alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_64.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.6.4

    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

    


    


    AGREED,
      as of the 7th day of June 2007,
      between the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FAMC) and Timothy L.
      Buzby (you), that the existing employment contract between the parties hereto,
      dated as of June 5, 2003, as amended through Amendment No 3. dated as of June
      1,
      2006 (the Agreement), be and hereby is amended as follows:

    


    Sections
      1, 3 (a), and 7 (a) (3) of the
      Agreement are replaced in their entirety with the following new
      sections:

    


    1.                  Term.  The
      Term of this Agreement shall continue until July 1, 2011 or any earlier
      effective date of termination pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof (the
“Term”).

    


    3
      (a).            Base
      Salary.  As of July 1, 2007, you will be paid a base salary
      (the Base Salary) during the Term of Two Hundred Forty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred
      and Twenty-Eight Dollars ($246,928) per year, payable in arrears on a bi-weekly
      basis.

    


    7
      (a)
      (3).       Farmer Mac may terminate your
      employment without “cause” at any time.   Such termination shall
      become effective on the earlier of July 1, 2011, or two years from the date
      of
      notice of such termination.

    


    As
      amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.                                                                                                           


      
      
        	
                Federal
                  Agricultural Mortgage Corporation

              	 	
                Employee

              
	 	 	 	 
	
                By:

              	
                /s/
                  Henry D. Edelman

              	 	
                 /s/
                  Timothy L. Buzby

              
	 	
                President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6071

EARL S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1075-L) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Earl S. Cousins appeals the district court’s order denying his § 2254 petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Cousins v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-1075-L (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eissing Chemical Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to reargue the appeal or for resettlement of the order of reversal denied. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
#### Emil F. Begiebing v. Max Jagerhuber, Impleaded, etc.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### Martin Hourney, an Infant, by Ellen Hourney, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. S. Liebmann's Sons Brewing Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*JOHN K. PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.

Third District

No. 75-433

Opinion filed June 30, 1976.

John K. Payne, of Hartsburg, for appellant, *pro se.*

C. Brett Bode, State’s Attorney, of Pekin, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE BARRY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, John K. Payne, was arrested on July 21, 1975 and charged with a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code, specifically section 12 — 607 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 95?í par. 12 — 607), “Suspension System.” At a bench trial held on October 24,1975 he was found guilty and a judgment of conviction was entered. The court fined defendant $10 and ordered him to pay $5 clerk’s costs and *5 State’s Attorney’s costs. Defendant has timely appealed from the judgment of conviction and is representing himself in this court.

The complaint states that defendant unlawfully operated a motor vehicle (1973 Ford Gran Torino) upon a public highway having a suspension system which caused the rear bumper elevation from the road surface to be 24 inches and the front bumper elevation to be 11 inches in violation of the cited statute. That section of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides:

> “(a) It shall be unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on any highway of this State when the suspension system *has been modified*from the original manufactured design by lifting the body from the chassis in excess of 3 inches or to cause the horizontal line from the front to the rear bumper to vary over 3 inches in height when measured from a level surface of the highway to the lower edge of the bumper.” (Emphasis added.)

*567The basic contention of the defendant in his pro se brief is that his 1973 Ford automobile came factory equipped with a greater than 3 inch front to rear bumper variance and that the statute should not apply to him.

The heart of the violation as set out in section 12 — 607 of the Illinois Vehicle Code is a *modification*of the suspension system that results in the prohibited amount of bumper variance. The statute does not in any way prohibit the manufacture or sale of automobiles with the greater bumper variance; rather, it prohibits any subsequent modification. Defendant does not deny any modification of the vehicle involved, nor does he admit one. From the record before this court we are satisfied that the trial court was fully aware of the wording of section 12 — 607 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 95/2 par. 12 — 607), including the necessity of a modification being present to fall within the prohibition of the statute. We must assume the trial court found a modification from his finding of guilty. The findings of the trial court as the trier of fact are entitled to great weight. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court given its better opportunity to weigh the evidence presented. *People v.*Davis, 14 Ill. 2d 196, 151 N.E.2d 308 (1958); *People v. Johnson,*22 Ill. App. 3d 821, 317 N.E.2d 581 (1974).

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

STOUDER, P. J., and STENGEL, J., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL SENIOR SERVICE CORPS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 111–13, title II, §2141, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1584, substituted "SERVICE" for "VOLUNTEER" in heading.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALBERTO R. ALGABA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1302

[ July 16, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest Koll r a , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 12

- 13378CF10A

.

Alberto R. Algaba, Milton, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, J J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No: 14-082 November 19, 2014

CONTACT: Dave McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Completes Safety Review of Proposed New Reactor

At Fermi Site In Michigan

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its Final Safety Evaluation Report for 

a Combined License (COL) for the proposed Fermi Unit 3 reactor. The report concludes there are no 

safety aspects that would preclude issuing the license for construction and operation of the proposed 

reactor at the site, near Newport, Mich.

The staff will provide the report and Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Fermi 

application to the Commission for the mandatory hearing phase of the licensing process. In the 

mandatory hearing, expected to take place early next year, the Commission will determine whether the 

staff’s review supports the findings necessary to issue a license. Following the mandatory hearing, the 

Commission will vote on whether to authorize the staff to issue the license.

Detroit Edison submitted its COL application for Fermi on Sept. 18, 2008, for permission to 

build and operate an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) at the site. The proposed 

reactor is adjacent to the company’s existing reactor. The NRC certified the 1,600-megawatt ESBWR 

design following a Commission vote earlier this year. More information on the ESBWR certification 

process is available on the NRC website. 

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards independently reviewed those aspects 

of the Fermi application that concern safety. The committee provided the results of its review to the 

Commission on Sept. 22, 2014. The NRC completed its environmental review and issued the final 

impact statement for the proposed Fermi reactor in January 2013.
#### § 1305.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this rule is to ban artificial emberizing materials containing respirable free-form asbestos. These products present an unreasonable risk of injury due to inhalation of fibers which increase the risk of developing cancers such as lung cancer and mesothelioma, diseases which have been demonstrated to be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.
No. IV-16-004 March 4, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC to Hold Open House on March 17 for Columbia Generating Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public open house on March 17, in Richland, 

Wash., to discuss the agency’s annual review of safety performance at the Columbia Generating Station 

nuclear power plant. The plant is operated by Energy Northwest. 

NRC staff will be on hand from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Richland Public Library, Conference Room B, 

955 Northgate Drive in Richland. While there are no formal presentations during the open house, the 

public will have an opportunity to ask about NRC’s assessment of the plant’s performance in 2015 and 

the agency’s oversight plans for 2016. Among the NRC staff in attendance will be the Resident 

Inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis. 

NRC assesses plant performance through the use of inspection findings and other indicators that 

can trigger additional oversight if needed. Overall, the plant operated safely in 2015 and the plant is 

currently under the NRC’s normal level of oversight. 

“By assessing each plant’s performance in a comprehensive manner, we are able to focus our 

inspection resources on those areas most in need of attention,” NRC Region IV Administrator 

Marc Dapas said. “Because Columbia Generating Station did not have any safety or security issues 

above very low significance in 2015, we are not currently planning any inspections above and beyond 

our normal reviews.” 

The NRC’s normal level of oversight at each U.S. nuclear power plant involves thousands of 

hours of inspection. In 2015, the agency devoted about 6,000 hours of inspection and review at 

Columbia.

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2015. Current performance information for the plant can be found on the NRC website.
No: II-14-008 March 7, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Open House On March 20 To Discuss Safety Performance For Dominion’s

North Anna Nuclear Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for Thursday, March 20, to 

discuss the agency’s inspections and assessment of the North Anna nuclear power plant during 2013. The 

North Anna plant, operated by Dominion, is located near Mineral, Va., about 40 miles northwest of Richmond. 

The NRC open house is scheduled to run from 5 to 7 p.m. in the Louisa County Administration 

Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., in Louisa. The NRC staff, including the onsite resident inspectors, will be available 

to answer questions about the safety performance of the North Anna plant as well as overall NRC oversight 

and inspection. 

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that both units at the North Anna plant operated safely in 2013. There 

were no additional inspection findings or performance indicators that would cause the NRC to increase its level 

of oversight and inspection. During 2014, the NRC staff will continue the detailed routine inspections at North 

Anna that all nuclear power plants receive.

In addition to those inspections, the NRC staff also plans to conduct an initial exam for operators and 

an audit of the plant’s efforts in complying with an order related to mitigation strategies for external events. 

Inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialized 

inspectors from the Region II office in Atlanta. 

“Our resident and region-based inspectors spend many hours monitoring plant activities to ensure that 

the plant operates safely,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We hold these meetings every 

year to make our staff available to people who live close to the plant and answer questions about our 

oversight.”

Inspection findings and performance indicators for North Anna and other nuclear plants are updated on 

the NRC website each quarter. 

The annual assessment letter for North Anna is available on the NRC website or can be obtained by 

contacting the Region II Office of Public Affairs with the information above. 

Current performance information for North Anna Unit 1 and North Anna Unit 2 is also available on the 

NRC website.
### §13013. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13013 was editorially reclassified as section 20323 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Miguel Quinones, as Administrator of the Estate of Eladio Quinones, Deceased, Respondent, v. Third Avenue Transit Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
No: IV-13-005 March 31, 2014

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 100-1519

NRC Issues White Finding to Waterford 3 Nuclear Power Plant

The Waterford 3 nuclear power plant will receive additional oversight from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission based on an inspection finding of low to moderate safety significance for 

failing to ensure the operability of an exhaust fan in a room housing the plant’s emergency diesel 

generators. The plant, located in Killona, La., is operated by Entergy Operations, Inc.

The violation involved a failure by the licensee to establish an adequate test program to 

demonstrate that a safety-related component would perform satisfactorily in service. Entergy officials 

did not conduct adequate testing to demonstrate that an exhaust fan in a room housing one of the plant’s 

emergency diesel generators would function properly. 

The fan is necessary to keep the diesels, which supply emergency electrical power to safetyrelated equipment under some emergency conditions, from overheating. The licensee has taken 

corrective action to ensure the fan will function as intended. Had one of the plant’s emergency diesel 

generators failed, other means existed to provide emergency electrical power to vital plant equipment.

“While the licensee’s failure to appropriately test the equipment in this instance did not have an 

impact on public safety, we expect licensees to demonstrate through proper testing the reliability of 

safety equipment to ensure the plant can adequately respond to an event,” Region IV Administrator 

Marc L. Dapas said.

The NRC staff issued a preliminary finding in an inspection report issued on Jan 30. The 

licensee declined the opportunity for a regulatory conference.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color 

coded process that classifies findings as green, white, yellow or red, in order of increasing safety 

significance.

The issuance of the white finding will result in the plant moving from the Licensee Response 

Column of the agency’s Action Matrix to the Regulatory Response Column. This will result in 

increased inspections and regulatory oversight until the agency is satisfied the relevant issues have been 

properly evaluated and satisfactory corrective actions have been developed and implemented.
#### Edwin R. La Vin, Respondent, v. Russell C. La Vin et al., Defendants, and Sanford Hotel Corp., Appellant.

No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p. 598.]
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.510 Access by historical researchers. ( a ) Persons outside the executive branch performing historical research may have access to information over which the Commission has classification jurisdiction for the period requested (but not longer than 2 years unless renewed for an additional period of less than 2 years) if the Chief Operating Officer determines in writing that access to the information will be consistent with the interests of national security.
( b ) The person seeking access to classified information must agree in writing: ( 1 ) To be subject to a national agency check;
( 2 ) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12356; and
( 3 ) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.
[44 FR 65737, Nov. 15, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 47237, Oct. 25, 1982; 51 FR 5315, Feb. 13, 1986]
### §10169. Financial assistance

The provisions of section 10136(c) or 10138(b) of this title with respect to grants, technical assistance, and other financial assistance shall apply to the State, to affected Indian tribes and to affected units of local government in the case of a monitored retrievable storage facility in the same manner as for a repository.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, §149, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III, §300], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5021, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–236.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
§ 300.22 Sectional disclosure of content. ( a ) *Permissive.* Where a wool product is composed of two or more sections which are of different fiber composition, the required information as to fiber content may be separated on the same label in such manner as to show the fiber composition of each section.
( b ) *Mandatory.* The disclosure as above provided shall be made in all instances where such form of marking is necessary to avoid deception.
[29 FR 6626, May 21, 1964. Redesignated at 63 FR 7517, Feb. 13, 1998]
#### § 502.1 Scope of the regulations in this part.

The regulations in this part establish requirements for labeling of consumer commodities with respect to use of package size characterizations, retail sale price representations, and common name and ingredient listing. Additionally, the regulations in this part establish criteria to prevent nonfunctional-slack-fill of packages containing consumer commodities.
###### Editorial Note on Part 140

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 140 appear at 89 FR 71813, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### § 140.80 Disclosure of information pursuant to a subpoena or summons.

The Commission shall provide notice to any person who has submitted information to the Commission when a summons or subpoena seeking the submitted information is received by the Commission. Notice ordinarily will be provided by mailing a copy of the summons or subpoena to the last known home or business address of the person who submitted the information. However, under circumstances which would make notice by mail unduly burdensome or costly, notice of the existence of the summons or subpoena may be affected by alternative means such as publication in the Federal Register. The Commission will not disclose such information until the expiration of at least fourteen days from the date of mailing, or such other notice as is given. This section shall not apply to (a) Congressional subpoenas or Congressional requests for information, (b) information which is considered by the Commission to be public information, or (c) information as to which the submitter has waived the notice provision of this section.

[49 FR 4464, Feb. 7, 1984]
#### § 10.105 Review by Commission on its own initiative.

The Commission may on its own initiative, within 30 days after the initial decision has been served on all parties, direct review of any initial decision of an Administrative Law Judge. The Commission shall determine the scope of the review and the issues which will be considered and make provisions for the filing of briefs and oral argument, if deemed appropriate by the Commission. Notice that the Commission has directed review on its own initiative shall be served on all parties by the Proceedings Clerk.

[41 FR 2511, Jan. 16, 1976, as amended at 60 FR 54802, Oct. 26, 1995]
#### § 5.1 Cross-reference to executive branch-wide regulations.

Commissioners and employees, including special government employees, of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are subject to and should refer to the “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” at 5 CFR part 2635 (“executive branch-wide Standards of Conduct”) and to the FTC regulations at 5 CFR 5701 that supplement the executive branch-wide Standards of Conduct.

[58 FR 15764, Mar. 24, 1993, as amended at 64 FR 42594, Aug. 5, 1999]
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property within the Block Bounded by Jaffray and Other Streets, Duly Selected as a Site for School Purposes, in the Borough of Brooklyn. Celia Rosenthal et al., Appellants.

Appeal by claimant from a final decree in a condemnation proceeding. Decree affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Johnston and Wenzel, JJ., *1019dissent, with the following memorandum: A comparison of the basic figures and ■the award made on Parcels 1 and 2, with those on Parcel 3, clearly indicates that no allowance was made for the improvements on the first two parcels, which were of substantial nature and were disclosed by the evidence to have been of more than nominal value. The decree should be remitted to Special Term for modification by fixing the value of the improvements.