alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MinnkotaPower

[MPq COO PER A T I V E, INC.

1822 Mill Road, PO. Box 13200 • Grand Forks, NO 58208-3200' Phon, (7011795-4000

February 11,2010

Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.

Director, Division of Air Quality

North Dakota Department of Health

918 E. Divide Ave

Bismarck, ND 58501

Re: SCR Cost Estimate

Dear Mr. O'Clair:

Your Touchstone Energy" Partner

-

Enclosed, please find Minnkota's response to the Department's letter dated January 11,

2010, concerning Minnkota's SCR cost estimate.

Some information in response to item 7 of the letter has been submitted as Confidential.

This is based upon existing confidentiality agreements with parties furnishing the

information and in accordance with Section 33-15-01-16 of the ND Air Pollution Control

Rules. As such, Minnkota has done so on the condition that the Department will not

disclose said information to any other agency without first assuring that the prospective

receiving agency will keep the submitted information confidential.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosed information,

please contact me at 701-795-4221.

Sincerely,

MI/?~~ER OOPERATIVE, INC.

~~ (

John T. Graves, P.E.

Environmental Manager

c: David Sogard
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 [LETTERHEAD] 

            , 2013 
 [Frozen Participant Name] 
 [Address] 
 Dear [Name]: 
 This letter memorializes our discussions concerning the Bryn Mawr
Bank Corporation Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan for Select Executives (“SERP II”). 
 When SERP II was
conceived and implemented in 2008 in conjunction with the freeze of the tax-qualified pension plan, it was felt appropriate at that time to ensure that its terms would not be changed so that the senior executives eligible to participate could rely
on the continued accrual of benefits under SERP II for so long as they remained employed by the Bank. Circumstances have changed over the past 5 years. Among other things, defined benefit programs such as SERP II that are solely tenure-based
programs are becoming somewhat outdated in the financial services industry and many such plans are being replaced by defined contribution programs that place a greater emphasis on performance. Accordingly, the Board of Directors’ goal is to
freeze each Executive Vice President’s and Senior Vice President’s benefits under SERP II to the amount accrued as of [            , 20    ], and to implement
a new defined contribution program for them effective immediately. The key features of the new program are described in the summary enclosed herewith. 
 This freeze will also include an elimination of the provision in Section 4(c) of your Executive Change-of-Control Amended and Restated Severance Agreement dated
[            ,         ], as amended (the “Severance Agreement”), that would provide an additional [three/two] years of service credit
under SERP II in the event of your termination in connection with a change of control of the Bank. Your frozen SERP II benefit will remain governed by all of the terms of the governing SERP II document and all other aspects of your Severance
Agreement will remain in place. 
 We believe that the new defined contribution program will enable you to accumulate
substantial funds for your retirement. We also believe that you will view this change in compensation practice as a favorable development from your perspective as a shareholder. We need your consent to amend SERP II to effect the freeze of your
benefits and to eliminate the provision in your Severance Agreement providing for the additional service credit. Accordingly, please countersign this letter agreement where indicated below and return it to me at your earliest convenience.

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Frederick C. Peters, II, Chairman and CEO


 Enclosure (Summary of Performance-Based Defined Contribution plan) 

 

			
	I agree to the amendment of SERP II and my Severance Agreement as described above.
	
	  

	[Name]	 	 date
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1321 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 

of gain from the sale of a principal residence, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘More Homes on the 

5 Market Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF 

7 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 121(b) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1321 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$500,000’’ each place it appears, 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘500,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$1,000,000’’ each place it appears, 

5 (3) in paragraph (2)(A), in the heading, by 

6 striking ‘‘$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’, and 

7 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—In the 

10 case of a taxable year beginning after 2023, the 

11 $500,000 and $1,000,000 amounts in paragraphs 

12 (1), (2), and (4) shall be increased by an amount 

13 equal to— 

14 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

15 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter16 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

17 year in which the taxable year begins, deter18 mined by substituting ‘2022’ for ‘2016’ in sub19 paragraph (A)(ii) thereof. 

20 If any increase under this clause is not a multiple 

21 of $100, such increase shall be rounded to the next 

22 lowest multiple of $100.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1321 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to sales and exchanges after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1339 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1339

  To require the Federal Communications Commission to review certain 
rules of the Commission and develop recommendations for rule changes to 
         promote precision agriculture, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2023

   Mr. Latta (for himself and Ms. Kelly of Illinois) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Federal Communications Commission to review certain 
rules of the Commission and develop recommendations for rule changes to 
         promote precision agriculture, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Precision Agriculture Satellite 
Connectivity Act''.

SEC. 2. PRECISION AGRICULTURE SATELLITE CONNECTIVITY.

    (a) Review.--The Commission, in consultation with the Task Force, 
shall--
            (1) review the rules of the Commission relating to fixed 
        satellite service, mobile satellite service, and earth 
        exploration satellite service to determine if there are rule 
        changes that the Commission could implement under existing 
        authority to promote precision agriculture; and
            (2) if the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that 
        there are rule changes that the Commission could implement, 
        develop recommendations for how to implement the changes.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
results of the review conducted under subsection (a), including any 
recommendations developed under paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Communications Commission.
            (2) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Task 
        Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of 
        Precision Agriculture in the United States established under 
        section 12511 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 
        (Public Law 115-334).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Peter J. Quandt, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 10-K    of Haights Cross Communications, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this report, fairly    present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure    controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      By: /s/  Peter    J. Quandt    Name: Peter J. Quandt     Title:     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and    President     Date: July 19, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Russell, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 862]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered April 11, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not *819knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because he was not informed that he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision is not preserved for appellate review. The defendant did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground *(see People v Chapman,*2 AD3d 647 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 596 [2004]; *People v Mapp,*308 AD2d 462 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 575 [2003]; *People v Higgins,*304 AD2d 773 [2003]; *People v Vatore,*303 AD2d 607 [2003]; *People v Curry,*301 AD2d 658, 659 [2003]; *People v Velez,*301 AD2d 619 [2003]; *People v Wilson,*296 AD2d 430 [2002]; *cf. People v Melio,*304 AD2d 247 [2003] [issue preserved by CPL 440.10 motion made in Supreme Court]). Further, we decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: What School Nutrition Professionals Need to Know About COVID-19      

# Resource: What School Nutrition Professionals Need to Know About COVID-19

This document outlines strategies for school nutrition (PDF, 1 page) program operators and school administrators to reduce transmission of COVID-19 among employees, students, and families; promote healthy environments and healthy business operations; and prepare for sick employees. Layered prevention strategies are discussed. **Learn more.**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JEFFREY G. FUTURE,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 114 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### NYCTL 1998-1 Trust and The Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Custodian, Respondent, v Jacob Rabinowitz, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[777 NYS2d 483]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2003, which denied the motion of *460defendant Jacob Rabinowitz (defendant) for an order staying or canceling a foreclosure sale and setting aside the judgment of foreclosure and sale for nonservice of process, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the denial of the motion vacated, the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a traverse hearing and further proceedings consistent with the determination rendered after such hearing. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 9, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic, in light of the foregoing.

While a proper affidavit of a process server attesting to personal delivery upon a defendant constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn nonconclusory denial of service by a defendant is sufficient to dispute the veracity or content of the affidavit, requiring a traverse hearing (see *Omansky v Gurland,*4 AD3d 104, 108 [2004]; *Haberman v Simon,*303 AD2d 181 [2003]; *Ananda Capital Partners v Stav Elec. Sys.,*301 AD2d 430 [2003]; *Stylianou v Tsourides,*73 AD2d 642 [1979]).

In the instant matter, the affidavit of service avers that substituted service upon defendant was effectuated on April 17, 2002 by service upon defendant’s son Randy Rabinowitz, a 26-year-old white male standing approximately 5 feet, 10 inches and weighing about 175 pounds. In response, defendant attested that although he has no son, he has a daughter named Randy Rabinowitz, who is a 45-year-old, full-time resident of Washington, D.C., standing 5 feet, 4 inches tall and weighing 125 pounds. Defendant further averred that he knew of no person in his residence on the day in question fitting the description contained in the affidavit of service. Inasmuch as defendant properly brought the purported deficiencies of the affidavit of service to the IAS court’s attention in his initial supporting affirmation and his reply papers merely amplified his earlier contentions, the IAS court should have considered defendant’s reply *(see Stylianou v Tsourides, supra; see also Whalen v Hogue,*276 AD2d 975 [2000]). In light of these sharp factual disputes as to the validity of service upon defendant, the IAS court erred in failing to resolve this threshold issue of personal service with a traverse hearing.

The IAS court, however, properly applied RPAPL 1341 to the instant tax hen foreclosure proceeding *(see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v LFJ Realty Corp.,*307 AD2d 957 [2003], *lv dismissed*1 NY3d 622 [2004]). Similarly, the IAS court appropriately determined that, contrary to defendant’s contentions, the purported deficiencies in the notice of sale did not void the sale.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and *461find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
#### Lillian Manney, Appellant, v GE Medical Systems, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 852]

*764In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated January 30, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its employees were not on the premises at the time that the plaintiff was injured *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form to rebut this prima facie showing *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiffs contention that she needed to conduct further discovery was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs mere expressions of hope that discovery would reveal something helpful to her case provided no basis for denying the defendant’s motion *(see Berrios v Kobal,*262 AD2d 514 [1999]; *Weeden v First Natl. Bank of Long Is.,*227 AD2d 398 [1996]; *Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp.,*218 AD2d 643 [1995]; *Bryan v City of New York,*206 AD2d 448 [1994]; *see also Cruz v Otis El. Co.,*238 AD2d 540 [1997]). Santucci, *J.P.,*Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Webinar Recording: Education, Special Education, and Accommodations for Students with Psychosis: Working with Youth, Families, Teachers, and Schools      

# Webinar Recording: Education, Special Education, and Accommodations for Students with Psychosis: Working with Youth, Families, Teachers, and Schools

This webinar provided information and tangible suggestions on how to effectively work with schools, families, and students on behalf of high school students with psychosis. The webinar discussed federally mandated educational programs and regulations (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], Individualized Education Programs [IEPs], 504s) and relevant accommodations for students.**Learn more.**