alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

# Report of Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of July 2005

ABBEY NATIONAL PLC 
  (Translation of registrant's name into English)

Abbey National House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
  London NW1 3AN, England   
 (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . . Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Yes . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .


---

Abbey National plc ("Abbey")

**Abbey Board Changes**

Abbey announces today that Priscilla Vacassin, Executive Director, Human Resources, has resigned from the Abbey Board and will leave the company on 30th September 2005.



**Media enquiries:**

Christina Mills, Abbey Media Relations. Tel: 020 7756 4212
Matt Young, Abbey Media Relations. Tel: 020 7756 4232









---



# SIGNATURES

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

|                              |  | **ABBEY NATIONAL PLC**    
|----------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|**Date: 8 th September 2005** |  | **By: /s/ Shaun Coles**   
|                              |  | **(Authorized Signatory)**
Allonge to Real Estate Mortgage Note



 Exhibit 10.32 
 ALLONGE TO REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE NOTE 
 This Allonge to Real Estate Mortgage Note
(“Allonge”) is attached to, and made a part of that certain Promissory Note dated December 5, 2002, in the principal amount of Seven Hundred Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($720,000.00) made by Wise Recycling West, LLC
(“Wise”) to the order of TOMRA of North America Finance Corporation (“TNAFC”), as extended and supplemented by that certain Extension and Assignment Agreement dated January 21, 2005 (“Extension and
Assignment Agreement”) by and among TNAFC, Wise, and GAB Holding LLC (“GAB”), a Delaware limited liability company. This Allonge is made subject to and in accordance with the terms of that certain aforesaid Extension and
Assignment Agreement. 
 PAY TO THE ORDER OF GAB Holding LLC, without recourse, representation, or warranty of any kind or nature
whatsoever. 
 TOMRA of North America Finance Corporation, 
 a Delaware corporation 
  
  

					
	By:  	 	 /s/ Gregory G. Knoll

		 	Gregory G. Knoll  	 	[print name]
		 	President	 	[print title]
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. Grubel et al., Defendants. Abraham Dollinger, Respondent; Sidney J. Liftin, Appellant.

Order, entered on October 22, 1962, appointing a private Referee to examine the account, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the third decretal paragraph and providing in lieu thereof for the appointment of a court employed Special Referee to take and state the account, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant payable out of the estate. In commenting upon the propriety of appointing a Referee, we have heretofore said it is the general policy of the courts in this Department not to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of request or consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action *(Matter of Wilder*v. *Straus-Duparquet,*5 A D 2d 1, 3; *Wolf son*v. *MeGraw é Co.,*18 A D 2d 905; *Sheean*v. *Allen,*19 A D 2d 595). In a ease such as this if the court felt a Referee necessary, in the interest of protecting the assets of this estate, it should have complied with appellant’s request and designated a court-employed Special Referee rather than a private Referee. (See, also, *Matter of Vogue Pleating é Embroidery Co.,*11 A D 2d 358, 360; *Zakkai*v. *David,*285 App. Div. 1121.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and 'Steuer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      77,467,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,191,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,944,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 45,366,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           230,142,000
<PP&E>                                     305,113,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             122,440,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             427,590,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       89,759,000
<BONDS>                                    301,191,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (33,741,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               427,590,000
<SALES>                                    151,293,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           206,043,000
<CGS>                                      116,354,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              116,354,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               688,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,169,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,675,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,043,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,632,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                              59,654,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                58,022,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.84


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

TO : OSERS Executive Officer

FROM : Michael Yudin, Acting Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Request Closure/Certification of Internal Audit Reports

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

In accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the Department’s Handbook for the Post 

Audit Process and my responsibilities as Action Official for the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services under the Department’s ACS Directive OCFO-01, I hereby delegate to 

you the authority to serve as the Action Official in issuing the Request for Closure/Certification 

Memorandum. This delegation of authority covers internal audits defined in this context as EDOIG and GAO issued audits as well as alternative products issued by ED0-OIG, and tracked by 

the Department’s automated tracking system. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority cited 

herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Delegation Control Officer.

__________-s- __________

Michael Yudin,

Acting Assistant Secretary

Date Certified: February 19, 2015

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EH/EH1/101
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 167 DB 2020 (No. 106 RST 2020)

:

JOSEPH FRANK CHVASTA, JR. : Attorney Registration No. 44739

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM RETIRED STATUS : ( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of January

, 2021 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated December 30 , 2020

, is approved and it is ORDERED

that Joseph Frank Chvasta, Jr.

, who has been on Retired Status

, has never been

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications,

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth,

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
### §1441–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §101A, as added Dec. 23, 1985, Pub. L. 99–198, title VI, §601, 99 Stat. 1419; amended Mar. 20, 1986, Pub. L. 99–260, §2(d), 100 Stat. 47; May 27, 1987, Pub. L. 100–45, §5, 101 Stat. 320; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100–203, title I, §§1101(e), 1102(d), 1113(d), 101 Stat. 1330–2, 1330–3, 1330–10, related to loan rates, target prices, disaster payments, acreage limitation program, and land diversion. See Effective and Termination Dates note below.

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates

Pub. L. 99–198, title VI, §601, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1419, provided that this section is effective only for the 1986 through 1990 crops of rice.
§ 2103.13 Duration of original classification. Original classification may be extended beyond six years only by officials with Top Secret classification authority. This extension authority shall be used only when these officials determine that the basis for original classification will continue throughout the entire period that the classification will be in effect and only for the following reasons: ( a ) The information is “foreign government information” as defined by the authorities in § 2301.1;
( b ) The information reveals intelligence sources and methods;
( c ) The information pertains to communication security;
( d ) The information reveals vulnerability or capability data, the unauthorized disclosure of which can reasonably be expected to render ineffective a system, installation, or project important to the national security;
( e ) The information concerns plans important to the national security, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably can be expected to nullify the effectiveness of the plan;
( f ) The information concerns specific foreign relations matters, the continued protection of which is essential to the national security;
( g ) Disclosure of the information would place a person's life in immediate jeopardy; or
( h ) The continued protection of the information is specifically required by statute.
Even when the extension authority is exercised, the period of original classification shall not be greater than twenty years from the date or original classification, except that the original classification of “foreign government information” pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may be for a period of thirty years.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
quarterly report on form 10-Q of The Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. for the period
ended October 28, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

This schedule shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of section 11 of the
securities act of 1933, section 18 of the securities exchange act of 1934 and
section 233 of the trust indenture act of 1939, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of such sections, nor shall it be deemed a part of any registration
statement to which it relates.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                           8,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,753
<INVENTORY>                                    214,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               373,934
<PP&E>                                          82,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 503,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,577
<BONDS>                                        201,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       242,013
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,213)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   503,363
<SALES>                                        427,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               449,462
<CGS>                                          323,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  323,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,807
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,571)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
#### Frank Fleszar, appellant, v. Anna Fleszar, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,595.

Bill to review decree of divorce. Bill dismissed. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 3, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 18, 1925.

Max Kasmar, for appellant.

James Young, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Theresa C. Prink, as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert V. Prink, Deceased, v Rockefeller Center, Inc., et al.

Motion, insofar as it seeks reargument, denied and, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted and the ’'allowing question certified: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this court, properly made?” Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, M \rkewich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
ATTACHMENT 1: CAS IES REPORT

RI
RI
RI
RI
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Gottlieb, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         472,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,602,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   456,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,926,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,829,000
<PP&E>                                      27,077,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,634,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,418,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,942,000
<BONDS>                                      8,629,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       152,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,868,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,418,000
<SALES>                                     19,303,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,303,000
<CGS>                                       10,030,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,030,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,860,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             208,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,187,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,275,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,912,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,912,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>
EAA Aviation Center ▪ PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086 ▪ Ph: 920-426-4800 ▪ Fax: 920-426-6560 ▪ www.eaa.org

October 13, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7th Street S.W., Room PL 401

Washington, DC, 20591-0001

Dear Sirs:

Reference: DOT Docket No. FAA-2007-27080, Request for Rulemaking change to 14 CFR part 

91.151(a)(3).

EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an 

international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings together 

aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of 

aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, 

activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserving the heritage of aviation, 

Promoting access to flight, Protecting the right to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of 

our Passion for aviation safety and education.

The International Aerobatic Club (IAC) was formed in 1970 for the purpose of formalizing the 

Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) Precision Flying Division into a true membership 

organization, to write the rules and to set up the corporate structure to promote "grass roots" 

aerobatics. Included within that purpose was to encourage the development of the basic skills 

needed in aerobatic flying through the creation of a "building block" system of aerobatic 

competition categories - what became the Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Unlimited 

levels. These categories remain in place today with a Primary category added in the early 1990’s.

On May 7, 2007 the FAA terminated the EAA and IAC petition for Rulemaking action to change 

14 CFR 91.151 by adding a new paragraph (a)(3).

The same conditions exist today that were noted on the original petition for Rulemaking. 

Therefore, EAA and IAC are asking the FAA re-establish this Rulemaking action because the 

general aviation industry continues to need this rule change to ensure/enable safer flight 

operations.

Sincerely,

/s/

Randy Hansen

Government Relations Director
#### § 942.846 Individual civil penalties.

Part 846 of this chapter, *Individual Civil Penalties,* shall apply to the assessment of individual civil penalties under section 518(f) of the Act.

[53 FR 3676, Feb. 8, 1988]
§ 2001.40 General. ( a ) Classified information, regardless of its form, shall be afforded a level of protection against loss or unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.
( b ) Except for foreign government information, agency heads or their designee(s) may adopt alternative measures, using risk management principles, to protect against loss or unauthorized disclosure when necessary to meet operational requirements. When alternative measures are used for other than temporary, unique situations, the alternative measures shall be documented and provided to the Director of ISOO. Upon request, the description shall be provided to any other agency with which classified information or secure facilities are shared. In all cases, the alternative measures shall provide protection sufficient to reasonably deter and detect loss or unauthorized disclosure. Risk management factors considered will include sensitivity, value, and crucial nature of the information; analysis of known and anticipated threats; vulnerability; and countermeasure benefits versus cost.
( c ) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) classified information shall be safeguarded in compliance with U.S. Security Authority for NATO Instruction (USSAN) 1-07. Other foreign government information shall be safeguarded as described herein for U.S. information except as required by an existing treaty, agreement or other obligation (hereinafter, obligation). When the information is to be safeguarded pursuant to an existing obligation, the additional requirements at § 2001.54 may apply to the extent they were required in the obligation as originally negotiated or are agreed upon during amendment. Negotiations on new obligations or amendments to existing obligations shall strive to bring provisions for safeguarding foreign government information into accord with standards for safeguarding U.S. information as described in this Directive.
( d ) *Need-to-know determinations.* ( 1 ) Agency heads, through their designees, shall identify organizational missions and personnel requiring access to classified information to perform or assist in authorized governmental functions. These mission and personnel requirements are determined by the functions of an agency or the roles and responsibilities of personnel in the course of their official duties. Personnel determinations shall be consistent with section 4.1(a) of the Order.
( 2 ) In instances where the provisions of section 4.1(a) of the Order are met, but there is a countervailing need to restrict the information, disagreements that cannot be resolved shall be referred by agency heads or designees to either the Director of ISOO or, with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, as appropriate. Disagreements concerning information protected under section 4.3 of the Order shall instead be referred to the appropriate official named in section 4.3 of the Order.
§ 218.4 Dose estimate reporting standards. The following minimum standards for reporting dose estimates shall be uniformly applied by the Military Services when preparing information in response to an inquiry by the Veterans Administration, in connection with a claim for compensation, or by a veteran or his or her representative. The information shall include all material aspects of the radiation environment to which the veteran was exposed and shall include inhaled, ingested, and neutron doses, when applicable. In determining the veteran's dose, initial neutron, initial gamma, residual gamma, and internal (inhaled and ingested) alpha, beta, and gamma shall be considered. However, doses will be reported as gamma dose, neutron dose, and internal dose. To the extent to which the information is available, the responses will address the following questions: ( a ) Can it be documented that the veteran was a test participant? If so, what tests did he attend and what were the specifics of these tests (date, time, yield (unless classified) type, location and other relevant details)?
( b ) What unit was the man in? What were the mission and activities of the units at the test?
( c ) To the extent to which the available records indicate, what were his duties at the test?
( d ) Can you corroborate the specific information relevant to the potential exposure provided by the claimant to the Veterans Administration and forwarded to the Department of Defense? What is the impact of these specific activities on the claimant's reconstructed dose?
( e ) Is there any recorded radiation exposure for the individual? Does this recorded exposure cover the full period of test participation? What are the uncertainties associated with the recorded film badge dose?
( f ) If recorded dosimetry data is unavailable or incomplete, what is the dose reconstruction for the most probable dose, with error limits, if available?
( g ) Is there evidence of a neutron or internal exposure? What is the reconstruction?
Upon request, the participant or his or her authorized representative will be informed of the specific methodologies and assumptions employed in estimating his or her dose.