alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2     **EMS Technologies, Inc.**  660 Engineering Drive  PO Box 7700  Norcross, GA 30091-7700  Tel: (770)263-9200  www.ems-t.comMarch 19, 2007Dr. Neilson A. MackayDear Neil:EMS Technologies, Inc. is pleased confirm the terms of the offer to you for the position President,EMS Technologies Canada, President, EMS SATCOM, and Vice President, Corporate Development at asalary of US$24,000 per month. In this position you will be reporting to Paul Domorski, Presidentand CEO. This new position will be effective today, March 19, 2007. Please note your startingsalary is based on our 2007 Compensation program. You will continue with Canadian Benefits andperquisites until relocation to Atlanta.***Incentive Compensation:***This position participates in our Executive Annual Incentive CompensationPlan. Your position is scheduled for a 50% award of base pay upon achievement of individual,divisional and company performance targets. Your performance weighting is 50% SATCOM profit, 25%business objectives, and 25% corporate profit. In 2007 we will calculate incentive payouts based onthis allocation and the allocation for your SATCOM GM role and pay the higher amount. Awards aregranted in cash and/or stock in the first quarter of each year based on individual and Companyperformance during the preceding calendar year. Your participation will be subject to the terms ofthe Plan, which is available for your review.The Company may modify the Plan at any time. Relevant participation levels and targets arereviewed annually and revised by the Company, in its discretion. The incentive payments are basedon Company performance against specified targets, and the Company’s evaluation of yourcontributions, performance and level of responsibility. Amounts paid are expected to vary fromyear to year.***Retirement Benefit Program:***As a US employee you will be eligible to participate in the EMSTechnologies Inc. Retirement Program. This comprehensive program includes the Company fundedRetirement Benefits Program (RBP) in addition to the 401k Savings and Investment Plan which isdescribed in your Employee Benefits Summary.The RBP is 100% Company-funded, and is provided to U.S.-based employees at no cost to assist inplanning for retirement. Each year the Board of Directors determines an amount that the Companywill contribute to the RBP. Allocation of the RBP is based on base salary and age with largercontributions based on higher base salary and/or higher age.Under the terms of the Retirement Program, you will not receive service credit for your EMS servicein Canada for Retirement Plan purposes. You will be able to participate in the 401k plan 30 daysafter your transfer. However, you will be subject to the standard 6 month, 1000 hour waiting periodfor the RBP and only your U.S. based compensation will be eligible for consideration under theRetirement plan. You will be 100% vested in all contributions made to this plan on your behalf.
 

 
***Page Two***
Opinion issued May 12, 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00171
- CV NO. 01
- 15
- 00172
- CV

——————————— IN RE MELISSA A. PUL SIPHER , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

M EMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Melissa A. Pulsipher, seeks mandamus relief from the January 26,
2015 “ Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency ” in cause number
15CP0007 , which appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) as temporar y sole managing conservator of her two minor2

children, J.O. and A.L.G. 1 Pulsipher contends the order was an abuse of discretion by the trial court because it was issued on the same day that cause number 13CP0049, an earlier termination suit involving the same parties , was dismissed for having exceeded legislative time limits. Pulsipher argues the children should have been returned to her because no new evidence existed to support the new termination case.
We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus

. We d ismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.

1 The underlying case s are In the Interest of J.O. and A.L.G., Children , cause number 15CP0007 , and In the Interest of J.O. and A.L.G., Ch ildren , cause number 1 3 CP 0049, pending in the 306th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Anne B. Darring presiding.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-764]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Siegfried USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 15, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 15, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 9, 2020, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070-3244, applied to be registered as an bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid
2010
IAmphetamine
1100
IIMethylphenidate
1724
IIAmobarbital
2125
IIPentobarbital
2270
IISecobarbital
2315
IICodeine
9050
IIOxycodone
9143
IIHydromorphone
9150
IIHydrocodone
9193
IIMethadone
9250
IIMethadone intermediate
9254
IIMorphine
9300
IIOripavine
9330
IIThebaine
9333
IIOpium tincture
9630
IIOxymorphone
9652
IITapentadol
9780
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-00354 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
ACC CPI Safety & Health Training

Through April 12, 2011

Job

Description

Fully Complete In Progress Total

YTD March YTD April YTD March YTD April YTD April

Applicator 179 258 107 136 394

Helper 30 43 12 22 65

Other 325 430 177 239 669

Supervisor 173 240 151 185 425

Total 707 971 447 447 1553

Test Scores 90-100% 70-89% <70%

Percent achieving test scores 91.3% 7.0% 1.6%
#### Louis John WEHRMEYER, By His Next Friend, Bernice Wehrmeyer, Petitioner, v. COMMANDING OFFICER, FT. LEONARD WOOD, UNITED STATES ARMY, et al., Respondents.

No. 2495.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, S. D.

Jan. 29, 1970.

*1002Louis Gilden, Samuel H. Liberman, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.

Vernon A. Poschel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

COLLINSON, District Judge.

This case involves, as one of the central issues, the accelerated induction of Louis John Wehrmeyer into the U. S. Army. Petitioner had turned in his selective service card at a draft protest rally. That card subsequently found its way back to petitioner’s local selective service board. The board then gave petitioner a “courtesy hearing” to make sure that he had not turned in the card on a whim. The board offered to give him a duplicate card to keep in his possession. Petitioner refused that card.

Subsequently, the board declared petitioner a delinquent for not having his card in his possession, and ordered his induction. Petitioner claims that his induction was wrongful, and that he is entitled to his immediate release from the United States Army. Through his next friend, he brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus.

We stayed our decision in this case pending that of the Supreme Court in Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532, 1969. *Gutknecht*expressly overturns the validity of the delinquency regulations under which this petitioner’s induction was accelerated.

Under the rationale of *Gutknecht,*it is obvious that petitioner’s induction was wrongful, as he was inducted out of his normal order of call, and therefore petitioner must be discharged forthwith from the United States Army. When we say “discharged” we mean exactly that. Petitioner is not to be put in any worse position by reason of his wrongful induction than he would be in had he never been inducted. He is not to be placed in a reserve unit, for instance. It is

Ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith, and further

Ordered that the Court stays the issuance of the writ for a period of one week to allow the Army to discharge petitioner in accordance with procedures and regulations not inconsistent with what we have said above. If that discharge is not completed within a week, counsel for petitioner is directed to call this Court and advise the Court of that fact. Our writ will then be immediately issued and served by United States Marshal.
§ 855.2 Responsibilities. ( a ) As the program manager for joint use, the Civil Aviation Branch, Bases and Units Division, Directorate of Operations (HQ USAF/XOOBC), ensures that all impacts have been considered and addressed before forwarding a joint-use proposal or agreement to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations (SAF/MII), who holds decision authority. All decisions are subject to the environmental impact analysis process as directed by the Environmental Planning Division, Directorate of Environment (HQ USAF/CEVP), and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (SAF/MIQ). The Air Force Real Estate Agency (AFREA/MI) handles the leases for Air Force-owned land or facilities that may be included in an agreement for joint use.
( b ) HQ USAF/XOOBC determines the level of decision authority for landing permits. It delegates decision authority for certain types of use to major commands and installation commanders.
( c ) HQ USAF/XOOBC makes the decisions on all requests for exceptions or waivers to this part and related Air Force instructions. The decision process includes consultation with other affected functional area managers when required. Potential impacts on current and future Air Force policies and operations strongly influence such decisions.
( d ) Major commands, direct reporting units, and field operating agencies may issue supplements to establish command-unique procedures permitted by and consistent with this part.
§ 192.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Revises 32 CFR part 192.
( b ) Revises the references, policies, and procedures covering off-base housing and fair housing enforcement.
( c ) Outlines discrimination complaint inquiries or investigative procedures and hearing requirements.
( d ) Deletes the requirement for each Military Department to submit a semi-annual housing discrimination report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) (ASD(FM&P)).
( e ) Requires each Military Service to report to the ASD(FM&P) any housing discrimination cases and their results in their Annual Military Equal Opportunity Assessment Report to the ASD(FM&P).
( f ) Requires each Military Department to maintain all completed or resolved housing discrimination cases.
( g ) Emphasizes liaison with other Government (local, State, or Federal) agencies.
[55 FR 6248, Feb. 22, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 56 FR 32964, July 18, 1991]
### §1736cc. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1577, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3702

Section, Pub. L. 101–220, §13, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1884, prohibited duty drawback claims by exporters who used certain export promotion programs.
```

[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28848-28849]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my10-104]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7024]

 
Lifting of Policy of Denial of Munitions Export Licenses and 
Other Approvals Destined for Tula Instrument Design Bureau

SUMMARY: The Department of State is lifting the policy of denial for 
Tula Instrument Design Bureau pursuant to

[[Page 28849]]

section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and section 126.7 of 
the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Studtmann, Director, Office of 
Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military 
Affairs, Department of State (202) 663-2477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 126.7 of the ITAR provides that any 
application for an export license or other approval under the ITAR may 
be disapproved and any license or other approval or exemption granted 
may be revoked, suspended, or amended without prior notice whenever, 
among other things, the Department of State believes that section 38 of 
the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778), any regulation contained in the ITAR, or the 
terms of any U.S. Government export authorization (including terms of a 
manufacturing license or technical assistance agreement, or export 
authorization granted pursuant to the Export Administration Act, as 
amended) has been violated by any party to the export or other person 
having a significant interest in the transaction; or whenever the 
Department of State deems such action to be in furtherance of world 
peace, the national security or the foreign policy of the United 
States, or is otherwise advisable. A determination was made on May 12, 
2010, that it is in the foreign policy or national security interests 
of the United States to remove the restrictions imposed on Tula 
Instrument Design Bureau pursuant to Section 126.7 of the ITAR.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
Andrew J. Shapiro,
Assistant Secretary, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-12448 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

A003 . Aircraft Authorization 

Operations Specifications 

HQ Control: 03/10/2011 

HQ Revision: 02h 

The certificate holder is authorized to conduct operations under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 135 using aircraft with the approved 

configuration and operations described in the following table: 

MJM/S Type Section 119 

CE-337-D ll9.21(a)(5) - On-Demand 

CE-337-F ll9.21(a)(5) - On-Demand 

PC-12-47 119.21(a)(4) - Commuter 

Boutique Air, Inc. 

Operation 

Configuration 

PAX and Cargo 

PAX and Cargo 

PAX and Cargo 

A003-1 

Arndt. No: 4 

Class/Category En Condition 

Operation Route of Flight 

MEL IFRIVFR Day/Night 

MEL IFRIVFR Day/Night 

SEL IFRIVFR Day/Night 

Certificate No.: 2B5Al06N 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration Operations Specifications 

1. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

2. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 

Digitally signed by Gerald C Griswold, Principal Operations Inspector (WP25) 

[I] EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/16/2013, [2] AMENDMENT#: 4 

DATE: 2013.01.17 17:03:40-06:00 

3. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. 

Digitally signed by Shawn C Simpson 

DATE: 2013.01.17 16:55:12-06:00 

Boutique Air, Inc. A003-2 

Arndt. No: 4 

Certificate No.: 2B5A106N
••['ARTMENTOF 

;-'^N'S-ORWiON 

March 28. 2012 ' . uhui-.^-

•:••-.: 1 -i Q T,-, o ";- "5 s Mr. Dennis J, DeVany i;;^ n.rt .U = J- 3^ 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division X-53 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: OST-2002-11446 

OST-2002-11451 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

This is in reference to the above-nnentioned dockets regarding the Essential Air Service 

(EAS) Program for the Altoona-Blair County and the Johnstown-Cambria County 

Airports. I am in receipt of the "Order Requesting Proposals", the Silver Airways 

proposal to provide subsidized air service to the airports, and the "Order Prohibiting 

Suspension of Service". 

The proposal submitted by Silver Airways proposes to operate flights under its existing 

United Airlines codeshare with the Saab 340B-+- aircraft utilizing the Washington Dulles 

International Airport. Since service commenced to IAD in February 2008, the airport 

has seen positive improvements in enplanement numbers. The response from both the 

Blair County local business community and the leisure passengers has also been very 

positive and encouraging. 

The continuation of reliable customer friendly cabin class air service will allow for the 

continued economic growth and development in our region. 

We look forward to a mutually beneficial partnership between the airport and Silver 

Airways. It is for these reasons that I fully support the Silver Airways proposal to 

provide continued Essential Air Service in the respective markets. 

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the Altoona-Blair County Airport 

and should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me 

directly. 

l^illar, J^, CM. / 

Airport Manager 

Cc: BCAA
### §911. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–281, title VIII, §821(b), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3003

Section, Pub. L. 109–347, title I, §113, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1895, established the Port Security Training Program and its requirements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-25-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-26-1999
<CASH>                                           1,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                       367
<INVENTORY>                                      5,076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,829
<PP&E>                                          10,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,138
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,745
<SALES>                                         25,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,681
<CGS>                                           16,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    69
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,029
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,969
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,969
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
I, Alfred G. Hansen, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EMS Technologies,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
   By: /s/ Alfred G. Hansen  Alfred G. Hansen President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Date: 11/11/04