alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.133 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) *Title VI provisions.* If the inventory real property to be sold secured a loan that was subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the property will be used for its original or similar purpose, or if Rural Development extends credit and the property then becomes subject to Title VI, the buyer will sign Form RD 400-4. “Assurance Agreement.” The instrument of conveyance will contain the following statement: The property described herein was obtained or improved through Federal financial assistance. This property is subject to the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto for so long as the property continues to be used for the same or similar purposes for which the Federal financial assistance was extended.
( b ) *Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan.* Exclusive listing brokers or auctioneers selling SFH properties having 5 or more properties in the same subdivision listed or offered for sale at the same time will prepare and submit to Rural Development an acceptable Form HUD 935.2, “Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan,” for each such subdivision in accordance with § 1901.203(c) of Subpart E of Part 1901 of this chapter.
( c ) *Equal Housing Opportunity logo.* All Rural Development and contractor sale advertisements will contain the Equal Housing Opportunity logo.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFGLOBAL PARTNERS LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2010 of Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”)and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, thegeneral partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:  August 6, 2010 | By:    | /s/  Eric Slifka                       |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Eric  Slifka                           |
|                        |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |   | of  Global GP LLC, general partner     |
|                        |   | of  Global Partners LP                 |

 

----
§ 250.32 Protection of donated food value. ( a ) *Performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit.* The processor must obtain a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to protect the value of donated foods to be received for processing prior to the delivery of the donated foods to the processor. The processor must provide the performance bond or letter of credit to the distributing or recipient agency, in accordance with its In-State or Recipient Agency Processing Agreement. However, a multi-State processor must provide the performance bond or letter of credit to FNS, in accordance with its National Processing Agreement. For multi-State processors, the minimum amount of the performance bond or letter of credit must be sufficient to cover at least 75 percent of the value of donated foods in the processor's physical or book inventory, as determined annually and at the discretion of FNS for processors under National Processing Agreements. For multi-state processors in their first year of participation in the processing program, the amount of the performance bond or letter of credit must be sufficient to cover 100 percent of the value of donated foods, as determined annually, and at the discretion of FNS. The surety company from which a bond is obtained must be listed in the most current Department of Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570).
( b ) *Calling in the performance bond or letter of credit.* The distributing or recipient agency must call in the performance bond or letter of credit whenever a processor's lack of compliance with this part, or with the terms of the In-State or Recipient Agency Processing Agreement, results in a loss of donated foods to a distributing or recipient agency and the processor fails to make restitution or respond to a claim action initiated to recover the loss. Similarly, FNS will call in the performance bond or letter of credit in the same circumstances, in accordance with National Processing Agreements, and will ensure that any monies recovered are reimbursed to distributing agencies for losses of entitlement foods.
Description of Compensatory Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1.25 
  
 TERRA INDUSTRIES INC. 
 DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY
ARRANGEMENTS FOR 2005 
 APPLICABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  
 Set forth below are compensatory arrangements as of March 1, 2005, applicable to Terra’s current executive officers who will be named in the
summary compensation table of Terra’s proxy statement for the 2005 annual meeting of shareholders (“Named Executive Officers”). These arrangements are in addition to the various other compensatory plans and arrangements in which
Terra’s Named Executive Officers participate and which are filed as exhibits to this report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. 
  
 Annual Base Pay 
  

				
	 Michael L. Bennett
	  	$	450,000
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	 
		
	 Francis G. Meyer
	  	$	325,000
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	 
		
	 W. Mark Rosenbury
	  	$	250,000
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
	  	 	 
		
	 Mark A. Kalafut
	  	$	210,000
	 Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	 	 
		
	 Richard S. Sanders Jr.
	  	$	185,000
	 Vice President, Manufacturing
	  	 	 

  
 Executive Retention Agreements

  
 Each of the Named Executive Officers has entered into an executive retention
agreement, the details of which are set out in Terra’s proxy statement under the caption “Employee Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change of Control Arrangements.” 
  
 Bonuses 
  
 Each of the Named Executive Officers received a bonus for 2004, payable in 2005, the details of which are set out in Terra’s proxy statement in the Summary Compensation Table.
Glo GermTM Company

P. O. Box 189 • Moab, Utah 84532 •

www.glogerm.com

August 6, 2013

(435) 259-5693

(800) 842-6622 ext 117

(435) 259-5930 fax

Mr. Dennis DeVany

Chief of the EAS Division

Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.

VVashington, D.C. 20590

RE: Essential Air Service Applications

Dear Mr. DeVany:

co

Istrongly feel that this is one of the most important elements to the County, City and even the State of

Utah's economic well-being and should be seriously evaluated.

The revenue generated by tourists being able to make flight reservations seamlessly would have a Il}ajor

impact on increasing both domestic and international flight enplanements which could dramatically

improve federal funding for the Canyonlands Airport. The smaller aircraft and restrictive ticketing of

Great Lakes Airlines would ha~e significant negative impact on all levels of revenue income. SkyWest in

partnership with Delta means visitors can make flights to Moab on a single Delta ticket; and more

importantly the Delta sales anct'support is also available on total trip planning. This would greatly

improve the international travtll. Currently, a significant number of determined international tourists use

Las Vegas hub and because of the distance to Moab, an unknown number of visitors are lost to the State

of Utah.

Further, Great Lakes Airlines has demonstrated that they are motivated by EAS income: not passenger

revenue or service. Iam totally convinced that the service to Las Vegas and its termination was a political

move, first to get Grand County acceptance and then use that service as a ploy to get the Ely, NV service

and when the Ely service was not approved; Great Lakes canceled the Moab to Las Vegas leg.

Finally, service to Salt Lake City rather than Denver would better serve the residents of Moab/Grand

County and visitors alike.

As the President of two companies marketing worldwide, Ifully understand the importance of good

transportation availability and SkyWest offers the service that local companies need for their own growth

and connectivity. . ,

Istrongly recommend that the approval of the SkyWest application.

Sincerely,

J~!;<yXt4

President
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.860-1951.865 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INLCUDED WITHIN THE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      67,381,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              132,896,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 21,589,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           236,130,000
<PP&E>                                     613,752,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             141,033,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             727,561,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       82,880,000
<BONDS>                                     49,650,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,627,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 558,593,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               727,561,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           895,482,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              580,562,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            56,005,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            76,894,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,712,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            178,309,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                69,987,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        108,322,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               108,322,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The State ex rel. McDonald *v.*Pfeiffer, Admr.; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. McDonald v. Pfeiffer*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 131.]

(No. 96-2189

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Cox & Stein*and *Edward J. Cox, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*132The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court, of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
NUMBER 13-13-00599-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

NITA WINKLER, APPELLANT,

v.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Bell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Nita Winkler, perfected an appeal from a judgment rendered against her 

in favor of appellee, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

1

 On February 11, 2014, 

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a docket 

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 

2005). 
2

the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was 

originally due on August 9, 2013, and that the district clerk, Shelley Coston, had notified 

this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. 

The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to 

correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant 

was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt 

of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

27th day of March, 2014.
#### Patsy Montalto et al., Respondents, v. John L. Davis, Appellant.

Judgment in favor of plaintiffs unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial (assessment) granted, without costs or disbursements of this appeal, unless plaintiff, Patsy Montalto, and plaintiff, Joseph Molinelli, stipulate to accept, respectively, the sum of $6,500 and the sum of $2,000 in lieu of the amounts awarded on assessment, in which event the judgment is modified in each instance to that extent and is affirmed as thus modified, without costs or disbursements of this appeal. The new trial (assessment) on the amount of damages will be held only as to the plaintiff not stipulating to accept the reduced amount. In this personal injury negligence action, it is evident that the amounts awarded are grossly excessive and not warranted by the record. Settle order on notice. Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra, J ustices 

# Order

March 9, 2011

141727 & (70)(72)

ESTATE OF DANIEL D. JILEK, by JOY A. JILEK, Personal Representative, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141727 COA: 289488 Washtenaw CC: 05-000268-NH CARLIN C. STOCKSON, M.D., and EPMG OF MICHIGAN, Defendants-Appellants,

and

MAPLE URGENT CARE, d/b/a MAPLEHEALTH BUILDING, TRINITY HEALTHMICHIGAN, CATHERINE MCAULEY HEALTH CENTER, IRWIN M. LUTWIN,
CARPENTER HEALTH CARE, d/b/a
CARPENTER HEALTH CENTER, and ROBERT E. ANDERSON,
Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of its
conclusion that the trial court erred in determining the applicab le standard of care, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holdi ng that evidence of the defendants’ internal policies and procedures should have been admitted at tria l. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this or der, but they should not submit
mere restatements of th eir application papers.I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 9, 2011

d0302 2

The motions for leave to file brief amic us curiae are GRANTED. The Michigan Association for Justice, Mich igan Health and Hospital Association, and Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presente d in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
exv10w42



 






Exhibit 10. 42




OXiGENE, Inc.

Named Executive Officers Compensation Arrangements




     The following are our named executive officers. Their annual salaries and bonus for 2004 were
as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Position	 	2004 Salary
	Frederick W. Driscoll


	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


	 	$

	365,000

	 
	David Chaplin


	 	Chief Scientific Officer and Head of
Research and Development


	 	$

	365,000

	 
	Scott Young


	 	Chief Operating Officer


	 	$

	220,000

	 
	James B. Murphy (1)


	 	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


	 	$

	200,000

	 





(1) Mr. Murphy began employment with the Company on February 23, 2004. The amount in the table
above represents his annual salary and bonus for 2004 and not the amount actually paid in 2004.
#### § 1770.14 Continuing property records.

Each borrower shall maintain continuing property records which detail the date of placement, location, description of property, and the original cost of the property record units. The continuing property record and other underlying records of construction costs shall be maintained so that upon retirement of one or more retirement units or of minor items without replacement when not included in the costs of retirement units, the actual cost of the plant retired can be determined.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1992 

To amend the requirements relating to assessment of Israel’s qualitative 

military edge over military threats, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2013 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. ROYCE, and Ms. 

GABBARD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the requirements relating to assessment of Israel’s 

qualitative military edge over military threats, 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 ‘‘Israel QME Enhance5 ment Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1992 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 

2 ASSESSMENT OF ISRAEL’S QUALITATIVE 

3 MILITARY EDGE OVER MILITARY THREATS. 

4 (a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED; REPORTS.—Section 

5 201 of Public Law 110–429 (122 Stat. 4843; 22 U.S.C. 

6 2776 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘an ongoing 

8 basis’’ and inserting ‘‘a biennial basis’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (c)(2)— 

10 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘QUADREN11 NIAL’’ and inserting ‘‘BIENNIAL’’; and 

12 (B) in the text, by striking ‘‘Not later than 

13 four years after the date on which the President 

14 transmits the initial report under paragraph 

15 (1), and every four years thereafter,’’ and in16 serting ‘‘Not later than one year after the date 

17 of the enactment of the Israel QME Enhance18 ment Act, and biennially thereafter,’’. 

19 (b) REPORT.— 

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

21 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President 

22 shall submit to Congress a report on criteria used to 

23 include cyber and asymmetric threats for purposes 

24 of the assessment required under section 201(a) of 

25 Public Law 110–429 (122 Stat. 4843; 22 U.S.C. 

26 2776 note; relating to Israel’s qualitative military 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 1992 IH

1 edge over military threats to Israel) (as amended by 

2 subsection (a)(1)). 

3 (2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

4 ‘‘qualitative military edge’’ has the meaning given 

5 the term in section 36(h) of the Arms Export Con6 trol Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(h)). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv10w32



 






Exhibit 10.32




Addendum to Employment Contract




      Agreement made as of December 1, 2004, between Beverly Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and William R. Floyd (the “Executive”);



      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Contract of December 6,
2001 between them;



      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and understandings set forth herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:



      1. Revise section 4(b)(xiii)iii to read: “lump sum option will be made available with the lump sum
present value based on the discount rate set forth in Section 4. 4(b) of the 2000 plan, but with no
additional discount, consistent with the Company’s intent as clarified.”



      2. Add a new section 4(b)(xv) which reads: “To continue as a participant in the Company’s
Executive Allowance Program pursuant to its terms.”



      3. Add a new section 4(b)(xvi) which reads: “To continue as a participant in the Retention
Enhancement Program (“REP”) under the Company’s Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (“EDCP”),
subject to the REP’s and applicable EDCP terms and conditions.”



      4. Add a new section 4(b)(xvii) which reads: “To continue as a participant in the Company’s Long
Term Care Plan pursuant to its terms.”



      5. Revise section 7(c)(ii) to read: “The Company shall maintain in force, at its own expense, for
the remainder of the Executive’s life, life insurance under the Company’s Executive Split Dollar
Life Insurance Plan in an amount not less than $835,000.00, naming the Executive as beneficiary,
and payable to Executive’s estate upon death.”



      The parties have duly executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
	 	Executive
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 
	

	 	Chair, Nominating and
Compensation Committee

Board of Director
	 	William R. Floyd
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Douglas J. Babb

Executive Vice President

Chief Administrative and Legal
Officer
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

ANTHONY CABAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv2530-LC-HTC 

WARDEN C MAIORANA, 

A W PROGRAMS M NEAL, 

HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION D MCGOWAN, 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated April 14, 2020 (ECF No. 9). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1), but no objections were filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that 

it should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 9) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 3:20-cv-02530-LC-HTC Document 10 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv2530-LC-HTC 

2. Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF Doc. 7) is dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2). 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2020. 

 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-02530-LC-HTC Document 10 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2