alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

 Mid-Pacific Regional Office

IN REPLY 2800 Cottage Way 

REFER TO: Sacramento, California 95825-1898 

MP-3400 October 03, 2002 

WTR-4.00 

Subject: Statement of Central Valley Project (CVP) Cumulative Irrigation Operations for the 

Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001 

Dear Water Contractor: 

Enclosed is a statement of the cumulative financial results of operations applicable to your CVP 

irrigation water service contract as of September 30, 2001. This statement is provided for 

informational purposes and is not a bill. 

The statement shows the beginning cumulative balances from the prior fiscal year, the current 

fiscal year results of operations, and the ending capital repayment and deficit balances, as 

applicable, as of September 30, 2001. The statement reflects interest accrued and voluntary 

payments through fiscal year 2001. 

As indicated above, the enclosed statement is provided for informational purposes only and is 

not a bill. However, if you wish to voluntarily reimburse the Bureau of Reclamation for all or a 

portion of your deficit(s), if any, please contact Maureen Reynoso at 916-978-5374 to determine 

the appropriate payoff amount. Such payments should be remitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, 

File No. 11546, P.O. Box 60000, San Francisco, CA 94160-1546. A copy of the documents 

supporting the payment should also be sent to the attention of Ms. Reynoso at the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898. 

Please state that the payment is to be applied to your deficit account on your transmittal and 

remittance. 

Any questions concerning the foregoing should be addressed to Ms. Reynoso either at the above 

address, at 916-978-5374, TDD 916-978-5608 or mreynoso@mp.usbr.gov. 

 Sincerely, 

 Lawrence J. Bauman 

 Manager, Ratesetting Services 

 Business Resources Center 

Enclosure 
Subject: Statement of Central Valley Project Cumulative Irrigation Operations 2 

cc: 

Central Valley Project Water Association 

Attn: George Senn 

1521 AI@ Street 

Sacramento CA 95814 

Tehama Colusa Canal Authority 

Attn: Michael Hagman 

PO Box 1025 

Willows CA 95988 

San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority 

Attn: Tona Mederios 

PO Box 2157 

Los Banos CA 93635 

Friant Water Users Authority 

Attn: Ron Jacobsma 

854 North Harvard Ave 

Lindsay CA 93247 

 (All w/o encl.)
### IRIS Bimonthly Meeting

Arlington, VA December 13, 2013 Kevin Bromberg

# Small Business and IRIS

IRIS has implications for regulations and regulatory

policy

## NRC Recommendations (2011)

• Establish Standard Protocols for Evidence Identification • Establish Clear Guidelines for Study Selection • Standardize Presentation of Studies to Capture Study Characteristics, WOE and Utility for Deriving Unit Risks • Standardize Approach for WOE

## IRIS Enhancements – July 2013
 

### Step 1 Chemicals
• Publicly releases literature search, literature search strategy, critical study selection criteria, evidence tables for critical studies, and exposure-response figures • Convenes public meeting to discuss literature search, evidence tables, exposure-response figures and key issues

# Missing Information

 Critical Study Selection Criteria  Identification of Critical Studies and Rationale for Selection  Evidence Tables Presenting the Critical Studies  Identification and Application of WOE Factors  Identification of Key Issues

# NRC (2011) Implementation

 July 2013 IRIS enhanced procedures were designed to implement the NRC recommendations  EPA adopted strategy ofrobust early input to avoid low quality IRIS assessments  Proper implementation ofenhanced procedures is critical to small business input

# Industry Comments Previous commenters, including trade associations representing small businesses, found that EPA generally did not fully implement the Step 1 procedures regarding study quality, identification of critical studies and weight-of

-evidence (WOE) criteria for both step 1 and step 4 chemicals.

## Conclusions
• Step 1 Chemicals
EPA Should Supplement Step 1 Materials with Study Quality Criteria and Identification of Critical Studies EPA Should Identify Key Issues EPA Should Convene New Step 1 Public Meeting in Accordance with Enhanced IRIS Procedures

## Conclusions
• Step 4 Chemicals
EPA Should Modify Assessment to Address Inadequacies EPA Should Improve Peer Review Questions

# Additional Comments

EPA Needs to Set Aside Adequate Time for Step 1 and Step 4 Meetings to Ensure Robust Dialogue Among Scientists

# Additional Comments

Chemical Specific CAAC Review Committees Need to Include Diversity of Viewpoints (Not Solely Government and

Academic)

## Contact Information Kevin Bromberg Assistant Chief Counsel for Environmental Policy SBA Office of Advocacy Kevin.bromberg@sba.gov P. 202.205.6964 www.sba.gov/advocacy website
#### Laura Glover, as Administratrix, etc., v. National Bank of Commerce in New York.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penford Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), Thomas D. Malkoski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven
O. Cordier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Thomas D. MalkoskiThomas D. MalkoskiChief Executive OfficerDated: January 7, 2005/s/ Steven O. CordierSteven O. CordierChief Financial OfficerDated: January 7, 2005
#### Holland, executor, *v.*Zeigler *et al.*

December 15, 1910.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Eawlings. Bulloch superior court. November 16, 1909.

*Johnston & Gone,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hill & Anderson*and *Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, ■*contra.

Fish, C. J.

Mary L. Zeigler and Minnie Holland, claiming to own an interest in certain realty as devisees under the will of the defendant’s testator, brought an action against the defendant as executor, to enjoin him from selling the property in question. By consent the controlling issue in the ease was submitted to the judge for decision, without the intervention of a jury. The sole question submitted to the judge was whether, under the provisions of item 5 of the will, any interest in a certain law office, on the lot of land whereon the dwelling of the testator was situated at the time of his death, passed to the petitioners. The fifth item of the will was as follows: “Mrs. Mary L. Zeigler having been and is a faithful servant for me and family, during my sickness and in health, I feel that she should be remembered in this my last will. I therefore will and bequeath to said Mary L. Zeigler, for and during her natural life, for a home for herself and my daughter Minnie Holland, the use and occupancy for a home for herself and my daughter Minnie Holland, the use and occupancy of my dwelling-house and lot, and at the death of said Mary L. Zeigler said house and lot shall revert back to my estate and be divided between my other or surviving legatees, share and share alike.” The judge rendered the following decision: “After consideration of the terms and stipulations, and of what appears to be the meaning and intent -of item fifth of said will, it is the judgment of the court that the house and the lot whereon the house is situated was, by the fifth item of said will, conveyed to Mary Zeigler ' and Minnie Holland for life; and the law office above referred to being situated upon said lot, it is the judgment of the court that the title to said office was, together with the other improvements and buildings situated on the lot whereon the dwelling-house is situated, bequeathed to Mary Zeigler and Minnie Holland as life-esta'te.” It does not appear from the record that any aliunde evidence was submitted' to the judge. *Meld,*that the judge properly decided that the “law office” passed to the petitioners under the fifth item of the will, but erred in holding that Minnie Holland took a life-estate therein during her life, as it was provided in the item of the will under consideration that the testator’s house and the lot whereon it appeared that the office was situated were devised to Mary L. Zeigler during her life for a home for herself and Minnie Holland, and, at the death of Mary, that the lot should revert to the testator’s estate.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22320-CIV-Goodman

CONSENT CASE

WILLIAM WHELAN, on behalf of himself 

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

ETERNITY BEACHWEAR & MARKET LLC, 

a Florida Limited Liability Company, ALISA UNIVERSE LLC, 

a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a NITRO DRAGONS, 

and ITAMAR MAKMAL, individually,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, WILLIAM WHELAN, and Defendants, ETERNITY BEACHWEAR & 

MARKET LLC, ALISA UNIVERSE LLC d/b/a NITRO DRAGONS, and ITAMAR MAKMAL, 

by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby file this Notice of Settlement and advise the Court 

that the parties have agreed upon a resolution of Plaintiff’s FLSA claims in this matter, in 

connection with which the parties respectfully request permission to provide the Court with the 

terms of their confidential settlement for review and approval through a telephonic approval 

hearing.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of June 2020.

By: Keith M. Stern 

Keith M. Stern, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 321000

E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.

80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000

Miami, Florida 33130

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: s/Matthew A. Savino

Matthew A. Savino, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 1010318

E-mail: Matthew@blfmiami.com

THE BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM

3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403

Miami, Florida 33137

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-22320-JG Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40372

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WALTER EARL STEPHENSON, JR, also known as Stevie Stephenson,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CR-42-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Walter Earl Stephenson, Jr., appeals the district court’s

denial of his request to withdraw his guilty plea and asks in the

alternative that the Government be required to perform

specifically under the plea. He argues that he relied on the

Government’s promise in the plea agreement to consider

substantial assistance provided by him in other investigations,

but that the Government did not give him the opportunity to

provide that assistance and never intended to recommend a

downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, p.s.
No. 98-40372

-2-

The language of the plea agreement states that the

Government retains its discretion to recommend a departure. 

Stephenson therefore can prevail only if he showed by a

preponderance of the evidence that he relied on a promise that

the Government never intended to keep. Evidence at the hearing

showed that the government agent who had debriefed Stephenson

felt that he was being uncooperative and deliberately vague. 

Although the agents had used other information gathered during

this investigation to commence other proceedings, the information

from Stephenson was not a help and the agent felt it would be a

waste of time to question him again. Stephenson has not shown

that the district court erred in finding that the Government did

not breach the agreement. See United States v. Garcia-Bonilla,

11 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993). The decision of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22756]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CCB/CPD File Nos. 97-39, 97-41; DA 04-3156]


Petitions for Waiver of 6.5 Percent Price Cap Local Exchange 
Carrier X-Factor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; termination of proceedings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is a notification of final termination of the 
petitions for waiver of the 6.5 percent productivity-based ``X-factor'' 
for price cap local exchange carriers adopted by the Commission in a 
1997 order. The petitions for waiver have been withdrawn by the 
petitioners. No oppositions to the prior notice of terminations were 
received; therefore, interested parties are hereby notified that these 
proceedings have been terminated.

DATES: These proceedings were terminated effective September 16, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 5, 2004, the Wireline Competition 
Bureau's Pricing Policy Division issued a Public Notice that the 
proceedings addressing the Citizens and SNET petitions for waiver of 
the 6.5 percent X-factor would be terminated effective 30 days after 
publication of the Public Notice in the Federal Register, unless the 
Bureau received oppositions to the terminations before that date. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2004. See 69 
FR 51079, August 17, 2004. The Bureau did not receive any oppositions 
to the terminations of these proceedings within 30 days of Federal 
Register publication of the notice; therefore, these proceedings were 
terminated as of September 16, 2004.

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155; 44 FR 18501, 67 FR 
13223, 47 CFR 0.291, 1.749.

Federal Communications Commission.
Michelle M. Carey,
Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-22756 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
     QUANTITATIVE  METHODS CORPORATION  June 30, 1997  financial  statements and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894561
<NAME>                        QUANTITATIVE METHODS CORPORATION

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997

<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                              75,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    75,000
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      75,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,150
<OTHER-SE>                                          73,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        75,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 107.1830 Licensee's Capital Impairment—definition and general requirements.

(a) *Applicability of this section.* This section applies to Leverage issued on or after April 25, 1994. For Leverage issued before April 25, 1994, you must comply with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and the Capital Impairment regulations in this part in effect when you issued your Leverage. For all Leverage issued, you must also comply with any contractual provisions to which you have agreed.

(b) *Significance of Capital Impairment condition.* If you have a condition of Capital Impairment, you are not in compliance with the terms of your Leverage. As a result, SBA has the right to impose the applicable remedies for noncompliance in §§ 107.1810(g) and 107.1820(f).

(c) *Definition of Capital Impairment condition.* You have a condition of Capital Impairment if your Capital Impairment Percentage, as computed in § 107.1840, exceeds:

(1) For Section 301(d) Licensees, 75 percent.

(2) For Section 301(c) Licensees, the appropriate percentage from the following table:

| If the percentage of equity capital investments (at cost) in your portfolio is: | And your ratio of outstanding leverage to leverageable capital is: | Then your maximum permitted capital impairment percentage is: |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 67% | 100% or less | 70 |
| | Over 100% but not over 200% | 60 |
| | Over 200% | 50 |
| At least 40% but under 67% | 100% or less | 55 |
| | Over 100% but not over 200% | 50 |
| | Over 200% | 40 |
| Under 40% | 100% or less | 45 |
| | Over 100% but not over 200% | 40 |
| | Over 200% | 35 |

Maximum Permitted Capital Impairment Percentages for Section 301(c) Licensees

(d) *Phase-in of maximum permitted Capital Impairment Percentages for Section 301(c) Licensees.* If you are a Section 301(c) Licensee, regardless of your maximum permitted Capital Impairment Percentage under paragraph (c) of this section, you will not have a condition of Capital Impairment if:

(1) Your Capital Impairment Percentage does not exceed 50 percent; and

(2) You have not reached your first fiscal year end occurring after April 25, 1995.

(e) *Quarterly computation requirement and procedure.* SBA will determine whether you have a condition of Capital Impairment as of the end of each fiscal quarter. If SBA finds you capitally impaired, they will notify you.

(f) *SBA's right to determine Licensee's Capital Impairment condition.* SBA may make its own determination of your Capital Impairment condition at any time.

[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5873, Feb. 5, 1998; 88 FR 46012, July 18, 2023]
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Rudolph Dittner, Deceased. Lena D. Lince, Appellant; Charles Dittner, Respondent.

Present— Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.)
**Exhibit 10.43**

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**TO THE**

**HAMPTON ROADS BANKSHARES, INC.**

**EXECUTIVE SAVINGS PLAN**

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. Executive Savings Plan (“Plan”) made effective as of the30th day of December 2008 by Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. (“Company”). All capitalized terms in this Amendment not otherwise defined shall have their respective meanings under the Plan. 

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend and conform the written terms of the Plan to the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of1986, as amended (“Code”), and 

WHEREAS, the Plan has operated in good faith compliance with the requirements ofSection 409A of the Code for periods starting January 1, 2005 and through the effective date of this Amendment, 

NOW, THEREFORE,the Company hereby adopts this Amendment upon the following terms and conditions: 

1. The definition of Change in Control inSection 1.07 shall be replaced in its entirety with the following definition: 

Change in Control means (a) the date that any oneperson, or more than one person, acting as a group, acquires ownership of stock of the Company that, together with stock held by such person or group constitutes more than 50% of the total fair market value or total voting power of the stock of theCompany, (b) the date any one person, or more than one person, acting as a group, acquires (or has acquired ownership during the 12 month period ending on the date of the most recent acquisition by such person) ownership of stock of the Companypossessing 30% or more of the total voting power of the stock, or (c) the date a majority of the members of the Board is replaced during any twelve (12) month period by directors whose appointment or election is not endorsed by a majorityof the members of the Board before the date of the appointment or election. 

2. The definition of Specified Employee in Section 1.20is replaced in its entirety with the following definition: 

A Specified Employee means an employee who, as of December 31 of any PlanYear, satisfies the requirements of Code Section 416(i) (without regard to Code section 416(i)(5)). Such employee will be considered a Specified Employee for purposes of the Plan for the 12-month period 

commencing on the next following April 1; provided, however, that an employee will not be considered a Specified Employee unless at the time of his orher termination of employment, the Company is a public company pursuant to Code section 409A. 

3. The following sentence shall be added tothe end of Section 4.01: 

Payment made on a date or event specified in thisPlan shall be treated as made upon such date or event if it is made by the end of the calendar year in which such date or event occurs, or, if later, by the 15th day of the third month following such date or event. 

4. The following sentence shall be added to the endof Section 6.02: 

The Plan termination shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 409A of the Code. 

WITNESS the signature of the undersigned officer of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. 

 
HAMPTON ROADS BANKSHARES, INC.
 

 
Date Signed
(March 10, 1949.)

#### Jessie S. Perkins, as Executrix of William A. Schenck, Deceased, v. Joseph Meyer, Jr., et al.

Present — Peck, P, J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ, [See *ante,*p. 667.]