alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 313.2 Guidance documents; required elements. Each guidance document proposed to be issued by the Agency shall: ( a ) Comply with all relevant statutes and regulation;
( b ) Identify or include for each guidance document: ( 1 ) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;
( 2 ) A unique identifier;
( 3 ) The issuance date, posting date, and the issuing office within the Agency;
( 4 ) The activity or entities to which the guidance applies;
( 5 ) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
( 6 ) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
( 7 ) A summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document.
( c ) Avoid use of mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the language is describing an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to Agency's staff and will not foreclose the Agency's consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties;
( d ) Be written in plain, understandable English; and
( e ) Clearly and prominently state that the contents of the document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Agency policies.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.81 Ineligible for citizenship.

An alien will be ineligible to receive an immigrant visa under INA 212(a)(8)(A) if the alien is ineligible for citizenship, including as provided in INA 314 or 315.

[64 FR 55418, Oct. 13, 1999]
### §§247b–4b to 247b–4d. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–416, §3(b)(1)–(3), Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2829

Section 247b–4b, Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title I, §102, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1107, related to developmental disabilities surveillance and research programs.

Section 247b–4c, Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title I, §103, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1108, related to information and education.

Section 247b–4d, Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title I, §104, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1109, related to Inter-agency Autism Coordinating Committee.
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





Date of report (Date of earliest event reported:  March 1, 2010





COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





INDIANA

1-7160

35-1101097(State or other jurisdiction

(Commission File Number)

(I.R.S. Employerof incorporation or organization)



Identification No.)2831 Dexter Drive, Elkhart, Indiana



46514(Address of Principal Executive Offices)



(Zip Code)(574) 266-2500(Registrant’s telephone number,including area code)N / A(Former Name or Former Address,if Changed Since Last Report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





□
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)□
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)□
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))□
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








ITEM 1.01                      ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT





On March 1, 2010, All American Building Systems, LLC, a subsidiary of Coachmen Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a contract with a private developer for the construction of two modular apartment buildings in Dubuque, Iowa.  This contract is for the first phase of a housing project that the Company anticipates
will involve the construction of 12 apartment buildings containing a total of 216 dwelling units, with a total project price of approximately $13 million.  The contract price for the design, construction, delivery, and finish of the two apartment buildings currently under contract with the Company is approximately $2.4 million, and work on these buildings is to begin immediately.  The Company anticipates that the bulk of the revenue for these two apartment buildings will be recognized in the
second quarter of 2010.



















SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC.








Date:
March 2, 2010

By:
/s/ James T. HoldenJames T. Holden, SecretaryPrinted Name and Title
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




INVESCO LTD.




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

2010 GLOBAL EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (ST)




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the 2010 Global Equity Incentive Plan (ST),
effective May 18, 2010 (the “ST GEIP”) is adopted by Invesco Ltd. (the “Company”)
pursuant to resolutions approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company (the “Committee”) on July 30, 2010, and shall be effective as of July 30, 2010.



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, the Company maintains the ST GEIP, and such plan is currently in effect; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12 of the ST GEIP, the Committee has the power and authority to
amend the ST GEIP;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the ST GEIP is hereby amended as set forth below:




     1. There shall be inserted in the text of the ST GEIP the Annex A set forth
on Exhibit A to this Amendment.




     2. Except as specifically provided in this Amendment, the ST GEIP shall remain in
full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the 2010 Global Equity
Incentive Plan (ST) to be effective as of the date set forth hereinabove.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Invesco Ltd.


 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Robert H. Rigsby 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Assistant Secretary 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT A




“ANNEX A




SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO

AUSTRALIAN PARTICIPANTS





			
	1	 	Application







This Annex A applies to Awards granted to Participants who are Australian residents for the
purposes of Australian income tax laws at the time of grant.




			
	2	 	Operative provisions






Notwithstanding anything in the Plan and in the Award Agreement to the contrary:




	 	(a)	 	the Committee has no power to accelerate vesting of the Restricted Stock
Units granted to Participants in the first 12 months of the relevant Award;
	 
	 	(b)	 	no Restricted Stock Units shall vest automatically upon a Participant’s
Termination of Service due to Retirement; and
	 
	 	(c)	 	a Termination of Service will be deemed to have occurred where a recipient
ceases employment with their employer, a holding company of their employer, a
subsidiary of their employer or a subsidiary of a holding company for the purposes of
Subdivision 83A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth).”
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Diane Mitchell [greatlakeplace@gmail.com] 

Thursday, November 03, 2011 3:48 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

airline service 

It only makes sense to negotiate to keep Delta Airlines in Alpena. 

Hiring a consultant(Alpena News article today) makes sense also. 

It does not make sense to fly to Cleveland knowing that you have at least 2 more connections. 

It also makes sense to many people to drive to Saginaw or Detroit if we do not have a connection from Alpena 

to Detroit. 

It makes perfect sense that Alpena needs a viable airline service for our businesses, residents, organizations, 

travel agencies, and the outlying communities. 

It also makes sense that DOT, Alpena Chamber, travel agencies, City of Alpena, and any one else help Alpena 

County fund the hiring of this consultant. 

We have used the Alpena County Airport many times and hope to in the future. Thank you for all of your hard 

work concerning this matter. 

Karl and Diane Mitchell 

1
### §§300ff–35, 300ff–36. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–345, title II, §211(2), Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1339

Section 300ff–35, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2627, as added Pub. L. 104–146, §7(b)(3), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1371, related to testing of pregnant women and newborn infants for HIV disease.

Section 300ff–36, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2628, as added Pub. L. 104–146, §7(b)(3), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1372, related to report to Congress by Institute of Medicine.
#### § 215.6 Special procedures: Medical records.

If the Assistant Director for Administration or the Privacy Liaison Officer, determines that the release directly to the individual of medical records maintained by the Agency could have an adverse effect upon such individual, the Director/Officer will attempt to arrange an alternative acceptable to both the individual and Agency (such as the release of said information to a doctor named by the individual) in granting access to such record.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.81 Rights of USAID against borrower/grantees.

If any transaction financed hereunder violates the requirements of this part or any U.S. statute or any rule or regulation of USAID promulgated under any such statute, USAID may require the borrower/grantee to refund the amounts USAID determines are attributable to such violation and may exercise any right of acceleration or termination contained in the implementing document. The borrower/grantee shall be deemed to have agreed to make such refund or accelerated payment promptly upon request by USAID and shall be deemed to have consented to any modification of the implementing document determined by USAID to be necessary to reflect any such refund or acceleration.
#### Maria Petra Vazquez MOLINA; Alonso Cardoza Vazquez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72350.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 16, 2007.

Maria Petra Vazquez Molina, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Alonso Cardoza Vazquez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Petra Vazquez Molina and her minor son, Alonso Cardoza Vazquez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily af*558firming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s physical presence determination for substantial evidence, *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004), and review constitutional challenges de novo, *Munoz v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish their continuous physical presence in the United States between July 1992 and 1995. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (stating that an applicant for cancellation of removal fails to maintain continuous physical presence if she “has departed from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days.”). The immunization records for both of Vazquez Molina’s children indicate that they were in Mexico rather than the United States between 1992 and 1995, and Vazquez Molina does not claim that she was separated from her children during this period.

Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s summary affirmance procedure is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners’ remaining contentions are also without merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-17-0024:  Annual Review of the Lessons-Learned Program

Accession Number: ML16231A306

Date Released: Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16231A323 - SECY-17-0024:  Annual Report on the Lessons-Learned Program (5 page(s), 2/17/2017)
    - ML16231A320 - SECY-17-0024:  Enclosure 1 - Potential Lessons-Learned Items Presented to the Lessons-Learned Oversight Board October 2015 - September 2016 (1 page(s), 2/17/2017)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Uninstalling the Conversion Tool

This guide will discuss how to uninstall the EMTS Conversion Tool (ECT). If a version of the Conversion 

Tool is already installed, the user must uninstall the existing version of the Tool before installing a new 

version. 

Prior to installing the new version it is recommended that the user save a backup of the current version. If 

the ECT fails to completely uninstall, the new install will fail. Reinstalling the saved version, and then 

uninstalling again, will often fix this. 

Please note that the user must completely exit the ECT application before attempting to uninstall the tool. 

If the user has not completely exited the tool (i.e., if there are still processing screens up), the tool will not 

completely uninstall even though the tool no longer appears in the "Add or Remove Programs" panel. In 

order to correct this, the user must re-install the version that was being used and uninstall it properly, as 

noted in the previous paragraph.

Uninstalling the ECT

To begin uninstalling an existing version of the ECT, the user should access the "My Computer" link 

available on the Start Menu (see Figure 1). 

EPA-420-b-10-012b 

 May 2010
2 

Figure 1: "My Computer" link 

From "My Computer," the user should look under the "System Tasks" tab on the left side of the window and 

select "Add or remove programs" (see Figure 2). 
3 

Figure 2: "My Computer" Location
4 

On the "Add or Remove Programs" window shown in Figure 3, the user should click on the record for the 

EMTS Conversion Tool (ECT) and then press the "Change/Remove" button within the record. 

Figure 3: "Add or Remove Programs" Window
5 

The resulting screen (see Figure 4) prompts the user to "remove the application from this computer" by 

clicking "OK." Doing so successfully uninstalls the EMTS Conversion Tool. 

Figure 4: "EMTS Conversion Tool (ECT) Maintenance" Window

Note that uninstalling the ECT will not remove the "WRITE" folder or its contents, located by default at:

C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\My Documents\EMTS Conversion Tool (ECT) 

F

U

o

p

r

 t

 in

he

st

 C

r

on

uct

v

io

er

n

s

s o

ion

n

 T

 ch

ool

an

."

ging the location of the "WRITE" folder, please see the guide "Installing and Setting
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50303

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JIMMY ARREOLA RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:95-CR-64

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Arreola Ramos, federal prisoner # 58020-080, pleaded

guilty and was convicted in 1996 of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to

distribute cocaine. Ramos moves for in forma pauperis (IFP)

status to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for

writ of coram nobis challenging the referenced 1996 conviction. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Ramos is presently incarcerated pursuant

to a sentence on a different, subsequent conviction. Upon

expiration of that sentence, he will begin serving the 12-month
No. 06-50303

-2-

sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release on the

1996 conviction. 

The district court certified that the appeal was not taken

in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Ramos is

challenging the district court’s certification decision. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP.

P. 24(a)(5). However, Ramos has not demonstrated any

nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

A petitioner who is serving two consecutive sentences is “in

custody” for purposes of challenging the second sentence via a

habeas petition while he is serving the first sentence. See

Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,

490-93 (1989); United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 230 n.2 (5th

Cir. 1991) (en banc). Thus, the district court did not err in

concluding that Ramos’s in-custody status made coram nobis

unavailable to him. See United States v. Drobny, 955 F.2d 990,

996 (5th Cir. 1992).

Ramos has failed to establish that he seeks to present a

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, his motion for IFP

is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
§ 35.26 Form, filing and service of papers. ( a ) *Form.* ( 1 ) Documents filed with the ALJ shall include an original and two copies.
( 2 ) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the case number assigned by the ALJ, a designation of the paper (e.g., motion to quash subpoena), and shall be in English or accompanied by an English translation.
( 3 ) Every pleading and paper shall be signed by, and shall contain the address and telephone number of the party or the person on whose behalf the paper was filed, or his or her representative.
( 4 ) Papers are considered filed when they are mailed. Date of mailing may be established by a certificate from the party or its representative or by proof that the document was sent by certified or registered mail.
( b ) *Service.* A party filing a document with the ALJ shall, at the time of filing, serve a copy of such document on every other party. Service upon any party of any document other than the complaint or notice of hearing, shall be made by delivering or mailing a copy to the party's last known address. When a party is represented by a representative, service shall be made upon such representative in lieu of the actual party.
( c ) *Proof of service.* A certificate of the individual serving the document by personal delivery or by mail, setting forth the manner of service, shall be proof of service.
### §16255. Preprocessing and harvesting demonstration grants

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the "Secretary") shall make grants available on a competitive basis to enterprises owned by agricultural producers, for the purposes of demonstrating cost-effective, cellulosic biomass innovations in—

(1) preprocessing of feedstocks, including cleaning, separating and sorting, mixing or blending, and chemical or biochemical treatments, to add value and lower the cost of feedstock processing at a biorefinery; or

(2) 1-pass or other efficient, multiple crop harvesting techniques.

#### (b) Limitations on grants

#### (1) Number of grants

Not more than 5 demonstration projects per fiscal year shall be funded under this section.

#### (2) Non-Federal cost share

The non-Federal cost share of a project under this section shall be not less than 20 percent, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (c) Condition of grant

To be eligible for a grant for a project under this section, a recipient of a grant or a participating entity shall agree to use the material harvested under the project—

(1) to produce ethanol; or

(2) for another energy purpose, such as the generation of heat or electricity.

#### (d) Authorization for appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §946, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 883.)
§ 1506.33 Under what circumstances will USADF compromise a claim? ( a ) USADF may compromise a claim pursuant to this section if the debtor does not have the financial ability to pay the full amount of the debt within a reasonable time, or the debtor refuses to pay the claim in full and the Government does not have the ability to enforce collection in full within a reasonable time by collection proceedings. In evaluating the acceptability of a compromise offer, the CFO may consider, among other factors, the following: ( 1 ) Age and health of the debtor;
( 2 ) Present and potential income;
( 3 ) Inheritance prospects;
( 4 ) The possibility that assets have been concealed or improperly transferred by the debtor;
( 5 ) The availability of assets or income which may be realized by enforced collection proceedings; or
( 6 ) The applicable exemptions available to the debtor under State and Federal law in determining the Government's ability to enforce collection.
( b ) USADF may compromise a claim, or recommend acceptance of a compromise offer to DOJ, if: ( 1 ) There is significant doubt concerning the Government's ability to prove its case in court for the full amount of the claim, either because of the legal issues involved or a bona fide dispute as to the facts; or
( 2 ) The cost of collection does not justify the enforced collection of the full amount of the debt. The amount accepted in compromise in such cases will reflect the costs of collection, the probability of prevailing on the legal issues involved, and the likely amount of court costs and attorney's fees in litigation.
( c ) To assess the merits of a compromise offer, USADF generally will require a current financial statement from the debtor, executed under penalty of perjury, showing the debtor's assets, liabilities, income and expenses.
( d ) Statutory penalties, forfeitures or debt established as an aid to enforcement and compel compliance may be compromised where the CFO determines that the Agency's enforcement policy, in terms of deterrence and securing compliance (both present and future), will be adequately served by accepting the offer.