alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1208.12 Time of filing.

Under chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, there is no time limit for filing a USERRA appeal with the Board. However, the Board encourages appellants to file a USERRA appeal as soon as possible after the date of the alleged violation or, if a complaint is filed with the Secretary of Labor, as soon as possible after receiving notice from the Secretary in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 4322(e) that the Secretary's efforts have not resolved the complaint, or, if the Secretary has referred the complaint to the Special Counsel and the Special Counsel does not agree to represent the appellant, as soon as possible after receiving the Special Counsel's notice.

[65 FR 5412, Feb. 4, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 49896, Aug. 16, 2000]
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 40-F/A
 AMENDMENT No. 1
 (Check One)o
    
    Registration statement pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  þ
    
    Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
 For Fiscal year ended:
    
    December 31, 2005Commission File number:
    
    No. 1-14242
 ROYAL GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
  Canada   3084, 3087, 3089   Not Applicable
 1 Royal Gate Boulevard
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 8Z7
(905) 264-0701
 CT Corporation System
111 Eighth Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, New York 10011
USA
(212) 894-8700




---



##### 



Title of each class:
    
    Name of each exchange
on which registered:Common Shares
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  Not Applicable
  Not
Applicable
  þ
    
    Annual Information Form
    
    þ
    
    Audited Annual Financial Statements
  Common Shares
    
    93,444,502
  o þ
  þ o




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS
 A. Undertaking
  B. Consent to Service of Process




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  ROYAL GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITEDDate: August 28, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Lawrence J. BlanfordName:
    Lawrence J. BlanfordTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description1*
    
    Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 20052*
    
    Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the Registrant as at and
for year ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended December 31, 2004,
together with the auditors report thereon3**
    
    Amended Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations for the year ended December 31, 20054*
    
    Consent of KPMG LLP5**
    
    Officers Certifications Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)6**
    
    Officers Certifications Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 *
    
    Previously filed in the Registrants annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2005, filed with the SEC on May 2, 2006.**
    
    Filed herewith.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.3    
  


Amended Section 5.5.2 of

Airbus A380-800F Purchase Agreement dated as of July 12, 2002

between AVSA, S.A.R.L. and FedEx Express  


        Explanatory Note: The Airbus A380-800F Purchase Agreement dated as of July 12, 2002 between AVSA, S.A.R.L. and FedEx
Express (the "Purchase Agreement") was filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2002 of both FedEx and FedEx
Express. The Purchase Agreement has been amended by replacing Section 5.5.2 thereof with the following:



	5.5.2	 	[ * ]
	 	 	 
	 	 	Initial: SSL/NPN






	*
	Blank space contained confidential information which has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.3
Exhibit 10.27
 Summary of Director Compensation Program
  Annual Fees
  Annual retainer as a director
    
    $
    20,000Additional annual retainer for chairman of the
board
    
    
    15,000Additional annual retainer for audit committee
chair
    
    
    15,000Additional annual retainer for other audit committee
members
    
    
    5,000Additional annual retainer for other board committee
chairs
    
    
    10,000Additional annual retainer for other board committee
members
    
    
    3,000
  Meeting Fees
  Equity Compensation
   Expense Reimbursement
#### § 1207.140 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1207.150, no qualified individual with disabilities shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1438

To authorize a State to temporarily extend a waiver granted with respect 

to the State program of aid to families with dependent children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2003

Mr. WU introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To authorize a State to temporarily extend a waiver granted 

with respect to the State program of aid to families 

with dependent children.

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

3 SECTION 1. STATE OPTION TO TEMPORARILY EXTEND 

4 WAIVER GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE 

5 STATE PROGRAM OF AID TO FAMILIES WITH 

6 DEPENDENT CHILDREN. 

7 Section 415 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 615) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(e) STATE OPTION TO TEMPORARILY EXTEND

10 WAIVER IN EFFECT ON DATE OF ENACTMENT OF WEL-
2

•HR 1438 IH 

1 FARE REFORM.—A State that is operating under a waiver 

2 described in subsection (a)(1)(A) which would otherwise 

3 expire in the period that begins on January 1, 2002, and 

4 ends on September 30, 2008, may elect to continue to op5 erate under the waiver, on the same terms and conditions 

6 as applied to the waiver on the day before the date the 

7 waiver would otherwise expire, through the earlier of such 

8 date as the State may select or September 30, 2008.’’.

Æ
(No. 37313.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Ellis Montgomery, Defendant in Error.

*Opinion filed March 25, 1963.*

Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (John T. Gallagher and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Justice Klingbiel

delivered the opinion of the court:

The municipal court of Chicago entered an order quashing a search warrant and the State has sued out a writ of error to review this order, as authorized by statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 38, par. 747.) We have jurisdiction, a constitutional question being involved. *People*v. *Watkins,*19 Ill.2d 11.

The affidavit for the search warrant, which was sworn to on August 9, 1961, stated that on August 1, the affiant saw a quantity of narcotics in the possession of one Ellis Montgomery at a certain address and that, the affiant purchased a package thereof from Montgomery on that date. The search warrant was issued and executed and Montgomery filed a motion to quash this warrant on the ground that the delay between August 1, when affiant stated he observed the narcotics, and August 9, when he signed the af*405fi davit, constituted an unreasonable delay and that therefore probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the warrant.

There is no hard-and-fast rule concerning the time within which a complaint for a search warrant must be made, except that it should not be too remote. The only bearing that passage of time of itself has upon the question is its effect upon the existence of probable cause. These principles were set forth in *People*v. Dolgin, 415 Ill. 434, 441, where we held a delay of 49 days was not unreasonable, particularly where there was an indication that the offense was continuing. In *People*v. *Holton,*326 Ill. 481, we held that a delay of 10 days was not unreasonable. We pointed out there that the fact that the defendant had sold liquor to the affiant 10 days before constituted just and reasonable cause for believing that the defendant would continue to do so for a short time thereafter.

In *United States*v. *Allen,*(E.D. Ky.) 147 F. Supp. 955, a delay of 16 days was held not unreasonable and in *United States*v. *Long,*(D.C. Dist.) 169 F. Supp. 730, the court held that an n-day delay was not unreasonable. Many cases on this point are collected in an annotation appearing in 162 A.L.R. 1406. The author of the annotation summarizes these authorities by stating that an interval of less than 20 days has never been held unreasonable. 162 A.L.R. 1414.

We are of the opinion that the delay in the present case was not unreasonable and that probable cause existed for the issuance and execution of the search warrant. The order of the municipal court of Chicago is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to deny the motion to quash the search warrant.

*Reversed and remanded, with directions.*
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-014 March 18, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DUKE ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Duke Energy officials on

Monday, March 25, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety performance at the

Oconee nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. in the World of Energy at the Oconee site near Seneca,

South Carolina. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available

before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions.

A letter sent from the NRCís Regional Administrator to Duke Energy, which addresses plant

safety performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available

from Region II Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/oco_2001q4.pdf

Current information for the three units at the Oconee plant is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO1/oco1_chart.html

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO2/oco2_chart.html

and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO3/oco3_chart.html

###
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                             919                   1,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,107                   9,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,605)                 (3,759)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,555                   1,741
<PP&E>                                           3,425                   3,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,304                  34,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,943                  26,265
<BONDS>                                          3,582                   4,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            62                      62
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,540                   3,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,304                  34,542
<SALES>                                          8,635                  10,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,635                  10,036
<CGS>                                            4,161                   5,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,464                   6,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (58)                      56
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 524                     543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,465)                 (2,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        65                     117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,521)                 (2,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,590)                 (2,368)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)                  (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)                  (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Evans, Appellant.

Judgment of ■ conviction of the County Court of Kings county affirmed. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-03-042 July 14, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan 610/337-5331

NRC PUBLIC MEETING ON JULY 17 ON UPDATING GENERIC

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting July 17 in Boston,

concerning an update of its Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants, originally published in 1996. The meeting is one of four being held

throughout the country. 

The meeting will be held at the Executive Conference Center (adjacent to the Double

Tree-Bayside) 200 Mount Vernon Street in Boston.

Members of the public are invited to comment on issues that the NRC should consider in

its GEIS update. NRC staff will be available for informal discussions at 6 p.m., answering

questions and providing additional information about the scoping process. The formal meeting to

receive public comments will start at 7 p.m.

The GEIS assesses the overall scope and impact of environmental effects associated with

license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. Separate supplements to the GEIS are prepared to

assess specific environmental issues at individual plants when a license renewal application is

submitted for that plant.

Those who wish to present oral comments are encouraged to register by contacting Barry

Zalcman at 800-368-5642, x2419, or via e-mail at LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov. Speaker registration

will be available before the start of the session, but individual comment time may be limited. 

Written comments should be submitted by September 2, either by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T-6-D 59, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, or by e-mail to

LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov.

The GEIS, its Addendum 1 that was published in 1999, and subsequent site-specific

Supplements may be viewed on the NRC web site at this address: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
 - 2 -

collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437 . These documents are also available in the NRC Public

Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC staff will prepare a

summary of conclusions and significant issues. The summary will also be available through the

NRC’’s online document library at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. 

Help in using the NRC’s online document library is available from the NRC’s Public

Document Room at 800/397-4209. The NRC will hold additional public meetings for public

comment once the draft GEIS revision is prepared

###
### §2311. Report to Congress covering proposals for water impoundment facilities

Any report that is submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate or the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives by the Secretary, or the Secretary of Agriculture acting under Public Law 83–566, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.], which proposes construction of a water impoundment facility, shall include information on the consequences of failure and geologic or design factors which could contribute to the possible failure of such facility.

(Pub. L. 99–662, title XII, §1202, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4263.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Public Law 83–566, as amended, referred to in text, is act Aug. 4, 1954, ch. 656, 68 Stat. 666, known as the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, which is classified principally to chapter 18 (§1001 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of Title 16 and Tables.

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Public Works and Transportation of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.
#### § 2423.22 Intervenors.

Motions for permission to intervene and responses shall be filed in accordance with § 2423.21. Such motions shall be granted upon a showing that the outcome of the proceeding is likely to directly affect the movant's rights or duties. Intervenors may participate only: on the issues determined by the Administrative Law Judge to affect them; and to the extent permitted by the Judge. Denial of such motions may be appealed pursuant to § 2423.21(d).
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|  | (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/                Stan Cipkowski    |
|        |   |   | Chief              Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |                                 |
|        |   |   | May 11,              2007            |

----
### §1402. International objectives

#### (a) Disclaimer of extraterritorial sovereignty

By the enactment of this chapter, the United States—

(1) exercises its jurisdiction over United States citizens and vessels, and foreign persons and vessels otherwise subject to its jurisdiction, in the exercise of the high seas freedom to engage in exploration for, and commercial recovery of, hard mineral resources of the deep seabed in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law recognized by the United States; but

(2) does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any areas or resources in the deep seabed.

#### (b) Secretary of State

(1) The Secretary of State is encouraged to negotiate successfully a comprehensive Law of the Sea Treaty which, among other things, provides assured and nondiscriminatory access to the hard mineral resources of the deep seabed for all nations, gives legal definition to the principle that the resources of the deep seabed are the common heritage of mankind, and provides for the establishment of requirements for the protection of the quality of the environment as stringent as those promulgated pursuant to this chapter.

(2) Until such a Treaty is concluded, the Secretary of State is encouraged to promote any international actions necessary to adequately protect the environment from adverse impacts which may result from any exploration for and commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed carried out by persons not subject to this chapter.

(Pub. L. 96–283, §3, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 555.)
#### Cregar *vs.*Creamer. Cregar *vs.*Alpaugh.

An injunction issued to restrain defendant from taking advantage at law of a release alleged to have been given at his own solicitation and on what was substantially a promise that he would not seek to take advantage of it, was retained till the hearing, though the defendant had 'answered all the equity of the bill.

The Chancellor.

The case presented by the bill in these suits will, if established, entitle the complainant to the relief he prays. The defendants, Alpaugh and Creamer, against whom the relief is sought, have answered all the equity of the bills filed against them respectively. Notwithstanding that, the injunction should, under the circumstances, be retained until the hearing. According to the bills, the defendants, Alpaugh and Creamer, are seeking to take advantage, at law, of releases which were given at their own solicitation and on what was substantially their promise that they would not seek to take advantage of them. If the bills be true, the right to relief is clear. The motion to dissolve will be denied, but without costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVEN JONES JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 228 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 2412.14 Penalties.

Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from the Authority, the General Counsel, the IG, or the Panel under false pretenses will be subject to criminal prosecution under 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3), which provides that such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.