alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No.              Description

                     3(I)                    Restated  Charter of Carolina
                                             Power & Light  Company  as amended
                                             on May 10, 1996.

                     3(II)                   By-Laws of  Carolina  Power &
                                             Light   Company   as   amended   on
                                             September 18, 1996.

                     10(b)                   Performance  Share  Sub-Plan of the
                                             1997 Equity Incentive Plan, adopted
                                             by   the    Personnel,    Executive
                                             Development    and     Compensation
                                             Committee    of   the    Board   of
                                             Directors, March 19, 1997, (subject
                                             to shareholder approval of the 1997
                                             Equity  Incentive  Plan,  which was
                                             obtained on May 7, 1997). 

                     27                      Financial Data Schedule
#### In the Matter of Heath Homes, Inc., Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a consolidated proceeding to review the real estate tax assessments on petitioner’s real property for the four fiscal years 1955-56,1956-57,1957-58 and 1958-59, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 11, 1959, which reduced the assessments for each of said four years to a total value of $410,000 for the land and building. The assessed land value was .$120,000, which Special Term did not disturb. It reduced the assessment on the building to $290,000, making a total assessment of $410,000 for the real property for each of the fiscal years. Petitioner contends that these assessments should be further reduced and that the evidence justifies further reductions. Order modified on the law and the facts: (a) by adding to the first decretal paragraph the further reduced assessed valuation of $255,000 for the building or improvements upon the real property for each of the fiscal years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59; (b) by striking out from said paragraph -the total assessed valuation of $410,000 upon the real property for each of said fiscal years; and (e) by substituting for such total assessed valuation a further reduced total assessed *801valuation of $375,000 upon the real property for each of said fiscal years. As so modified, order affirmed, without c-osts. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, there was sufficient credible evidence to show that, for each of the fiscal years mentioned, the actual, fair and true assessed valuation of petitioner’s real property should he in the further reduced amount here set forth. Nolan, P. J., Beldock and Brennan, JJ., concur; Ughetta and Kleinfeid, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.49 Advance payments.

Subpart P of this part outlines procedures for advance payments.

[81 FR 83693, Nov. 22, 2016]
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
REGISTRANT



The companies listed below are all of
the subsidiaries of ACR Group, Inc. as of February 28, 2003. All of the companies are wholly-owned.



|Name of Subsidiary                   |  | State of Incorporation
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|ACR Supply, Inc.                     |  | Texas                 
|Total Supply, Inc.                   |  | Texas                 
|Valley Supply, Inc.                  |  | Texas                 
|Heating and Cooling Supply, Inc.     |  | Nevada                
|Ener-Tech Industries, Inc.           |  | Tennessee             
|Florida Cooling Supply, Inc.         |  | Texas                 
|West Coast HVAC Supply, Inc.         |  | Texas                 
|Lifetime Filter, Inc.                |  | Texas                 
|Contractors Heating and Supply, Inc. |  | Texas                 
|CAC Distributors, Inc.               |  | Texas
L}NITED STATES DISTITICT COURT

NOI{THERN DISTI{ICT OT' LLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HSIIC lSank LISA, NA Civil Action No. 12-cr,-3 166

The Hon. James F. Holclerrnan

IV{ag. Judge Jeffrev Cole

Witn,k et al

Defendant.

ORDER

IVotion hearing held. Defendants t'ailed to appear. Plaintiffls motion fbr orcler approving repoft

of sale and distribution ancl possession [2al is granted. Enter Order.

(0t):t).r)

ENTER:

Date: February 5, 20[5

MES F. I.IOLDERMAN, JI]DGE

Bg c [d 9- ggi$tffi

Case: 1:12-cv-03166 Document #: 27 Filed: 02/05/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:143
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,265
<INVENTORY>                                      8,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,582
<PP&E>                                          48,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,987
<BONDS>                                          1,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,654
<SALES>                                         44,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,306
<CGS>                                           33,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       288
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Hernandez, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 20, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts. "In determining the requirements of the court’s charge to the jury * * * defendant is entitled to the 'most favorable view of the record’ ” (see *People v Steele,*26 NY2d 526, 529). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to him, it is apparent that an instruction to the jury on the defense of justification was called for in this case (see *People v Steele, supra;*see, also, *People v Torre,*42 NY2d 1036). The failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on this issue requires a reversal and a new trial (see *People v Steele, supra; People v Benjamin,*47 AD2d 861). Further, *989the court’s charge with respect to the effect of a witness having a criminal record was inadequate (see *People v Sorge,*301 NY 198; *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) and prejudicial to defendant’s rights. In *People v Coleman*(7 AD2d 155) the trial court erred by giving a charge containing an implicit message that, although rare, defense witnesses have been known to tell the truth. At bar, the charge suggests that two prosecution witnesses, even though they had criminal records, may (in the Trial Judge’s opinion) very well have been telling the truth. The instruction, as given, was prejudicial in view of the nature and quality of the People’s evidence. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### Anne E. Rogers et al., Appellants, v. North American Philips Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In an action to declare unconstitutional, illegal and void -certain amendments to the zoning ordinance of the defendant village, pursuant to which the village, by the “ two-step ” or “floating zone” method, rezoned the subject property and placed it in a special classification known as “Planned Office Building and Research Laboratory B,” and for incidental injunctive relief, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 16, 1963 upon the Special Term’s opinion and decision after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint on the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the Justice at Special Term *(Bogers*V. *North American Philips Co.,*37 Mise 2d 923). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 23 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the Filipino 

Veterans of World War II. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 

Ms. HIRONO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the Filipino Veterans of World 

War II. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD 

5 MEDAL TO THE FILIPINO VETERANS OF 

6 WORLD WAR II. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

8 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on October 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 23 ATS 

1 25, 2017 for a ceremony to present the Congressional 

2 Gold Medal collectively to the Filipino Veterans of World 

3 War II in recognition of their dedicated military service. 

4 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

5 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

6 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

7 be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Pinpoint Incorporated

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01195

Honorable Joan H. Lefkow

Sears Roebuck and Co

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, February 1, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan H. Lefkow: Status hearing of 2/5/2013

reset for 5/2/2013 at 08:30 AM by agreement.Mailed and telephoned notice(mad, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01195 Document #: 32 Filed: 02/01/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:260
# Borrower Defenses Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 2016

## Facilitators

## Federal Negotiator

## Non-Federal Negotiators

2/10/2016
|Exhibit 10.04
|-------------



|AMENDMENT TO AND EXTENSION OFEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
|-------------------------------------------------

Aspen Exploration Corporation (Aspen) entered into an employment agreement with Robert A. Cohan on January 1, 2003 (the Employment Agreement).

On April 22, 2005, the board of directors of Aspen approved an extension of the Employment Agreement from its current expiration date of December 31, 2005 and an increase in his compensation.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration Aspen and Mr. Cohan agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.
     Paragraph 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to provide for an expiration date of December 31, 2008.2.
     Paragraph 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to reflect Mr. Cohans present positions as president, treasurer, chief executive officer, and chief financial officer of Aspen.3.
     Paragraph 3(a) is hereby amended to reflect that, commencing January 1, 2006, Mr. Cohans salary will be increased to $160,000 per year, to be paid in accordance with Aspens normal payroll procedures.4.
     If any provision of the Employment Agreement is inconsistent with the terms of this Amendment and Extension, the terms of this Amendment and Extension control.5.
     All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in effect and operative through the term of the Employment Agreement and thereafter, in accordance with its terms.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of Aspen approved this Amendment to and Extension of Employment Agreement by resolutions dated April 22, 2005, and the Parties have executed this Agreement to be effective immediately.



|ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION
|-----------------------------

|                       |  |                  |  |             
|---------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | ------------
|By:                    |  | /s/ R. V. Bailey |  | May 16, 2005
|R. V. Bailey, Chairman |  |                 



|EMPLOYEE
|--------

|                |  |                      |  |             
|--------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ------------
|By:             |  | /s/  Robert A. Cohan |  | May 12, 2005
|Robert A. Cohan |  |                     

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40352

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODRIGO ZUNIGA-ALMAZAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-851-1

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodrigo ZunigaAlmazan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Zuniga-Almazan has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through January 19, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sayheedha Uddin, M.D., M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human Services, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 2627, Mailstop P08, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4303 or fax (301) 458-4020.

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2021-01738 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### Interactive Properties Corp., Appellant, v Doyle Dane Bernbach, Inc., Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 23, 1978 dismissing the complaint on the merits for failure to establish a prima facie case, without prejudice to an action in *quantum meruit*or against third parties, reversed, on the law, vacated and the case remanded for a new trial, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, sues for damages allegedly resulting from defendant’s breach of a written agreement claimed to authorize plaintiff for a period of nine months to exclusively negotiate on defendant’s behalf for its renting of office space. Following the presentation of plaintiff’s case before a jury, the Trial Judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case. The trial court’s accompanying opinion represents a thoughtful effort to respond to the legal questions implicit in an unusual factual pattern. Nonetheless, we have concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and that it was error to dismiss the complaint. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the following occurred. In a letter dated January 10, 1975, defendant "confirmed” that plaintiff was "authorized exclusively to negotiate on our behalf for office space for a period of nine months from this date.” It was understood that any earned commissions were to be payable in the first instance by the lessor of that space. Relying upon that authorization, plaintiff made a conscientious and faithful effort to locate suitable space and brought to defendant’s attention several possibilities. A time came when plaintiff mentioned to defendant the possibility of space at 437 Madison Avenue and was informed that defendant, in violation of its agreement, was negotiating for that space through another broker. Plaintiff strongly protested this violation of the agreement. Plaintiff did not intervene in the negotiations concerning 437 Madison Avenue at defendant’s request, but reserved its rights. Defendant eventually chose to lease the space at 437 Madison Avenue in preference to alternative locations brought to its attention by the plaintiff and which it had under consideration. The broker it had engaged with regard to Madison Avenue received a commission. We are satisfied that this evidence raised factual issues for the jury as to whether plaintiff had sustained damage as a result of a violation of the agreement by the defendant and, if so, in what amount. (Cf. *Gaillard Realty Co. v Rogers Wire Works,*215 App Div 326; *Mosberg v Goldberg,*117 NYS2d 568; 5 Corbin, Contracts, § 1025.) Accordingly, it was error to have dismissed the complaint and the matter should be remanded for a new trial. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Lynch and Sandler, JJ.

Markewich, J.,

dissents and would affirm on the opinion of Shorter, J., at Trial Term.
114 STAT. 2184 PUBLIC LAW 106–479—NOV. 9, 2000

Public Law 106–479

106th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., to establish a memorial and

gardens on Department of the Interior lands in the District of Columbia or

its environs in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MEMORIAL AND GARDENS TO HONOR AND COMMEMORATE

FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

(a) MEMORIAL AND GARDENS AUTHORIZED.—The Frederick

Douglass Gardens, Inc., is authorized to establish a memorial and

gardens on lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs

in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMORATIVE

WORKS.—The establishment of the Frederick Douglass memorial

and gardens shall be in accordance with the Commemorative Works

Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

The Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., shall be solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and payment of the

expenses of, the establishment of the memorial and gardens. No

Federal funds may be used to pay any expense of the establishment

of the memorial and gardens.

SEC. 3. DEPOSIT OF EXCESS FUNDS.

If, upon payment of all expenses of the establishment of the

memorial and gardens (including the maintenance and preservation

amount required under section 8(b) of the Commemorative Works

Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)), or upon expiration of the authority for

the memorial and gardens under section 10(b) of such Act (40

U.S.C. 1010(b)), there remains a balance of funds received for

the establishment of the memorial and gardens, Frederick Douglass

Gardens, Inc., shall transmit the amount of the balance to the

40 USC 1003

note.

Nov. 9, 2000

[H.R. 5331]

PUBLIC LAW 106–479—NOV. 9, 2000 114 STAT. 2185

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5331:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 3, considered and passed House.

Oct. 26, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for

in section 8(b)(1) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)).

Approved November 9, 2000.