fair and equitable
treatment of the interests of both the Participants and the Corporation's
shareholders.

          The Board shall have the right to adjust the Actual Award of any
Participant, either increasing or decreasing the same, if in its sole judgment
the Actual Award is inconsistent with the Participant's performance during the
relevant Award Period, measured individually or as a member of a group.  In
exercising this discretion, the Board may rely on reports or other information
furnished to it, either directly or through the Compensation Committee, by the
Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation."

     3. This Amendment shall be effective December 15, 1997.
§ 385.209 Notices of tariff or rate examination and orders to show cause (Rule 209). ( a ) *Issuance.* ( 1 ) If the Commission seeks to determine the validity of any rate, rate schedule, tariff, tariff schedule, fare, charge, or term or condition of service, or any classification, contract, practice, or any related regulation established by and for the applicant which is demanded, observed, charged, or collected, the Commission will initiate a proceeding by issuing a notice of tariff or rate examination.
( 2 ) The Commission may initiate a proceeding against a person by issuing an order to show cause.
( b ) *Contents.* A notice of examination or an order to show cause will contain a statement of the matters about which the Commission is inquiring, and a statement of the authority under which the Commission is acting. The statement is tentative and sets forth issues to be considered by the Commission.
( c ) *Answers.* A person who is ordered to show cause must answer in accordance with Rule 213.
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.29j Law enforcement authority. Subject to guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General, Special Agents of the Office of the Inspector General are authorized to: ( a ) Detect and assist in the prosecution of crimes in violation of the laws of the United States and to conduct such other investigations regarding matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General;
( b ) Serve legal writs, summons, complaints, and subpoenas issued by the Inspector General or by a Federal grand jury;
( c ) Receive, transport, and provide safekeeping of arrestees and other persons in the custody of the Attorney General or detained aliens;
( d ) Arrest without warrant any person for an offense against the United States committed in the presence of the Special Agent or whom the Special Agent has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony cognizable under the laws of the United States;
( e ) Seek and execute search and arrest warrants;
( f ) Carry firearms while on-duty; and
( g ) Carry firearms while off-duty as authorized by the Inspector General.
[Order No. 2835-2006, 71 FR 54413, Sept. 15, 2006]
### §8933. Nationwide sampling

#### (a) In general

The Director shall carry out a nationwide sampling to determine the concentration of highly fluorinated compounds in estuaries, lakes, streams, springs, wells, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and soil using the performance standard developed under section 8932(a) of this title.

#### (b) Requirements

In carrying out the sampling under subsection (a), the Director shall—

(1) first carry out the sampling at sources of drinking water near locations with known or suspected releases of highly fluorinated compounds;

(2) when carrying out sampling of sources of drinking water under paragraph (1), carry out the sampling prior to and, at the request of the Administrator, after any treatment of the water;

(3) survey for ecological exposure to highly fluorinated compounds, with a priority in determining direct human exposure through drinking water; and

(4) consult with—

(A) States to determine areas that are a priority for sampling; and

(B) the Administrator—

(i) to enhance coverage of the sampling; and

(ii) to avoid unnecessary duplication.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 120 days after the completion of the sampling under subsection (a), the Director shall prepare a report describing the results of the sampling and submit the report to—

(1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate;

(2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives;

(3) the Senators of each State in which the Director carried out the sampling; and

(4) each Member of the House of Representatives who represents a district in which the Director carried out the sampling.

(Pub. L. 116–92, div. F, title LXXIII, §7333, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2282.)
# C_2013038EN.01000701.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 - Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)

2013/C 38/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Actions for annulment — Vote of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 concerning the calendar of the session periods of the Parliament for 2012 — Calendar laying down that two of the twelve monthly plenary sessions are to be held during the same week in October — Infringement of Protocol No 3 and Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices agencies and departments of the European Union — Place of work of the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2011
of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 5, 2011
    /s/ Deborah H. MerrillDeborah H. MerrillVice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer  23
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:see attached file
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 83 

To amend section 203 of Public Law 94–305 to ensure proper authority 

for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend section 203 of Public Law 94–305 to ensure 

proper authority for the Office of Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advocacy Empower5 ment Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 

7 ADVOCACY. 

8 (a) CHIEF COUNSEL AUTHORITY.—Section 203(a) of 

9 Public Law 94–305 (15 U.S.C. 634c(a)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 83 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(7) issue, modify, or amend rules governing 

7 compliance by agencies with chapter 6 of title 5, 

8 United States Code, after opportunity for notice and 

9 comment under section 553 of title 5, United States 

10 Code; and 

11 ‘‘(8) authorize an agency to issue such supple12 mental rules governing compliance with chapter 6 of 

13 title 5, United States Code, as the Chief Counsel 

14 may approve, and ensure that the supplemental 

15 rules comply with such chapter 6 and with the notice 

16 and comment process under section 553 of title 5, 

17 United States Code.’’. 

18 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—On and after the date that 

19 is 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

20 Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Admin21 istration may exercise the authority under paragraphs (7) 

22 and (8) of section 203(a) of Public Law 94–305 (15 

23 U.S.C. 634c(a)), as added by subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 1,
2011 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Deborah H. MerrillDeborah H. MerrillVice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of Alyson Kelly, Respondent, v William Schoonbeck, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 689]

*1095Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Hall, J.), entered April 27, 2005, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior order of support.

Pursuant to a December 2003 stipulation of the parties, respondent was ordered to pay petitioner approximately $91 in biweekly child support, as well as arrears and weekly day-care expenses. His subsequent failure to pay prompted the instant violation proceeding by petitioner, which was followed by a petition for a downward modification of child support by respondent. Following a trial before a Support Magistrate, respondent was found to be in willful violation of his child support obligation and the modification petition was dismissed. Notably, the Support Magistrate found respondent’s testimony concerning the termination of his employment “to have little or no credibility or validity” and further found that he did not search diligently for comparable work. Thereafter, Family Court denied respondent’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s determination and he now appeals from that order. We affirm.

Family Court properly determined that respondent willfully violated the December 2003 support order. Proof of respondent’s failure to pay support constituted “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]) and shifted the burden to him to come forward with competent credible evidence of his inability to do so (see *Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d 63, 69-70 [1995]). While respondent claimed that he was unable to meet his support obligations because his income was less than expected, that he was also later terminated from his employment and that he was thereafter unable to find other employment due to a wrist injury, the Support Magistrate expressly found his testimony to lack credibility. According deference to this credibility determination, we find no basis to disturb Family Court’s determination (see *Matter of Freedman v Horike,*26 AD3d 680, 681-682 [2006]; *Matter of Rosato v Rosato,*21 AD3d 418, 418-419 [2005]; *Matter of Heyn v Burr,*6 AD3d 781, 782 [2004]).

For similar reasoning, Family Court also correctly determined that respondent failed to meet his burden in seeking a downward modification of child support (see *Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]). In short, he failed to provide *1096competent evidence demonstrating an unexpected and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting a modification of the prior child support order. While he claimed his employment was terminated and that he was unable to find comparable employment, his evidence was simply not credible on either point (see *Matter of Freedman v Horike,*supra;*Matter of Rosato v Rosato, supra).*

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. *Ordered*that the order is affirmed, without costs.
§ 26.3 Date, time, place, and manner of execution. ( a ) Except to the extent a court orders otherwise, a sentence of death shall be executed: ( 1 ) On a date and at a time designated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which date shall be no sooner than 60 days from the entry of the judgment of death. If the date designated for execution passes by reason of a stay of execution, then a new date shall be designated promptly by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons when the stay is lifted;
( 2 ) At a penal or correctional institution designated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
( 3 ) Under the supervision of a United States Marshal (Marshal) designated by the Director of the United States Marshals Service, assisted by additional qualified personnel selected by the Director of the United States Marshals Service and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or their designees, and acting at the direction of the Marshal; and
( 4 ) By intravenous injection of a lethal substance or substances in a quantity sufficient to cause death, such substance or substances to be determined by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or by any other manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence was imposed or which has been designated by a court in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3596(a).
( b ) Unless the President interposes, the United States Marshal shall not stay execution of the sentence on the basis that the prisoner has filed a petition for executive clemency.
[57 FR 4901, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended by Order No.
4911-2020, 85 FR 75854, Nov. 27, 2020]
#### § 33.80 Suspension of funding.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, terminate or suspend funding for a state that implements programs or projects which fail to conform to the requirements or statutory objectives of the Act, or that fails to comply substantially with the Justice Assistance Act, these regulations or the terms and conditions of its grant award. Hearing and appeal procedures are set forth in Department of Justice regulations 28 CFR part 18.