alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7514a. Attainment dates

#### (a) Plans under section 7514(a)

Implementation plans required under section 7514(a) of this title shall provide for attainment of the relevant primary standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years from the date of the nonattainment designation.

#### (b) Plans under section 7514(b)

Implementation plans required under section 7514(b) of this title shall provide for attainment of the relevant primary national ambient air quality standard within 5 years after November 15, 1990.

#### (c) Inadequate plans

Implementation plans for nonattainment areas for sulfur oxides or nitrogen dioxide with plans that were approved by the Administrator before November 15, 1990, but, subsequent to such approval, were found by the Administrator to be substantially inadequate, shall provide for attainment of the relevant primary standard within 5 years from the date of such finding.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §192, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title I, §106, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2463.)
Terms and Conditions of Restricted Stock Issued as a Payout Under the LTI Plan



  
 Exhibit 10(i)

 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED STOCK 
 ISSUED AS A PAYOUT UNDER THE 
 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 

Pursuant to the 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”), the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) of Parker-Hannifin Corporation (“Company”) approved the payout of your Long Term Incentive Award (“LTI Award”) in the form of restricted shares of Parker-Hannifin Corporation common stock (“Restricted
Shares”), subject to the following terms and conditions: 
  

	1.	Restrictions on the Restricted Shares will lapse on the third anniversary of issuance (the “Lapse Date”). Prior to the Lapse Date, the Restricted Shares
cannot be sold or otherwise transferred or assigned. 

  

	 	a.	Restrictions lapse immediately in the event of your death or disability. 

  

	 	b.	Restrictions lapse immediately in the event of your retirement at or after age 60 (or sooner with the consent of the Committee). 


 

	 	c.	The Restricted Shares are forfeited in the event of the voluntary or involuntary termination of your employment (except due to retirement (as specified in
(b) above) death, or disability). 

  

	2.	Restrictions lapse immediately in the event of a “change in control” of the Company (as defined in the Plan and subject to the requirements of
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code). 

  

	3.	Prior to the Lapse Date the Restricted Shares will be issued in an uncertificated book entry format at the transfer agent. After the restrictions lapse, the
unrestricted shares will be electronically transferred to your stock benefit plan account with the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan Administrator (currently UBS Financial Services Inc.). 


 

	4.	Restricted Shares will earn non-refundable dividends prior to the Lapse Date, payable directly to you. 


 

	5.	The value of the Restricted Shares will become taxable to you on the earlier of the Lapse Date or upon attaining age 60, whichever occurs first. You are obligated to
immediately pay any tax withholding obligation payable by the company at that time, if any. At your election, you may surrender a portion of the Restricted Shares to satisfy your tax withholding obligation. 


NOTE: If you were already age 60 on the date the Restricted Shares were issued, the value of the Restricted Shares became taxable
to you on the issue date and, at your election, you have surrendered a portion of the Restricted Shares to satisfy your tax withholding obligation. 
  

	6.	To the extent not otherwise specified above, the Restricted Shares issued to you are subject to the terms and conditions of the LTI Award and the Plan.



  
 1
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

FURTHER ORDER SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

An order on May 20, 2010 (Dkt. No. 665), denied the parties’ motion to extend the filing

dates for motions for attorney’s fees and costs in this matter from May 24, 2010, to June 14, 2010. 

That order is hereby VACATED and the briefing schedule for motions for attorney’s fees modified

as follows. The briefing with respect to the Section 301 injunction issue has not yet been

completed. No later than SEVEN DAYS after the order deciding the Section 301 injunction issue,

each side may submit a single motion for attorney’s fees of no more than 25 pages. These

motions should be limited to the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees, not the amount of fees

sought, and should address the entire case. The motions for entitlement to attorney’s fees shall be

heard on a normal 35-day calendar. If it is subsequently determined that any side is entitled to 

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 666 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

attorney’s fees, a schedule shall be set for further briefing regarding the amount of fees due. The

previously existing schedule for briefing on entitlement to costs is unmodified by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 666 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2
### §5779. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5779 was editorially reclassified as section 41307 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
exv10w9






Exhibit 10.9




Time Warner Inc.




Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units to Non-Employee Director



                      TIME WARNER INC. (the “Company”),
pursuant to the Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”), hereby grants (the “Award”) to the undersigned Participant the following restricted
stock units (the “RSUs”), subject to the terms and conditions of this Notice, the Restricted Stock
Units Agreement, Directors Version 1 (10RUDIR), and the Plan. Each RSU represents the unfunded,
unsecured right of the Participant to receive a Share on the date(s) specified herein. The Plan and
the Restricted Stock Units Agreement, both of which are incorporated into and made a part of this
Notice, can be accessed and printed through Fidelity’s Netbenefits.com website (Plan Information &
Documents).




	 	1.	 	Name:               
               
               
               
               ID:
	 
	 	2.	 	Grant Information for this Award:

Restricted Stock Unit Grant Number:

Date of Grant:

Total Number of Restricted Stock Units Granted:
	 
	 	3.	 	The vesting date shall be:
	 
	 	 	 	The Vesting Date shall be in the first year following the Date of Grant on the
first day of the month in which the Date of Grant occurred. 100% of the number of
the Total Number of Restricted Stock Units Granted will vest on the Vesting Date.
	 
	 	 	 	The Restricted Stock Units will vest earlier than the Vesting Date in connection with
certain terminations of service as a director of the Company, as provided in the
Restricted Stock Units Agreement and Plan; and the Restricted Stock Units will be
canceled and forfeited upon certain terminations of service as a director of the
Company, as provided in the Restricted Stock Units Agreement and Plan.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Advanced Optics  Electronics,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John Cousins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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/ John Cousins
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         August 21, 2006



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                         EXHIBIT 31.1 CEO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2005

By:  /s/ R. Greg Smith
     -----------------------------
     R. Greg Smith
     Chief Executive Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       22
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1,2019 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2019-C, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale andServicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant toSection 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’sactivities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2021 and of its performance under the Sale and ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2021.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasduly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2022.

 

 

 

March 30, 2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Esteban Torres, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on August 12, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel *739to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d *833). No*opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Erminia Ragusa, Respondent, v Morelli & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 10, 1976, which affirmed the referee’s award of death benefits to the widow of the deceased employee. The board found that "based upon the credible medical evidence, particularly the testimony of Dr. Albert, the claimant’s death due to cerebral thrombosis was the result of his original causally related anterior wall infarction.” There is substantial evidence to support this determination. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8392]

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice Closed 
Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on August 27--28, 2013. 
Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it 
has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The 
meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and 
procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and 
proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, 
and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and 
procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a 
strategic planning session, and other matters relating to private 
sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of 
U.S. business information overseas.
    For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: 571-345-2214.

Gregory B. Starr,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-18018 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
#### In the Matter of Jeanne H. Hopkins v. John R. Hopkins. McAloon & Hirschberg et al., Appellants; United States of America et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before February 2, 1961, with notice of argument for February 14, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE BRYANT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SERVICE CORPORATION

INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01190 SI

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

SANCTIONS, SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A STAY

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for protective order and sanctions and a motion to stay

proceedings in this case. The motions were filed as a result of defense counsel’s ex parte contact

with members of the plaintiff class in Stickle v. SCI Western Market Support Center, L.P., No. 08-

083 (D. Ariz.), the FLSA counterpart to this action. Plaintiffs have filed identical motions in Stickle. 

The district court in that case has denied the stay motion and set the sanctions motion for oral

argument on April 5, 2010. While Stickle has been certified as an FLSA collective action, the

present matter is proceeding on an individual basis, and the two Stickle class members with whom

defense counsel communicated are not plaintiffs in the present action. Accordingly, the Court

wishes to defer ruling on plaintiffs’ sanctions motion until the District of Arizona has had a chance

to do so. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is therefore continued to Friday, April

23, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. (Docket No. 249). The parties are directed to appear for a status conference

at 3:00 p.m. the same day. The parties should be prepared to discuss the current status of these

proceedings at the conference.

Plaintiffs seek a stay of proceedings pending the Court’s resolution of the sanctions motion. 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 269 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As defendants point out, no “proceedings” are currently ongoing in this case other than discovery. 

Plaintiffs assert that they will be prejudiced if discovery is not stayed because they “would be forced

to make a choice as to whether to confer with defense counsel whois subject to disqualification or

not to confer with defense counsel and thereby prejudice their ability to obtain complete and

adequate discovery responses from defendants.” Reply at 1-2. In the Court’s view, plaintiffs have

not presented a persuasive justification for staying discovery or any other proceedings in this case. 

Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay is therefore DENIED. (Docket No. 254).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 269 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 50.5 Application for registration of birth abroad. Upon application by the parent(s) or the child's legal guardian, a consular officer or designated nationality examiner may accept and adjudicate the application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America for a child born in their consular district. In specific instances, the Department may authorize consular officers and other designated employees to adjudicate the application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a child born outside his/her consular district. Under the supervision of a consular officer, designated nationality examiners shall accept, adjudicate, disapprove and provisionally approve applications for the Consular Report of Birth Abroad. The applicant shall be required to submit proof of the child's birth, identity and citizenship meeting the evidence requirements of subpart C of part 51 of this subchapter and shall include: ( a ) *Proof of child's birth.* Proof of child's birth usually consists of, but is not limited to, an authentic copy of the record of the birth filed with local authorities, a baptismal certificate, a military hospital certificate of birth, or an affidavit of the doctor or the person attending the birth. If no proof of birth is available, the person seeking to register the birth shall submit his affidavit explaining why such proof is not available and setting forth the facts relating to the birth.
( b ) *Proof of child's citizenship.* Evidence of parent's citizenship and, if pertinent, evidence of parent's physical presence in the United States as required for transmittal of claim of citizenship by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 shall be submitted.
[31 FR 13537, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended at 61 FR 43312, Aug. 22, 1996]
#### Mandel’s Interior Decorators, Inc., Respondent, v. Reliance Insurance Company, Appellant.

Motion by defendant-appellant for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term, granted. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.