alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 300.600 State monitoring and enforcement. ( a ) The State must— ( 1 ) Monitor the implementation of this part;
( 2 ) Make determinations annually about the performance of each LEA using the categories in § 300.603(b)(1);
( 3 ) Enforce this part, consistent with § 300.604, using appropriate enforcement mechanisms, which must include, if applicable, the enforcement mechanisms identified in § 300.604(a)(1) (technical assistance), (a)(3) (conditions on funding of an LEA), (b)(2)(i) (a corrective action plan or improvement plan), (b)(2)(v) (withholding funds, in whole or in part, by the SEA), and (c)(2) (withholding funds, in whole or in part, by the SEA); and
( 4 ) Report annually on the performance of the State and of each LEA under this part, as provided in § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(2).
( b ) The primary focus of the State's monitoring activities must be on— ( 1 ) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and
( 2 ) Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.
( c ) As a part of its responsibilities under paragraph (a) of this section, the State must use quantifiable indicators and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the priority areas identified in paragraph (d) of this section, and the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans.
( d ) The State must monitor the LEAs located in the State, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas: ( 1 ) Provision of FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
( 2 ) State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services as defined in § 300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9).
( 3 ) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.
( e ) In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under paragraph (d) of this section, the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the requirements of this part by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State's identification of the noncompliance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0624) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416(a))
[71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 73027, Dec. 1, 2008]
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 10.20


                           Sungard Data Systems Inc.
                      Summary Description of The Company's
                Annual Executive Incentive Compensation Program


SunGard Data Systems Inc. has an annual executive incentive compensation ("EIC")
program for its executive officers and other key management employees.  The
principal purpose of this program is to link a significant portion of annual
cash compensation to financial results and other goals, so as to reward
successful performance.

Each participant's EIC program contains certain financial and/or business goals
as targets.  These targets are established at the beginning of each year and
take into account the Company's overall financial and business goals for the
year.  Before 1996, the EIC program for corporate officers generally had been
based upon targeted rates of increase in the Company's net income over the
previous year and, sometimes, additional performance goals specific to the
officer's function.  Beginning in 1996, however, the performance criterion for
corporate officers was changed to growth in earnings per share rather than
growth in net income.  For the chief executive officers of the Company's
operating business groups, the EIC program targets generally are based upon
budgeted operating income and average number of days sales outstanding in
accounts receivable of the business units managed by the group chief executive
officers.  For other key management employees, the EIC program targets are based
upon financial and/or business goals related to the business units they manage
and, sometimes, additional performance goals specific to their individual
functions.

Generally, the EIC programs contain an incentive compensation amount related to
each target.  If the target is achieved, then the related incentive compensation
amount is earned.  For most financial goals, there are three to four designated
targets.  If the actual result is less than the minimum target, then no
incentive amount is earned.  If the actual result is between two targets, then
the incentive amount earned is calculated by interpolation.  If the actual
result is more than the maximum target, then the incentive amount earned is
equal to the amount related to the maximum target plus, in some cases, an
additional incentive amount based upon the extent to which the maximum target
was exceeded.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk January 5, 2017

152916 (74)(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 152916

v COA: 321200

Genesee CC: 13

- 032919

- FH

TMANDO ALLEN DENSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion s of defendant

- appell ant for immediate

consideration and to extend the time for filing his supplemental brief to February 23,

2017

, are GRANTED. The time for filing the supplemental brief of plaintiff

- appell ee is

also extended to February 23, 2017

.
### Importations Prohibited
### Regulatory Evaluation
Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

Add the work hours
. parts cost, and number ofUS
. registered products to the table below
. When you are .finis/zed. click on the "Update Fields., button to auromatically.fi/1 in the totals
. 

### Update

# Fields**~~** Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e
.g., aircraft, engine, (e
.g. , Inspection, _Qropeller,**a~liance)** Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U
. S
. Fleet Do not include on- access, testing , (@$85/h parts) Registered condition costs here and close

-up) our) Products Option I: External 3.5**'""l{)~_7** '207,)0 572**~~** 

### 00 DFEC inspection L-'! Option 2: Internal 9.9**~.** .50**::~** 34! 572 1.338
.00 HFEC inspection


### ., 

## o.oe s 0,00 

### 1_ OJ)O 

## s 0.00 

## s O.OfJ 

### 1_ 0 00 

# s 0.00 'h 0 {){; $ 0.00 

## s 

## u.no 2 O(Hl 

## 5 0.00 <.; 0.00 

## s f1.0il 

# :s 0.00 

# s P Ou 

## s 0.00 

## s J.OO 

### 1_ 0.00 

## s 0.00 $ 

## n.oo ') ').0(} 

### s 

## ono 

# s 0.00 

# s n.oo s \1.00 $ 0.00 

# '**'~'** 0.!!0 S __QJ. I_(l 

# s 0.00 

# s o on c.: 

## noo 

# s O.UO \ 0 00 .,., 0.00 

## i 0.00 ') 0.00 

## s n.oc 'b 0.00 

# s o.no 2 O.PO 

### 1_ {). 00 ·..; C.OO 

### s u no 

## s**~_j.** f1f_) ') OJJfJ ', i; 

### nn $ 0**~iO** 

## s 0.00**~** 0 0() $ 0.00 

## "' "-' 0 00 \ O.OP 

### 1_ O.OU The known number of products in compliance: 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S
. fleet: $651,508 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $ Wananty
On

-Condition Costs:-... Work

-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product Action (include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing , and close-

replacement) up) Inspection '-) 0. 1)0 

# i O.OJ $ 

## uno 

# " 0

.dO ') JOO**~** {' (i() 

### 7

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can al so be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Only one of the estimated costs listed above would be used since maintenance has the option of which one to perform. The total cost, therefore, is more than the fleet would see . 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory

# action"?**~** YES* D NO IZl *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD 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**~** 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?

# , YES* D NO IZl *Explanation :



### 8
Certificate of Analysis

Date issued :

22 44

ChangeSize

This certificate has been computer generated and does not contain a signature.

Specifications

Analysis Data

27.08.2012
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

EUGENE ALBERT MAUWEE, SR., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN, 

LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER, 

No. 67655 

FILED 

JUL '0 8 20% 

On March 8, 2016, this court entered an order directing 

appellant's personal representative, if any, to file a motion for substitution 

with this court pursuant to NRAP 43 within 90 days, if he or she wishes 

this appeal to proceed. See Brass v. State, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 53, 306 P.3d 

393 (2013); see also Walker v. Burkham, 68 Nev. 250, 253-54, 229 P.2d 

158, 160 (1951) ("[u]pon the death of a party . . . the [action] cannot 

proceed until someone is substituted for the decedent . . ."). No such 

motion having been filed within the allotted time, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Hardesty 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Oldenburg Law Office 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk
Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 213 Filed 11/04/19 Entered 11/05/19 12:05:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
ex10_13.htm


     

    Exhibit
      10.1.3

     


    [Letterhead
      of Sequa Corporation]

    


    


    


    May
      3,
      2007

    


    


    


    


    Mr.
      Gerard M. Dombek

    13539
      Sunset Ridge Lane

    St.
      Louis, MO 63128

    


    Re:           Employment
      Agreement Extension

    


    Dear
      Jerry:

    


    Reference
      is hereby made to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of May 31, 2005,
      by
      and between Sequa Corporation ("Sequa") and you as amended by that certain
      letter Agreement dated May 10, 2006, between Sequa and you (collectively, the
      "Employment Agreement").  Terms used herein and not otherwise defined
      shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment
      Agreement.

    


    This
      letter shall confirm that the Employment Term as set forth in Section 3 of
      the
      Employment Agreement shall be extended for an additional one (1) year from
      and
      after May 31, 2008, through May 31, 2009.

    


    All
      other
      terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
      and
      effect and are hereby ratified by Executive and Company.

    


    If
      the
      foregoing confirms your agreement and understanding, please so indicate by
      signing in the space provided below and returning one (1) original of this
      letter to me.

    


    
      	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

            
	 	 
	 	
              Sequa
                Corporation

            
	 	 
	 	
              /s/
                Martin Weinstein

            
	 	
              Martin
                Weinstein

            
	 	
              Vice
                Chairman and Chief Executive
                Officer

            


    

    


    Acknowledged
      and Agreed

    this
      10th
      day of May, 2007

    /s/
      Gerard M. Dombek

    Gerard
      M.
      Dombek
### §4111. Prosecution barred by foreign conviction

An offender transferred to the United States shall not be detained, prosecuted, tried, or sentenced by the United States, or any State thereof for any offense the prosecution of which would have been barred if the sentence upon which the transfer was based had been by a court of the jurisdiction seeking to prosecute the transferred offender, or if prosecution would have been barred by the laws of the jurisdiction seeking to prosecute the transferred offender if the sentence on which the transfer was based had been issued by a court of the United States or by a court of another State.

(Added Pub. L. 95–144, §1, Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1218.)
#### Frederick W. Coon, Appellant, v. James A. Miller, Jr., Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. (See former opinion in *Coon*v. Miller, 151 App. Div. 631.) Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 663.41 What are a fellow's responsibilities after the award of a fellowship? As a condition of retaining a fellowship, a fellow shall— ( a ) Maintain satisfactory progress in the conduct of his or her research;
( b ) Devote full time to research on the approved topic;
( c ) Not engage in unauthorized income-producing activities during the period of the fellowship; and
( d ) Remain employed by the grantee institution during the period of the fellowship.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6))
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 175

 172

 162

 148

 146

 138

 134

 136

 131

 148

 160

 151

 130

 126

 129

 117

 123

 118

 119

 128

 129

 115

 114

 112

 113

 114

 116

 121

 127

 130

 130

 128

 102

 120

 114

 109

 108

 113

 116

 121

 126

 123

 108

 106

 104

 107

 103

 106

 106

 107

 107

 108

 107

 101

 104

 106

 108

 110

 111

 114

 115

 118

 150

 144

 137

 130

 125

 121

 119

 121

 127

 135

 136

 126

 117

 113

 116

 112

 113

 113

 113

 116

 117

 110

 107

 107

 110

 111

 112

 115

 120

 125

 126

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 2, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 1,833

 1,867

 1,895

 1,913

 1,922

 1,924

 1,913

 1,901

 1,891

 1,888

 1,885

 1,864

 1,833

 1,801

 1,767

 1,735

 1,711

 1,694

 1,682

 1,677

 1,675

 1,664

 1,644

 1,616

 1,590

 1,575

 1,570

 1,572

 1,576

 1,589

 1,602

 131

 133

 135

 137

 137

 137

 137

 136

 135

 135

 135

 133

 131

 129

 126

 124

 122

 121

 120

 120

 120

 119

 117

 115

 114

 113

 112

 112

 113

 114

 114

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §3045. Internal revenue violations

Warrants of arrest for violations of internal revenue laws may be issued by United States magistrate judges upon the complaint of a United States attorney, assistant United States attorney, collector, or deputy collector of internal revenue or revenue agent, or private citizen; but no such warrant of arrest shall be issued upon the complaint of a private citizen unless first approved in writing by a United States attorney.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 816; Pub. L. 90–578, title III, §301(a)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1115; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §594 (May 28, 1896, ch. 252, §19, 29 Stat. 184; Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 814, 31 Stat. 956).

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–578 substituted "United States magistrates" for "United States commissioners".

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

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judges" substituted for "United States magistrates" in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–578 effective Oct. 17, 1968, except when a later effective date is applicable, which is the earlier of date when implementation of amendment by appointment of magistrates [now United States magistrate judges] and assumption of office takes place or third anniversary of enactment of Pub. L. 90–578 on Oct. 17, 1968, see section 403 of Pub. L. 90–578, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Abolition of Offices of Collector and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue

Offices of Collector and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue abolished by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1952, §1, eff. Mar. 14, 1952, 17 F.R. 2243, 66 Stat. 823, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and the offices of "district commissioner of internal revenue", and so many other offices, with titles to be determined by Secretary of the Treasury, were established by section 2(a) of the Plan.
### Part A—Organizational, Administrative, and Procedural Provisions Regarding Implementation of Chapter 19 of Agreement
**Exhibit31(d)**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Darrel T.Anderson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Idaho Power Company;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 4, 2004 | By:    | /s/    | *     Darrel T. Anderson* |
|--------|---------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |          |   |   | Darrel T. Anderson                            |
|   |          |   |   | Vice President, Chief Financial               |
|   |          |   |   | Officer and Treasurer                         |
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, A. Roland Thomas, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MoldflowCorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b. [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];
     c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004     /s/ A. ROLAND THOMAS A. Roland Thomas President and Chief Executive Officer