alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1(bt)


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE


TO


FACTORY PENSION PLAN OF
SAUER-DANFOSS (LASALLE) AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND IT’S LOCAL UNION NO. 285


(As Amended and Restated
Effective January 1, 1999)


 


 


WHEREAS, Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company (previously
known as Sauer-Sundstrand Company) (the “Company”) sponsors the Factory Pension
Plan of Sauer-Danfoss (LaSalle) and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and Its Local Union
No. 285 (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Plan was submitted on February 20,
2002 to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for purposes of securing a
favorable determination letter with respect to the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the IRS has requested an amendment to
the Plan in connection with the issuance of a favorable determination letter
with respect to the Plan’s qualified status under Section 401(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the UAW Local Union No.
285 (the “Union”) have agreed that such determination to amend the Plan at the
IRS request is in the best interest of the Company and its employees.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 19.2 of the Plan,
the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2000, by inserting the
following new paragraph (c) to Section 1.2 of the Plan as a part thereof:


 


“Notwithstanding the last paragraph of paragraph (a)
immediately above and the last paragraph of paragraph (b) immediately above,
for the period beginning January 1, 2000 and ending April 3, 2003, a lump sum
distribution under the Plan shall equal the lump sum distribution, as
determined under the actuarial assumptions provided for in paragraphs (a) and
(b) immediately above or as determined under the terms of the Plan prior to
January 1, 2000, whichever results in the greater present value benefit to the
Participant.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has authorized the
execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Three this 3rd day of April,
2003.


 


	
  Sauer-Danfoss
  (U.S.) Company

  	
   

  	
  UAW, Local Union No. 285

  
	
  /s/ MATTHEW K. BENDLER

  	
   

  	
  /s/ WILLIAM C. FALASSI

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ SUZANNE SOBKOWIAK

  	
   

  	
  /s/ PATRICIO ESCATEL
#### In the Matter of MacArthur Nelson, Petitioner, v George Roberts et al., Respondents.

to prohibit retrial and dismiss the indictment of petitioner denied and petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 185

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2013

   Mr. Hall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in 
Sherman, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1787.1 General. ( a ) The “Buy American” provision of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Act) requires, to the extent practicable and the cost of which is not unreasonable, that RUS Borrowers use loan funds only for such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States or any eligible country.
( b ) Each RUS Borrower is responsible for assuring that its use of loan funds complies with this requirement, and that the contracts it enters into for construction, materials and equipment, and purchases with vendors contain the Buy American requirement, along with certification as to compliance, made through RUS Form 213.
C. A. No. 77-454.

#### State *v.*George F. Neary *et al.*

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Dennis J. Roberts II,*Attorney General, *Melanie Wilk Spencer,*Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff, *Barbara Hurst, Dale G. Anderson, Janice M. Weisfeld,*Assistant Public Defenders, for defendant.

The defendants’ petition to reargue is denied.
CAUSE NO. 12-17-00201-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIAM POTTER

, } APPEALED FROM 402ND DISTRICT COURT

APPELLANT

V. } IN AND FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, } WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE



### ORDER

Came on for consideration the Appellant’s Pro Se Amended Motion for Access to Records in the

above-referenced cause, and it appearing that Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and that

Appellant has been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief, it is hereby ORDERED

that the trial court ensure that Appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or

before January 2, 2018

, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court in writing as

to the date or dates upon which the appellate record was made available to Appellant and the amount of

time for which Appellant had access to the record on each date. Appellant shall have thirty (30) days

from the day the appellate record was first made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court.

WITNESS THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN

, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals

District, Tyler, Texas.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE at Tyler, Texas, this 30th day of

November 2017

, A.D.

Respectfully yours,

PAM ESTES

, CLERK

By:

_______________________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
§ 1485.30 Property standards. ( a ) A Participant shall maintain an inventory of all personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $500 or more that was acquired in furtherance of program activities. The inventory shall list and number each item and include the date of purchase or acquisition, cost of purchase, replacement value, serial number, make, model, and electrical requirements, as applicable.
( b ) The Participant shall insure all real property and equipment that was acquired, in whole or in part, with MAP funds at a level minimally equal to the equivalent insurance coverage for property owned by the Participant. The Participant shall safeguard such property and equipment against theft, damage, and unauthorized use. The Participant shall promptly report any loss, theft, or damage of such property and equipment to the insurance company.
( c ) Personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $500 or more purchased by the Participant, and for which the Participant is reimbursed, in whole or in part, with MAP funds, that is unusable, unserviceable, or no longer needed for project purposes shall be disposed of in one of the following ways. The Participant may: ( 1 ) Exchange or sell the property, provided that it applies any exchange allowance, insurance proceeds, or sales proceeds toward the purchase of other property needed in the project;
( 2 ) With CCC approval, transfer the property to other Participants for their activities, or to a foreign entity; or
( 3 ) Upon Attaché/Counselor approval, donate the property to a local charity, or convey the property to the Attaché/Counselor, along with an itemized inventory list and any documents of title.
( d ) The Participant is responsible for reimbursing CCC for the value of any uninsured property at the time of the loss or theft of the property.
#### McKey & Poague, Inc., appellant, v. Sam Krisolofsky, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,479.

Opinion filed January 2, 1930.

Langworthy, Stevens, McKeag *&*Hurley, for appellant. Morris A. Weinberg and Samuel Sehmetterer, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Ryner

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6915

IN RE: SHAHBORN EMMANUEL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(CR-97-288)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahborn Emmanuel, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Shahborn Emmanuel seeks a writ of mandamus remanding his

case to the district court for resentencing in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Mandamus is

a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by

which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d

818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden

of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief

he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and

indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Emmanuel fails to make the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny

Emmanuel’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.6 Establishing priority for enrollment of properties in WRP. ( a ) When evaluating easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost-share agreement offers from landowners, the NRCS, with advice from the State Technical Committee, may consider: ( 1 ) The conservation benefits of obtaining an easement, or other interest in the land;
( 2 ) The cost effectiveness of each easement or other interest in eligible land, so as to maximize the environmental benefits per dollar expended;
( 3 ) Whether the landowner or another person is offering to contribute financially to the cost of the easement or other interest in the land to leverage Federal funds;
( 4 ) The extent to which the purposes of the easement program would be achieved on the land;
( 5 ) The productivity of the land; and
( 6 ) The on-farm and off-farm environmental threats if the land is used for the production of agricultural commodities.
( b ) To the extent practicable, taking into consideration costs and future agricultural and food needs, NRCS shall give priority to: ( 1 ) Obtaining permanent easements over shorter term easements; and
( 2 ) Acquiring easements based on the value of the easement for protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, in consultation with FWS.
( c ) NRCS, in consultation with the State Technical Committee, may place higher priority on certain geographic regions of the State where restoration of wetlands may better achieve State and regional goals and objectives.
( d ) Notwithstanding any limitation of this part, the State Conservationist may, at any time, exclude enrollment of otherwise eligible lands if the participation of the adjacent landowners is essential to the successful restoration of the wetlands and those adjacent landowners are unwilling or ineligible to participate. The State Conservationist may coordinate with other Federal, State, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the restoration of wetlands on adjacent ineligible lands, especially in priority geographic areas.
( e ) ( 1 ) The Chief will conduct an assessment during fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent fiscal year for the purpose of determining the interest and allocations for the Prairie Pothole Region to enroll land determined eligible under § 1467.4(d)(5) of this part into 30-year easements. Annually, the Chief will provide specific instructions for the assessment in writing to the applicable State Conservationists.
( 2 ) The Chief will make an adjustment to the allocation for an applicable State for a fiscal year, based on the results of the assessment conducted under paragraph (e)(1) of this section for the State during the previous fiscal year.
§ 1753.80 Minor construction procedure. ( a ) If the borrower performs minor construction financed with loan funds, the borrower's regular work order procedure shall be used to administer construction activities that may be performed entirely by a contractor under Form 773 contract, by work order, or jointly by work order and one or more contractors under Form 773 contracts.
( b ) RUS financing under Form 773 contracts dated in the same calendar year is limited to the following amounts for the following discrete categories of minor construction. The date of the Form 773 contract is the date the Form 773 contract is executed. ( 1 ) For outside plant construction, the limit is $500,000 or ten per cent (10%) of the borrower's previous calendar year's outside plant total construction, whichever is greater.
( 2 ) For central office equipment, the limit is $500,000.
( 3 ) For equipment and buildings, the limit is $250,000 in each category.
( c ) A single minor construction project may be a discrete element of a somewhat larger overall project, such as the provision and installation of a standby power generator or heating/air conditioning equipment in connection with a building modification or expansion project or the splicing on a major cable placement project. It cannot be a portion, by dividing into smaller segments, of a discrete major construction project, such as the placement of a continuous cable facility.
( d ) RUS approval must be obtained in advance for minor construction unless all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) RUS has approved the engineering design.
( 2 ) All standard RUS procedures are followed, including the application of RUS construction practices (see § 1753.6).
( 3 ) The Standard Form 773 contract is used without modification.
( e ) The borrower shall determine the scope of each proposed construction project and decide how it will be constructed. A work project number shall be assigned to which all charges for that project are referenced.
( f ) The borrower shall maintain accounting and plant records sufficient to document the cost and location of all construction and to support loan fund advances and disbursements.
( g ) Normally the borrower will finance minor construction with general funds and obtain reimbursement with loan funds when construction is completed and executed Form 771 has been submitted to RUS. If a borrower satisfies RUS of its inability to finance the construction temporarily with general funds, RUS may establish, on a case by case basis, a work order fund for specific construction projects. The work order fund will be closed upon receipt of an FRS and the executed Forms 771 for the specific projects for which the work order fund was established.
( h ) RUS will advance funds to finance minor construction work projects only if all necessary documents, including an FRS and supporting data covering the project, are received within one year of the date construction of the project is completed.
[55 FR 3573, Feb. 2, 1990. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 43718, Aug. 25, 1994; 64 FR 16612, Apr. 6, 1999; 81 FR 71585, Oct. 18, 2016]
#### § 1730.29 Grants and Grantees.

For the purposes of this part, the terms “borrower” shall include recipients of RUS electric program grants, and “applicant” shall include applicants for such grants. References to “security documents” shall, with respect to recipients of RUS electric program grants, include grant agreements and other grant-related documents.

[69 FR 60541, Oct. 12, 2004]
§ 1710.409 Loan provisions. ( a ) *Loan term.* The maximum term for loans under this subpart shall be 15 years unless the loans relate to ground source loop investments or technology on an aggregate basis that has a useful life greater than 15 years. Ground source loop investments as the term is used in this paragraph do not include ancillary equipment related to ground source heat pump systems.
( b ) *Loan feasibility.* Loan feasibility must be demonstrated for all loans made under this subpart. Loans made under this subpart shall be secured.
( c ) *Reimbursement for completed projects.* ( 1 ) A borrower may request an initial advance not to exceed five percent of the total loan amount for working capital purposes to implement an eligible EE Program;
( 2 ) Except for the initial advance provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, all advances under this subpart shall be used for reimbursement of expenditures relating to a completed activity or investment; and
( 3 ) Advances shall be in accordance with RUS procedures.
( d ) *Loan amounts.* ( 1 ) Cumulative loan amounts outstanding under this subpart will be determined by the Assistant Administrator of the Electric Program and based an applicant's business plan; and
( 2 ) Financing for administrative costs may not exceed 5 percent of the total loan amount.
( 3 ) The Rural Utilities Service reserves the right to place a cap on both the total amount of funds an eligible entity can apply for, as well as a cap on the total amount of funds the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program can utilize in the appropriations.
EXHIBIT 11.1


                     DATAWATCH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

Computation of weighted average number of shares outstanding used in determining
income (loss) per share was as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 1996           1995                    1994
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                        <C>               <C>                 <C>
COMMON STOCK AND COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS:

Weighted average shares outstanding
   of common stock........................................     8,705,172         8,204,502            7,372,946
Common stock equivalent shares resulting
   from assumed conversion of warrants
   and assumed exercise of stock options..................       238,690             (a)                 (a)
                                                            -------------      ------------       -----------


Weighted average of common and common
   equivalent shares-primary..............................     8,943,862         8,204,502            7,372,946
Assumed conversion of warrants and exercise
  of stock options based on higher of
  average or closing market price.........................         4,340             (a)                  (a)
                                                            -------------     -------------      -------------


Weighted average of common and common
  equivalent shares-fully diluted.........................      8,948,202         8,204,502            7,372,946
                                                            =============     =============       ==============

NET INCOME (LOSS).........................................     $1,125,360         $(331,423)         $(3,042,767)
                                                            =============     =============       ==============

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:
   Primary................................................     $      .13         $    (.04)          $     (.41)
                                                            =============     =============       ==============
   Fully-diluted..........................................    $     .13           $    (.04)          $     (.41)
                                                            =============     =============       ==============

</TABLE>

(a) Common stock  equivalent  shares were excluded from the  calculation for the
years  ended  September  30,  1995 and 1994 due to the  antidulitive  effect the
inclusion of such would have had on loss per share.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**I, G. Gary Yetman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Coleman Cable, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: August 14, 2007 **/s/ G. Gary Yetman**   **Chief Executive Officer and President**