alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27 for Chase General Corporation and Subsidiary
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          62,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  303,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,718
<INVENTORY>                                    488,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               852,371
<PP&E>                                       1,073,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 867,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,058,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          353,532
<BONDS>                                        123,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,361,440
<COMMON>                                       969,834
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,750,046)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,058,111
<SALES>                                        452,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               453,789
<CGS>                                          349,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  452,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,605
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (470)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,889)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
165 So. 656

#### MILNER v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al.

No. 33713.

Jan. 6, 1936.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1936.

P. M. Milner, of New Orleans, in pro. per.

St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for respondents.

*173BRUNOT, Justice.

On the application of relator, this court issued a writ of certiorari, coupled with a stay order, and it ordered the trial judge and both defendants to show cause on December 2, 1935, why the relief prayed for by relator should not be granted. The orders of this court have been complied with, and the case is now submitted to us for review.

The real issue presented to us is whether or not, after exceptions filed by the defendants in the trial court have been overruled, the defendants must file their answers to the suit within two days thereafter, or the trial judge may, in his discretion, grant the defendants further time to file additional exceptions or pleas. The relator relies upon section 9 of article IX of the Rules of the Civil District Court for the parish of Orleans. We quote the section-:

> “Section 9. When an exception is overruled or referred to the merits the defendant shall file his answer before the opening of the Court within two days, or judgment by default may be- taken unless, for good reasons shown, the Judge may grant a longer delay.”

In this case no application was made to the judge to grant a longer delay within which to answer the suit, but, on the application of defendants, a delay of twelve days was granted to them within which time to file additional pleas. The granting of such a delay to file further pleas was in violation of the quoted section of the court’s rules, and justified the relator’s application to this court for the exercise of its supervisory powers. Under the quoted section of the court’s rules, it is discretionary with the judge to grant additional time, for good reasons shown, within which to answer a suit after exceptions have been filed, heard, and overruled, or referred to the merits, but he has no discretion thereafter to grant applicants therefor additional time for any other purpose.

A number of incidental issues have been presented in the application and the returns filed in the record, but the decision is not dependent upon any of them, and we therefore dismiss them without comment.

For the reasons assigned, the writ issued by this court is perpetuated, the trial judge is prohibited from trying the defendants’ exceptions and rule which are complained of in relator’s application, and the relator’s prayer for a mandamus compelling him to fix a reasonable time within which the defendants may answer the relator’s suit is granted. The cost of these proceedings are to be paid by respondents Maryland Casualty Company and E. F. Nine, Jr.

O’NIELL, C. J., and ODOM, J., dissent.
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00 75 7 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
85 So.2d 45

#### Joseph R. KAIGHEN v. Ruth Cooper KAIGHEN.

No. 42622.

Jan. 16, 1956.

Tillery & McBride, Arabi, for respondent-appellant.

Roland R. Selenberg, New Orleans, for appellee.

*103HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Joseph R. Kaighen has appealed from a judgment ordering him to pay his wife $170 per month as alimony pending his suit for divorce.

In this court the husband contends that his 'wife is not in necessitous circumstances and accordingly is not entitled to alimony pendente lite. In the alternative he argues that, if the court should find that she is entitled to support, the award made by the district court is excessive and should be reduced.

The rule for alimony was tried in the lower court in July, 1955. At that time the husband had been employed by the Standard Fruit Company for five years as chief engineer of the S. S. Gatun. The vessel on which he worked was laid up for repairs which were to be completed in October, 1955, and he testified that for this reason he was on reduced pay .of $500 a. month, but that his normal salary, was $750 a month.

At the time the rule was tried the wife was employed as a housekeeper, earning $20 per week and room and board. She testified that she was expecting the birth of a child in October, and that her doctor had informed her that she could continue in her present work for a' period of about six weeks at most, and that she would then have no employment or income and would have to rent an apartment and bear, the expenses of childbirth. It was admitted in oral argument in this court that the child had been born.

Under Article 148 of the Louisiana Civil Code, if a wife does not have sufficient income for her maintenance pending a suit for divorce, the court shall allow her a sum for her support proportioned to her needs and to the means of her husband. It is also established in the jurisprudence of this state that the purpose of this article is to enforce the husband’s obligation to support his wife provided by Article 120 of the Civil Code, as this obligation continues to exist during the pendency of a suit for separation from bed and board or for divorce. See Smith v. Smith, 217 La. 646, 47 So.2d 32.

 Although in the instant case the wife was employed at the time the rule was tried in the lower court, she had been advised by a doctor to stop working because of her pregnancy, and there was no showing that she would have any income whatever if she followed the doctor’s advice. Consequently it cannot be said that she was not in need at that time. Moreover, in support of his alternative demand, appellant has not advanced any good reason why we should reduce the award made in- the instant case. Accordingly we think that the trial judge properly allowed alimony in this case, and that, in view of the husband’s *105income of approximately $6,000 a year, the award of $170 per month is not excessive.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, appellant to pay all costs
# C_2016488EN.01000501.xml

| 29.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 488/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 488/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 December 2016

(2016/C 488/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0401 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4351 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85128 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5783 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0714 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0777 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,042 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,03 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4028 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5415 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,6882 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4492 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4119 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0694 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5050 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5107 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 261,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4535 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2384 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5545 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 981,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6633 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,845 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,9938 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,475 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4026 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5700 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,9685 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0401

JPY

Japanese yen

122,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4351

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85128

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5783

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0714

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0777

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,042

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,03

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4028

RON

Romanian leu

4,5415

TRY

Turkish lira

3,6882

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4492

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4119

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0694

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5050

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5107

KRW

South Korean won

1 261,97

ZAR

South African rand

14,4535

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2384

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5545

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 981,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6633

PHP

Philippine peso

51,845

RUB

Russian rouble

62,9938

THB

Thai baht

37,475

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4026

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5700

INR

Indian rupee

70,9685

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. SIRE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by the General Electric Company against Meyer L. Sire and others.

J. V. Bouvier, Jr., for appellant. F. Bien, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Sections 14005, 14006, and 14013, Title XIV, (Public Law 112-10), as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112– 10), and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012)

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76)
225.7303 Pricing acquisitions for FMS. ( a ) Price FMS contracts using the same principles used in pricing other defense contracts. However, application of the pricing principles in FAR parts 15 and 31 to an FMS contract may result in prices that differ from other defense contract prices for the same item due to the considerations in this section.
( b ) If the foreign government has conducted a competition resulting in adequate price competition (see FAR 15.403-1(b)(1)), the contracting officer shall not require the submission of certified cost or pricing data. The contracting officer should consult with the foreign government through security assistance personnel to determine if adequate price competition has occurred.
[64 FR 49683, Sept. 14, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 15632, Mar. 31, 2003; 77 FR 76940, Dec. 31, 2012]
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1 0 6 2 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 -NM - 0 38 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
[4910'I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 

# A·Z

~ 

# rlf'b oq OUTlJiG St"M1IOI.

that applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-2008, and -200F series airplanes. The existi AD currently requires inspections to detect cracking in the upper row offasteners holes SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). (DOT). Ainvorthiness Directives; The Boeing Compapy Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation 14CFR ParI 39 

## ;l.OIO -

# 0/3 't.. [Docket No. FAA-_' I I I I ; Directorate Ideotifier 2009-NM-696-AD) RlN 2120-AA64

ofthe skin lapjoints in the fuselage lower lobe, and repai.r, ifnecessary. This proposed AD would reduce the maximum interval ofthe 

### post-modifi~tion inspections. This proposed AD results from reports offatigue cracking on modified airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking inthe longitudinal lapjoints 0
DATES: We must receive comments onthis proposed AD by [insert d~te45 days after date ofpublication inthe FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any ofthe following methods:

o Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://wvAv.regulations.gov. Follow the

~ instructions for submitting comments . • Fax: 202-493-2251.[4910'13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 ~(llAI.SlSIG [Docket No. FAA-2009-' , , , '; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-096-ADJ RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Compapy Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F 

### Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation AdIIDnistration (FAA), Department ofTransportation

.(DOT). ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD that applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-200B, and -200F series airplanes. The existi AD currently requires inspections todetect cracking in the upper row offasteners holes 

### ofthe skin lapjoints inthe fuselage lower lobe, and repai.!,ifnecessary. This proposed AD would reduce the maxiinum interval ofthe 

### post-modifi(?ation inspections. This proposed AD results from 

### reports of

### fatigue cracking on modified airplanes. We are A/-IM"Zos NmAI.SIS1G ! 

## J:.

# l,

m 

# f2.-Iu·oq

~~ 

# itd7& fO;<

~~ 

## IZ, /) ~ ""A -A!JG """""'" 

# J; H6US m 

### /0/0 D proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the longitudinal lapjoints of TE the fuselage lower lobe, which could lead to the rapid decompression ofthe airplane and QIJTlr/GsYtlOO\. 

# . t-\-1- the inability ofthe .structure to carry fail-safe loads. IlIDAl.SlSIli C.f~ DATES: We must receive comments onthis proposed AD 

### by [insert date 45 days after date ofpublication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any ofthe following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.Fol1owtbe 

## ,. instructions for submitting comments. 1,
• Fax: 202-493-225 L
exv10w2









Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NUMBER 7

TO THE

GOODRICH CORPORATION SEVERANCE PROGRAM




     THIS AMENDMENT is made this 17th day of August, 2009, by Goodrich Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as the “Company”);



W I T N E S S E T H




     WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Goodrich Corporation Severance Program, as amended and
restated, effective February 21, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10 of the Plan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company has
the authority to amend the exhibits to the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, for the purpose of determining years of continuous service under the Plan, the Chief
Executive Officer, in accordance with the Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of July 28, 2008
between the Company, Recon/Optical, Inc. and Bourns, Inc. (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), desires
to give eligible employees credit for service with Recon/Optical, Inc. if an eligible employee
became an employee of the Company or one of its subsidiaries through the acquisition of the
Business as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Chief Executive Officer hereby amends Exhibit C to the Plan as set forth
in the attached revision to Exhibit C effective for any Qualifying Termination, as that term is
defined in the Plan, that occurs after July 28, 2009, if an eligible employee became an employee of
the Company or one of its subsidiaries through the acquisition of the Business as defined in the
Asset Purchase Agreement.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its Chief Executive Officer, has caused this Amendment to
be executed as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GOODRICH CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Marshall O. Larsen
 	 
	 	 	Marshall O. Larsen, 	 
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit C

To Goodrich Corporation Severance Program




List of Acquired Companies




For purposes of calculating years of service under Section 5 of the Goodrich Corporation Severance
Program, service with the following companies prior to their acquisition by Goodrich or a
subsidiary of Goodrich shall be considered, but only if the affected employee became an employee of
Goodrich or a subsidiary of Goodrich through the acquisition:




	 	 	 
	 

	 	The Cleveland Pneumatic Company
	 

	 	Coltec Industries Inc. and any subsidiaries of Coltec
	 

	 	Goodrich Actuation Systems Limited
	 

	 	Goodrich Control Holdings Limited
	 

	 	Goodrich Control Systems Limited
	 

	 	Gulton Data Systems and any affiliated employer
	 

	 	Hughes Aircraft Company
	 

	 	ITEK
	 

	 	Perkin-Elmer Corporation
	 

	 	Raytheon Corporation
	 

	 	Recon/Optical, Inc.
	 

	 	Rohr, Inc.
	 

	 	Simmonds Precision Engine Systems, Inc.
	 

	 	Simmonds Precision Motion Controls, Inc.
	 

	 	Simmonds Precision Products, Inc.
	 

	 	TEAC Aerospace Holdings, Inc.
	 

	 	TEAC Aerospace Technologies, Inc.
	 

	 	TRW, Inc. and any affiliated employer
	 

	 	Universal Propulsion Company, Inc.






Revised August, 2009
#### 2901.103 Authority.

The DOLAR is issued pursuant to the authority of the Secretary of Labor under 5 U.S.C. 301 and 40 U.S.C. 486(c). This authority has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management in accordance with FAR 1.301(d)(3).
EX-10.1






AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

EVANS BANK, N.A.

AMENDED AND RESTATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Evans Bank, N.A. Amended and Restated
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “SERP”) is effective January 1, 2009.



WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the SERP only with respect to William R. Glass (“Mr.
Glass”) in order to change the definition of “Final Average Earnings,” and to provide for a lump
sum payment that is the actuarial equivalent to installments paid over 20 years; and



WHEREAS, Section 6.8(A) of the SERP provides that the SERP may be amended by the Board of
Directors (“Board”) of Evans National Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) at time, provided that no amendment
shall reduce the accrued benefit of any Participant, determined as of the date of such amendment.



NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank hereby amends the SERP as follows:



1. The following is added after the last sentence of the definition of “Final Average
Earnings” and “Years of Service” as set forth on page 2 of the SERP:




Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph, effective January 1,
2009, and only with respect to Mr. Glass, (i) “Final Average Earnings” means base
salary plus bonus, excluding equity compensation and miscellaneous items for the five
highest consecutive, fully completed calendar years up to the date that Mr. Glass
attains age 65; and (ii) “Years of Service” means each calendar year in which Mr.
Glass performs 1,000 hours of service, but only through the date that Mr. Glass
attains age 65. Upon Mr. Glass’s attainment of age 65, no compensation earned after
that date and no years of service performed after that date shall be taken into
account with respect to determining the amount of Mr. Glass’s benefits hereunder.



2. The following is added as a new Section 3.6(C):




C. Notwithstanding Sections 3.6(A) and (B), effective January 1, 2009, when Mr. Glass
is entitled to a benefit under this Plan, the benefit shall be paid in the form of a
single cash lump sum that is actuarially equivalent to 20 years of guaranteed annual
installments (which is 5 years longer than the regular payment for other
Participants).



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has executed this Amendment on the date set forth below.




EVANS BANK, N.A.



	 	 	 
	October 16, 2009 By: /s/David J. Nasca

	 

	Date

	 	David J. Nasca, President & C.E.O.