alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  Subsidiary                                                                                     |   |  Jurisdiction |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| Synutra, Inc.                                                                                        |   | Illinois           |
| Shengyuan Nutritional Food Co., Ltd.                                                                 |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Mingshan Dairy Co., Ltd., previously known as Luobei Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.          |   | China              |
| Zhangjiakou Chahaer Dairy Co., Ltd., previously known as Zhangjiakou Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.  |   | China              |
| Inner Mongolia Huiliduo Food Co., Ltd., previously known as Inner Mongolia Shengyuan Food Co., Ltd.  |   | China              |
| Meitek Technology (Qingdao) Co., Ltd.                                                                |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Baoquanling Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.                                                   |   | China              |
| Inner Mongolia Mengyuan Food Co., Ltd.                                                               |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Baoquanling Shengyuan Dairy Cow Breeding Co., Ltd.                                      |   | China              |
| Beijing Shengyuan Huiliduo Food Technology Co., Ltd.                                                 |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Longshan Dairy Co., Ltd., previously know as Harbin Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.           |   | China              |
| Unisono B.V.                                                                                         |   | Netherlands        |
| Synutra International Company Limited                                                                |   | BVI                |
| Synutra International (HK) Company Limited                                                           |   | Hong Kong          |
| Beijing Shengyuan Meitek Technology Development Co., Ltd.                                            |   | China              |
| Global Food Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.                                                             |   | China              |
| Qingdao Shengyuan Nutritional Beverage Co., Ltd.                                                     |   | China              |

|  VIE/Subsidiary                                         |   |  Jurisdiction |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| Beijing Shengyuan Huimin Technology Service Co., Ltd.        |   | China              |
| Nanjing Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd.      |   | China              |
| Taiyuan Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd.      |   | China              |
| Shijiazhuang Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd. |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd. |   | China              |

----
#### § 903.25 How does HUD ensure PHA compliance with its plan?

A PHA must comply with the rules, standards and policies established in the plans. To ensure that a PHA is in compliance with all policies, rules, and standards adopted in the plan approved by HUD, HUD shall, as it deems appropriate, respond to any complaint concerning PHA noncompliance with its plan. If HUD should determine that a PHA is not in compliance with its plan, HUD will take whatever action it deems necessary and appropriate.
, 

### , 

# .. SERVED APRIL 15,2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### u:'PT**O~TR:',\:~;PORTATION r:.~·:** **'>.,~**TS OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.**'~.~--)** 

### !: 22

IN THE MATTER OF

CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT Respondent.

DOCKETNO. CP09NEOOOl

(Civil Penalty Proceeding)

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0977

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER SETTING

DEADLINE FOR REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Counsel for the Complainant has sent me a copy ofa motion to compel the Respondent to answer interrogatories and requests for the production ofdocuments, which he says was submitted on March 30, 2010. Itwas notreceived inthe office ofhearings, nor does it appear on www.regulations.gov as a document filed with the docketing office. In light ofthe foregoing, I am issuing this order to make it clearthat the Respondent must reply to the motion not laterthan April 26, 2010.
If, by that date, the Respondent has not supplied in good faith the material sought by the Complainant's discovery requests or demonstrated that some or all ofthose requests are not well-taken, I will have no choice exc,?pt to grant Complainant's motion and impose sanctions upon the City.

In its motion papers, the Federal Aviation Administration has complained about the lack ofresponse by counsel for the Respondent to communications about the possibility ofsettlement. The failure orrefusal ofcounsel to show one another the courtesy ofa prompt reply to such communications is not looked upon with great favor by the undersigned.



### 2

# ~)?tJ:- Isaac D. Benkin Administrative law Judge 

# .'"

SERVICE LIST FAADocketNo. CP09NEOOOI (Civil Penalty Action)

ORIGINAL & ONE COpy

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1

Honorable Bill Finch, Mayor City ofBridgeport, Respondent City Hall Annex 999 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT06604

Mark T. Anastasi, Respondent's Counsel City Attorney, City ofBridgeport 999 Broad Street 2nd Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604-4328 TEL: 203-576-8082 FAX: 203-576-8252

John R. Donnelly, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANE-7 New England Region Federal Aviation Administration 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803-5299 TEL: 781-238-7043 FAX: 781-238-7055 ONE COpy

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Ruberto, Appellant.

Motion to dispense with the printing of the record on appeal granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on printed briefs. Motion to enlarge time granted; appellant to perfect the appeal for the January 1961 Term, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### § 971.11 HOPE VI developments.

Developments with HOPE VI implementation grants that have approved HOPE VI revitalization plans will be treated as having shown the ability to achieve long-term viability with reasonable revitalization plans. Future HUD actions to approve or deny proposed HOPE VI implementation grant revitalization plans will be taken with consideration of the standards for section 202. Developments with HOPE VI planning or implementation grants, but without approved HOPE VI revitalization plans, are fully subject to section 202 standards and requirements.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 184]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ184.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 612]]

Public Law 110-184
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  427 North Street in Taft, California, as the ``Larry S. Pierce Post 
             Office''. <<NOTE: Feb. 6, 2008 -  [S. 2110]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LARRY S. PIERCE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 427 North Street in Taft, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Larry S. Pierce Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry S. 
Pierce Post Office''.

    Approved February 6, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2110:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 153 (2007):
                                    Nov. 16, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 154 (2008):
                                    Jan. 28, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
§ 902.71 Incentives for high performers. ( a ) *Incentives for high performer PHAs.* A PHA that is designated a high performer will be eligible for the following incentives, and such other incentives that HUD may determine appropriate and permissible under program statutes or regulations. ( 1 ) *Relief from specific HUD requirements.* A PHA that is designated a high performer will be relieved of specific HUD requirements (*e.g.,* will receive fewer reviews and less monitoring), effective upon notification of a high performer designation.
( 2 ) *Public recognition.* High performer PHAs and RMCs that receive a score of at least 60 percent of the points available for the physical condition, financial condition, and management operations indicators, and at least 50 percent of the points available for the Capital Fund indicator, and achieve an overall PHAS score of 90 percent or greater of the total available points under PHAS shall be designated a high performer and will receive a Certificate of Commendation from HUD, as well as special public recognition, as provided by the field office.
( 3 ) *Bonus points in funding competitions.* A high performer PHA may be eligible for bonus points in HUD's funding competitions, where such bonus points are not restricted by statute or regulation governing the funding program and are provided in the relevant notice of funding availability.
( b ) *Compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations.* Relief from any standard procedural requirement that may be provided under this section does not mean that a PHA is relieved from compliance with the provisions of federal law and regulations or other handbook requirements. For example, although a high performer or standard performer may be relieved of requirements for prior HUD approval for certain types of contracts for services, the PHA must still comply with all other federal and state requirements that remain in effect, such as those for competitive bidding or competitive negotiation (see 2 CFR 200.319, as applicable).
( c ) *Audits and reviews not relieved by designation.* A PHA designated as a high performer or standard performer remains subject to: ( 1 ) Regular independent auditor audits;
( 2 ) Office of Inspector General audits or investigations as circumstances may warrant; and
( 3 ) Reviews identified by the regional or field office in its current Risk Assessment of PHAs and projects.
[76 FR 10149, Feb. 23, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 75942, Dec. 7, 2015]
### §8285. Purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter to encourage the training and certification of individuals to conduct energy audits for residential and commercial buildings in order to serve the various private and public needs of the Nation for energy audits.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §581, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 760.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Security Act, and not as part of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act which comprises this chapter.
**Exhibit23.2**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123487)pertaining to the 2005 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan of Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.of our report dated February 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Bonita Bay Holdings, Inc., included in this Form10K/A.

 
|               | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|               |
| Tampa, Florida     |
| June 24, 2005 |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128583 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128583 

 COA: 261421 

Wayne CC: 88-004878-01

ADRIAN CARLTON HAMILTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 98-CT-00417-SCT** 

**NEW BELLUM HOMES, INC. v.** 

**KEITH AND BILLIE JEAN GIFFIN**

**McRAE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:** This writer must respond to the personal assertions authored by the Chief Justice. The original opinion of **New Bellum Homes, Inc. v. Giffin** , 784 So.2d 139 (Miss. 2001), was published February 1, 2001, in which all but one Justice concurred at that time. Since then there have been two motions for rehearing, a motion to clarify, and more importantly, our opinion has now been published in West over a year ago and should have been deemed final. Our rules do not allow what has occurred with the majority's order of the Chief Justice. The fifteen percent penalty was assessed according to the statute and the rules of this Court, since the judgment below was affirmed in toto. The original opinion authored by this writer was reviewed and voted on by the Court. No one asked for changes. When it was reviewed two other times on motion for rehearing and clarification, the majority of the Court, including the Chief Justice, denied it. Now a year and a half after the opinion was published and more than a year after the mandate was issued and in contravention of our rules, this Court is now granting by order that which it denied in our published opinion. One Justice cannot single handedly do anything; it takes a majority. Accordingly, I dissent to this order as we should not give special treatment to individuals or certain parties.
§ 570.510 Transferring projects from urban counties to metropolitan cities. Section 106(c)(3) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer unobligated grant funds from an urban county to a new metropolitan city, provided: the city was an included unit of general local government in the urban county immediately before its qualification as a metropolitan city; the funds to be transferred were received by the county before the qualification of the city as a metropolitan city; the funds to be transferred had been programmed by the urban county for use in the city before such qualification; and the city and county agree to transfer responsibility for the administration of the funds being transferred from the county's letter of credit to the city's letter of credit. The following rules apply to the transfer of responsibility for an activity from an urban county to the new metropolitan city. ( a ) The urban county and the metropolitan city must execute a legally binding agreement which shall specify: ( 1 ) The amount of funds to be transferred from the urban county's letter of credit to the metropolitan city's letter of credit;
( 2 ) The activities to be carried out by the city with the funds being transferred;
( 3 ) The county's responsibility for all expenditures and unliquidated obligations associated with the activities before the time of transfer, including a statement that responsibility for all audit and monitoring findings associated with those expenditures and obligations shall remain with the county;
( 4 ) The responsibility of the metropolitan city for all other audit and monitoring findings;
( 5 ) How program income (if any) from the activities specified shall be divided between the metropolitan city and the urban county; and
( 6 ) Such other provisions as may be required by HUD.
( b ) Upon receipt of a request for the transfer of funds from an urban county to a metropolitan city and a copy of the executed agreement, HUD, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, shall establish a date upon which the funds shall be transferred from the letter of credit of the urban county to the letter of credit of the metropolitan city, and shall take all necessary actions to effect the requested transfer of funds.
( c ) HUD shall notify the metropolitan city and urban county of any special audit and monitoring rules which apply to the transferred funds when the date of the transfer is communicated to the city and the county.
KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Year Ended       Year Ended      Year Ended
                                                     June 30, 2005    June 30, 2004   June 30, 2003
                                                   ------------------------------------------------
                                                   (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data, Unaudited)

<S>                                                <C>               <C>               <C>
Income available to common stockholders              $  18,898         $  12,897         $  4,055

Weighted average shares outstanding
   (as restated)                                        57,963            50,916           50,916

Basic earnings per share (as restated)               $    0.33         $    0.25         $   0.08

Income for diluted earnings per share                $  18,898         $  12,897         $  4,055

Total weighted average common shares and
   equivalents outstanding for diluted
   computation (as restated)
                                                        57,963            50,916           50,916

Diluted earnings per share (as restated)             $    0.33         $    0.25         $   0.08

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 13.a

| | 
| | 
| | 



906 CERTIFICATION OF 20-F REPORT

OF

KIMBER RESOURCES INC

FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009



In connection with the annual report of Kimber Resources Inc. on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code: 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 Kimber Resources, Inc.

This Certification is executed as of  September 28, 2009.



| |                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "/s/ Gordon Cummings"                                                
| | Gordon Cummings
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)





| |                                                                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "/s/ Lyn B. Davies"                                                               
| | Lyn B. Davies
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



---
Document

Exhibit 10.13

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of November 15, 2021, is made by and between TransDigm Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Halle Martin (fka Halle Terrion) (“Executive”).  


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) setting forth certain terms and conditions of Executive’s employment with the Company; and


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the respective covenants and agreements set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: 


1.Amendments. Section 6(b)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety as follows:


(iii) 18.0 times the difference of (A) the Monthly COBRA Continuation Coverage Rate determined as of the Date of Termination for the Executive’s applicable health plan coverage as in effect on such date, less (B) the monthly cost to Executive that is being charged for such coverage as of the Date of Termination.  
2.    Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
3.    Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed, construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Ohio. 
4.    Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and unmodified hereby.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above written. 


TRANSDIGM GROUP INCORPORATED




By:  /s/ Kevin Stein
Name: Kevin Stein
Title:  Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE




/s/ Halle Martin
HALLE MARTIN
#### § 92.66 Reallocation.

Any HOME funds which are reduced or recaptured from an insular area's allocation and which are not used to increase the allocation amount for one or more of the remaining insular areas as provided in § 92.60 of this part, will be reallocated by HUD to the States in accordance with the requirements in subpart J for reallocating funds initially allocated to a State.
### §55117. Great Lakes rail route

Section 55102 of this title does not apply to the transportation of merchandise loaded on a railroad car or to a motor vehicle with or without a trailer, and with its passengers or contents when accompanied by the operator, when the railroad car or motor vehicle is transported in a railroad car ferry operated between fixed terminals on the Great Lakes as part of a rail route, if—

(1) the car ferry is owned by a common carrier by water and operated as part of a rail route with the approval of the Surface Transportation Board;

(2) the stock of the common carrier by water, or its predecessor, was owned or controlled by a common carrier by rail prior to June 5, 1920;

(3) the stock of the common carrier owning the car ferry is, with the approval of the Board, now owned or controlled by a common carrier by rail; and

(4) the car ferry is built in and documented under the laws of the United States.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1640.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 55117 | 46 App.:883 (5th proviso). | June 5, 1920, ch. 250, §27, as added Apr. 11, 1935, ch. 58, 49 Stat. 154. |

Section