alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                     BETWEEN


                              THE TIREX CORPORATION
                            740 St. Maurice St. #201
                          Montreal (Qc) Canada H3C 1L5

                                       and


                            FRANCOIS LAFORTUNE, PH.D.
                 5755 Blv Payer, St. Hubert (Qc) Canada J3Y 1K4

                           (as of October 15th, 1997)



o        Full time position as of October 15th 1997

o        85,000$/year;

o        3 weeks paid holidays (1st year), 4 weeks 2nd and subsequent years;

o        Conference,  book +  periodical  subscription  expenses  (amounts to be
         discussed);

o        Laptop computer;

o        Possibility of being involved in TCS-1 sales (target #1: Latin America,
         terms to be discussed);

o        60 day phase-out period in order to complete `non-Tirex' projects
         currently under way;

o        90 day notification of employment termination for each party, if deemed
         unavoidable;

o        life + disability insurance (amounts, terms + potential coverage to be
         discussed, as soon as a program is implemented within the Company;

o        performance evaluation every 6 months


NOTE:    Agreed with Terrence C. Byrne, CEO, in October 1997; effective ever
         since.
!"#$%&#&'$


(	

	


	)*'+,'+"-	


	




	

			


		

 !  "
#$%&

./.0.

%
& 

	'()*+,- 

%#&   	      		  

  		        

  	      	 

(.   	    	  

    	  	  

  	

	. 	
		.				
 	

	 

/

  	 	 
	  	 	   		 




			
	.


.							

			  /

	

	
					


	

					 

%&

%0& '		1(.





2
	-		3	!

'		( 
$40 

1

!56	7

*/!8)'+9*!1

::	
, 5

	
, 5

	
	

 ' 5;
<
=

+3/##
<

%<>0&#?4@<>>

3!5(1A#?<
$

('*-')7B,-('+'+-+

-	6CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Mar 30 2017 /s/ Kevin R. Huennekens

Mar 30 2017

Case 16-35652-KRH Doc 33 Filed 03/30/17 Entered 03/30/17 12:57:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–012 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–180 

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, PURSUANT TO SEC. 401 

OF DIVISION A AND SEC. 114(c) OF DIVISION C OF THE CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2017, AND THE ZIKA RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS ACT, 

AND SEC. 251(b)(2)(A) OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985, AS AMENDED 

NOVEMBER 14, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 29, 2016. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 401 of division A 

and section 114(c) of division C of the Continuing Appropriations 

and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act 

(the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby designate for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism all funding (including the rescission of funds) and contributions from foreign governments so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 

as amended, as outlined in the enclosed list of accounts. 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOC
2 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCInsert offset folio 3 here HD180.001
3 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCInsert offset folio 4 here HD180.002
4 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCInsert offset folio 5 here HD180.003
5 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HDOCInsert offset folio 6 here HD180.004
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-4866 Directorate Identifier: -AD 20 15-NE-33 

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of US. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the "Update Fields " button to automatically fill in the totals. 

Update Fields j 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection, repair, 

etc. 

Replace impeller with a 

serviceable impeller $4,404.50 4000 having a re-identified 

PN (see Note 1 below) 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

Costs covered under warranty_ (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Note 1: 

Serviceable part cost calculated as follows: 2hrs ($85. /hr) 4000 engines= 680 K; Pro-rated Part Cost= 

$12,500 based on 50% of impeller new part cost of $25,000 for 1200 engines (30% of 4000 engines); Total 

Pro-rated part cost=$ 15 M.; plus Rework costs (with impeller re-grind) 16 hours labor ($85. per hr) for 

1400 engines (50% of2800 engines)= $1.904 M; plus Rework costs (without impeller re-grind) 6 hours 

labor ($85. per hr) for 1400 engines (50% of2800 engines)= $0.714 M; $15M+ $1.904 M + $0.714 M = 

Total parts cost= $17.618 M; $17.618 M/ 4000 = $4,404/ engine; Total cost= $17.618 M + $680 K = 

$18,298,000. 

7 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

YES* D NO IZl 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the Ab significant? • 

YES* D NO IZl 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D NO IZl 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* D NO IZl 

*Explanation: 

8
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4875 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4875

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 2201 E. Maple Street in North Canton, Ohio, as the ``Lance Cpl. Stacy 
                      `Annie' Dryden Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANCE CPL. STACY ``ANNIE'' DRYDEN POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2201 E. Maple Street in North Canton, Ohio, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lance Cpl. Stacy `Annie' Dryden Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance Cpl. 
Stacy `Annie' Dryden Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Disposal - Oil and Gas Environmental Compliance Conference

Appalachian Basin - Washington, PA

M A Y 13 - 14 , 2 0 142 

## Class II - D Injection Wells

▶ Ohio – 191
▶ Pennsylvania – 7
▶ West Virginia – 70
▶ Texas – 50 ,0 0 0
▶ Injection Rate: 50 0 - 2,0 0 0 bbls / day

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research3 

## Pennsylvania Class II - D Injection Wells

▶ 7 operating wells
▶ 2 new permits issued
▶ ~3.2 mmbbls of produced water disposed of in 20 13
▶ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has primacy

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research4 

## Pennsylvania Produced Water Disposal

20 13 Distribution ▶ 

### 95 percent injected into 42 of Ohio’s UIC wells ▶ 

### 4 percent injected into 2 PA UIC wells ▶ 

### 1 percent injected into 4 WV UIC wells

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research5 

## Ohio Class II - D Injection Wells 20 13 Statistics
▶ 191 wells
▶ Injected ~16.3 mmbbls
▶ 51 percent of fluids from out of state ▶ Ohio has primacy

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research6 

## West Virginia Class II - D Injection Wells

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research ▶ 

### West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has primacy ▶ 

### Approximately 70 wells7 

## Class II - D Injection Well Limitations

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research ▶ Requires areas with no seismic activity (Youngstown, OH) ▶ Requires a site assessment and aquifer characterization to identify suitable sites ▶ Requires extensive permit application and approvals ▶ Requires compatible waste and formation water8 

## Class II - D Injection Well Limitations

*Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research ▶ Suspended solids can plug the injection interval ▶ Corrosive media may react with well components, formation, or confining strata ▶ High iron concentrations may result in fouling ▶ Organic carbon from bacteria can cause fouling ▶ Organic contaminants can require pretreatment9 

## Evaporation Ponds

▶ 

### Production water is piped or transported ▶ 

### Pond is installed on top of compacted clay ▶ 

### HPDE liner with welded seams over geomembranes ▶ 

### Popular in semi - arid climates ▶ 

### Rates up to 1 inch/ day during hottest months10 

## Evaporation Ponds - Pros

▶ 

### Protects groundwater/ direct discharge ▶ 

### Precipitate good for winter road maintenance ▶ 

### Low cost method of disposal, small flow storage ▶ 

### Leak detection systems ▶ 

### Minimal operations and maintenance costs11 

## Evaporation Ponds - Cons

▶ 

### Transport costs ▶ 

### Requires a large, flat site ▶ 

### Works best in arid, dry climates, not humid ▶ 

### Works best May thru October ▶ 

### Fencing and netting are necessary to protect against human and wildlife interference12 

### Thank you! Ryan Mastowski, EIT rmastowski@rettew.com
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF FLATHEAD,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD E. CORK, Defendant.

NO. DC-89-108 DECISION

DATED this 9th day of March, 1990.

On October 3, 1989, the Defendant was sentenced to twelve (12) years with five (5) years suspended for the crime of Burglary. He was given conditions and ordered to pay $1,250 restitution; and was given 13 days credit for time served; dangerous designation.

On March 9, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Kathleen O’Conner, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the -unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

The reason for the decision is based upon Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division, that the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4893 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4893

To provide for appropriations for title I of the Child Abuse Prevention 
                           and Treatment Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

   Ms. Wild introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for appropriations for title I of the Child Abuse Prevention 
                           and Treatment Act.

    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 ``Keeping Our Children Safe Act''.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS FOR TITLE I OF CAPTA.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, and there is appropriated, out of any monies in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out title I of the Child 
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), 
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024, to be available 
until expended.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002)**

 

I, David C. Karlgaard,President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of PECSolutions, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge,based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

 

(1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) [15(d)] of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| /s/ David C. Karlgaard |               |
|------------------------|--------------------|
| Name:                  | David C. Karlgaard |
| Date:                  | August 14,  2003   |
|                        |                    |  |

 

----
Amendment No. 2 to Master Revolving Note



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

	
	     Amendment No. 2 to Note


 This Amendment to Note (“Amendment”), made, delivered, and effective as of October 18, 2007, by and
between MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC (“Borrower”) and COMERICA BANK (“Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, Borrower and Bank are parties to that certain
Master Revolving Note in the original principal amount of $3,500,000 (currently $4,500,000) dated December 29, 2006, as amended (“Note”); and 
 WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower desire to amend the Note as set forth below; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Borrower and Bank agree as follows: 
  

	1.	The non-default interest rate applicable to the Note is now the Canadian Prime Rate plus one and one-half percent (1-1/2%). 

  

	2.	The execution of this Amendment shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Default or Event of Default. 

  

	3.	All capitalized terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Note shall have the same meaning as used in the Note, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment.


  

	4.	This Amendment is not an agreement to any further or other amendment of the Note. 

  

	5.	Borrower expressly acknowledges and agrees that except as expressly amended in this Amendment, the Note, as amended, remains in full force and effect and is ratified, confirmed and
restated. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment on the date set forth above. 
  

									
	 MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC
	 		 	COMERICA BANK
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David H. Gransee
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ James Q. Goudie III

					
	 Its:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer
	 		 	Its:	 	 VP & AGM









 CONSENT OF GUARANTOR 
 The undersigned consents to the foregoing amendment as of the date thereof and reaffirms and ratifies all of its obligations to the Bank under its Guaranty of the Indebtedness of the Borrower to the Bank. 

 

			
	 MANITEX, LLC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David J. Langevin

		
	 Its:
	 	 Chairman
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 81674 / September 21, 2017

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-17315

In the Matter of

Ross, Sinclaire & Associates, LLC and 

Murray Sinclaire, Jr.

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING FUND 

ADMINISTRATOR AND SETTING 

ADMINISTRATOR BOND AMOUNT

On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and 

Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 203(e) and 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 

and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing 

Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and- Desist Order (“Order”)1against Ross, Sinclaire & 

Associates, LLC (“RSA”) and Murray Sinclaire, Jr. (“Sinclaire”) (collectively, 

“Respondents”). The Order found that, from at least January 2007 through December 2012,

Nicholas L. Fry II (“Fry”), president of registered investment adviser, Fry Hensley and 

Company, took advantage of his close relationship with broker-dealer RSA to carry out a 

fraudulent scheme whereby Fry charged his advisory clients inflated commissions through 

RSA.

The Order required RSA to pay disgorgement of $703,335.16, prejudgment interest 

of $99,239.54 and a civil penalty of $100,000.00 and Sinclaire to pay a $50,000.00 civil 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 78147 (June 23, 2016).
2

penalty for a total of $952,574.70. The Order also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 

308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, so the civil penalties ordered, along 

with the disgorgement and prejudgment interest, could be distributed to harmed investors.

The Division of Enforcement now seeks the appointment of Analytics Consulting, LLC, 

(“Analytics”) as the fund administrator and requests that the administrator’s bond be set at 

$952,574.70, as required by Rules 1105(a) and 1105(c) of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund 

and Disgorgement Plans (“Rules”).2 Analytics is included in the Commission’s approved pool of 

administrators. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that pursuant to Rule 1105(a) of the Rules, 

17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(a), Analytics is appointed as the fund administrator and the administrator 

shall obtain a bond in the amount of $952,574.70, in accordance with Rule 1105(c) of the Rules, 

17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(c).

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

2

17 C.F.R. §§ 201.1105(a) and 201.1105(c).

3

17. C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(17).
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 vs. No. 31,688

5 JESUS MUNOZ,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY

8 Drew D. Tatum, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 

10 Santa Fe, NM 

11 Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender

15 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

2 Defendant-Appellant Jesus Munoz (Defendant) has appealed from a conviction

3 for child abuse. On April 18, 2012, we issued a second notice of proposed summary

4 disposition, proposing to reverse and remand. The State has filed notice with this

5 Court indicating that it does not oppose our analysis.

6 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the second notice of proposed summary

7 disposition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 

13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

14 

15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallene Antoinette GAITHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6205.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Wallene Antoinette Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Of*956fice of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Wallene Antoinette Gaither appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, or, in the alternative, for dismissal of the indictment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Gaither,*No. CR-98-202 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### § 349.1 Japanese renunciation of nationality.

A Japanese who renounced United States nationality pursuant to the provisions of section 401(i), Nationality Act of 1940, who claims that his renunciation is void, shall complete Form N-576, Supplemental Affidavit to be Submitted with Applications of Japanese Renunciants. The affidavit shall be submitted to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, with a covering letter requesting a determination of the validity of the renunciation.