alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1924.252 Policy.

Rural Development is responsible for receiving and resolving all complaints concerning the construction of dwellings and the construction, installation and set-up of units financed by Rural Development. Rural Development must determine whether defects are structural or non-structural. If the defect is structural and is covered by the builder's/dealer-contractor's (the “contractor”) warranty, the contractor is expected to correct the defect. If the contractor cannot or will not correct the defect, the costs of correcting the defect may be paid by the Government, or the borrower may be compensated for correcting the defect, under the provisions of this subpart. If the defect is non-structural but is covered under the provisions of the contractor's warranty or independent home warranty, the contractor is still expected to correct the defect. Rural Development will assist the borrower in obtaining assistance through the independent home warranty company's and/or manufacturer's complaint resolution process. However, if the contractor cannot or will not correct a non-structural defect covered under the provisions of the contractor's warranty, the Government will not pay the costs for correcting the defect, nor will the borrower be compensated for doing so.
Exhibit 10.15




Exhibit
10.15




Summary
of Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors

As
of February 28, 2005







The
following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the
Company's non-employee directors as of February 28, 2005. This document is
intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way
is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee
director.




Retainer

 

Non-employee
directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $16,000. The Chairman of the
audit committee receives an annual retainer of $12,000 and the chairman of each
of the Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and
Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $4,000. A director that
chairs more than one committee receives a retainer with respect to each
Committee he chairs. All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.



Meeting
Fee

 

Per
meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:

 


	·  	
      For
      meetings of the Board of Directors, Compensation Committee, Corporate
      Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee, $1,000.
      





	
       

      ·  
	
       

      For
      meetings of the Audit Committee, $2,000. In addition, the Chairman gets an
      additional $1,000 for preparing to conduct each quarterly meeting.
      







Equity
Compensation

 

Under the
terms of the Company's 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to
receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based
compensation awards. However, the Company does not make any such awards to
non-employee directors under its current compensation practices.

 




All
non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all
services as a director, including committee participation or special
assignments.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr3093 LAC

CHARLES SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on November 11, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO AMEND PURSUANT TO RULE 

15(A)/15(C)(2) 

Filed by DEFT PRO SE on 11/12/09 Doc.# 266

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 18 day of

th

November, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

(b)

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No.
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Electronic Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0300]

Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C) State Implementation Plan Pertaining to the Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS; California; El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District 

I. SIP Submittal Documents

I-A SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated March 21, 2016

I-B Rule 523-1 – Federal Non-Attainment New Source Review

I-C Submittal Completeness Letter, March 30, 2016

II. Federal Register Notices

1

II-A 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006

II-C 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008

II-B 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009

II-D 79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014

III. EPA Rulemaking Documents

III-A Federal Register Notice 

 

1 All Federal Register notices listed after 1993 are available on-line at: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26319-26320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11041]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighth Meeting: RTCA Subcommittee 228 (SC 228)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Eighth Meeting Notice of RTCA Subcommittee 228.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
eighth meeting of the RTCA Subcommittee 228.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 22nd from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0654.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Harold Moses, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., hmoses@rtca.org, 202-330-
0654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Subcommittee 228. The agenda 
will include the following: Friday, May 22, 2015.

    1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks/SC-228 
Participation Guidelines
    a. Reading of the Public Announcement by the DFO
    b. Reading of the RTCA Proprietary References Policy
    2. Agenda Overview
    3. Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary #7 (RTCA Paper No. 
256-14/SC228-019) held Friday, November 21st, 2014 at RTCA
    4. Review of RTCA SC-228 Steering Committee Activity
    5. Report from EUROCAE WG-73 on their progress

[[Page 26320]]

    6. Report from WG-1 for Detect and Avoid progress on the DAA 
MOPS
    7. Report from WG-2 for Command and Control progress on the CNPC 
MOPS
    8. Action Item Review
    9. Other Business
    10. Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting(s)
    a. Proposed--Plenary #9--Fall 2015 @ NASA Ames
    b. Proposed--Plenary #10--
    11. Adjourn Plenary

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-11041 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                 KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Fiscal Years Ended
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        March 28, 1998                     March 29, 1997                      March 30, 1996
                                 -----------------------------      ------------------------------      ----------------------------

                                                     Per-Share                           Per-Share                         Per-Share
                                 Income    Shares      Amount       Income      Shares     Amount       Income     Shares    Amount 
                                 ------    ------    ---------      ------      ------   ---------      ------     ------  ---------

<S>                              <C>       <C>        <C>           <C>         <C>       <C>          <C>       <C>       <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE

Net Earnings                     $35,426   26,598     $ 1.33        $27,621     25,580    $   1.08     $29,792   23,192    $   1.28
                                                      ======                              ========                         ========
EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES

Excess of shares issuable                                                                                              
 upon exercise of stock options
 over shares deemed retired 
 utilizing the treasury 
 stock method                          -    1,499                         -      1,508                       -    1,253

Convertible preferred stock                                                                                              
 of pooled company                     -        -                         -        293                       -       11

Warrants of pooled company             -        -                         -        199                       -      266
                                 -------   ------                   -------     ------                 -------   ------
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Net earnings plus assumed        $35,426   28,097     $ 1.26        $27,621     27,580    $   1.00     $29,792   24,722    $   1.21
 conversions                    ========   ======     ======        =======     ======    ========     =======   ======    ========
</TABLE>
#### Peter A. Tancredi, as Executor of Lucy Tancredi, Deceased, Respondent, v Carmine Manning, Appellant.

In an action on a promissory *580note, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 7, 1979, which is in favor of plaintiff upon the granting of his motion for summary judgment. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion denied, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. The plaintiff sues upon a note made by defendant in favor of plaintiff’s testatrix. In response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendant contended that upon a partial payment during the lifetime of the obligor, the latter orally discharged the balance due. No claim has been made that any writings exist to support this defense. The instant case is thus factually indistinguishable from the case of *Friese v Baird*(36 AD2d 727) in which we held that a defense consisting solely of a claim that a promissory note had been orally discharged by the plaintiff’s intestate was insufficient to defeat summary judgment because proof of the defense would be excludable at the trial by reason of the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519). Although it is the firmly established rule that "It is incumbent upon a defendant who opposes a motion for summary judgment to assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs, in order to show that the matters set up in his answer are real *and are capable of being established upon a trial” (Di Sabato v Soffes,*9 AD2d 297, 301; emphasis added), the Court of Appeals has held that "Evidence, otherwise relevant and competent upon a trial or hearing, but subject to exclusion on objection under the Dead Man’s Statute, should not predetermine the result on summary judgment in anticipation of the objection” *(Phillips v Kantor & Co.,*31 NY2d 307, 310). Our holding in the *Friese*case has thus effectively been overruled and, despite the patent incapability of proving the asserted defense at trial, we are required to reverse on the authority of *Phillips v Kantor & Co. (supra).*Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Inventory Expert Service 

A division of the American Chemical Society 

December 21, 2010 

Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 

Fax: 614-447-3747 

E-mail: answers@cas.org 

Web: www.cas.org/products/client/ 

Thank you for your Inventory Expert Service (IES) order of December 20, 2010 . 

The processing results for your order are included on the following page. 

To ensure effi cient processing of your substance, it is important that you 

i nclude this page with your PMN report form when reporting your substance to 

the EPll .. 

An invoice will be issued to cover the cost of the processing of ycur order. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this service. If you have any 

questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 614 - 447 - 3870 . 

Si~ 

Jennifer Moore 

Inventory Expert Service 

Enclosure(s) : Inventory Expert Service Report 

CAS 2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 Columbus. Ohio 43210-0334 USA 
Inventory Expert Service 

A division of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631 -1884, 614-447-3870 

Fax:614-447-3747 

E-mail: answers@cas.org 

Web: www.cas.org/products/dientl 

CAS 

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT 

IES-ORDER NUMBER: 

REGISTRY NUMBER: 

CA INDEX NAME 

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

0 If this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to 

your IES order. Please make the same correction(s) to your PMN before 

submitting it to the EPA. 

2S40 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 Columbus. Ohio 432 10-0334 USA
aceD S7

- 4 ) , O l t 1110 1 o
• 44 PROTS ° UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

- 

## FEB 2 5 2016 Ms. Gail Good Director Air Management Program Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Dear Ms. Good: REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

This letter is in response to your January 28, 2016 submittal of "Wisconsin's Attainment Demonstration for the Oneida County 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area." This submittal contains nonattainment plan provisions, as obligated by Section 172(c) of the Clean Air Act, for the area designated nonattainmcnt by EPA (78 FR 47192) effective October 4,2013, under the 2010 sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard. We have performed a completeness review of your submittal against the completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. We have determined that this SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria. A finding of completeness merely indicates that the submittal meets the criteria that any plan must satisfy for EPA to take rulemaking action on it. A completeness finding is not a finding

. on the merits of the plan or whether it meets EPA's State Implementation Plan approval requirements. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me. or Jenny Liljegren, of my staff, at 312-886-6832.

Sincerely,

George T. Czemiak Director Air and Radiation Division

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 3, 2021

NO. 03-21-00287-CV

GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, Appellant

v.

Patricia Mihal, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON AGREED MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 21, 2020. The parties 

have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees 

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the 

appeal. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and in

the court below.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS RS-12 Automated Ground Sunphotometer Measurements in the SSAThe BOREAS RSS-12 team collected both ground and airborne sunphotometer measurements for use in characterizing the aerosol optical properties of the atmosphere during the BOREAS data collection activities. These measurements are to be used to: 1) measure the magnitude and variability of the aerosol optical depth in both time and space; 2) determine the optical properties of the boreal aerosols; and 3) atmospherically correct some remotely sensed data acquired during BOREAS. These data cover selected days and times from May to September 1994 and were taken from one of two ground sites near Candle Lake in the SSA. The data described in this document are from the field sunphotometer data. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005751Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Nickeson, Jaime*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services United States)*Lobitz, Brad*(Johnson Controls World Services United States)*Spanner, Michael*(Johnson Controls World Services United States)*Wrigley, Robert*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL60Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL60NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL60Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005751.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
U.S. Depolilielit 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

DEC :~ .l~9 

Mr. Alvaro Pillar 

Executive Director 

Puerto Rico Ports Authority 

64 Lindbergh Street 

Isla Grande. PR 00907 

Dear Mr. Pillar: 

Airport Compliance and Field Operations 800 Independence Ave .• SN. 

Washington. DC 20591 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is pleased to inform you that your preliminary 

application for Luis Munoz Marin International Airport's (SJU) participation in the Airport 

Privatization Pilot Program is accepted for further review. The application is designated as 

FAA Docket Number 2009-1144, and it can be viewed at www.regulations.gov. The next 

step for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (the Authority) is to issue its request-forproposals, select a private operator, negotiate an agreement and submit a fmal application. 

December 1, 2009, is noted as the filing date of this preliminary application. This was the 

FAA's date of receipt of the preliminary application. Our acceptance of this preliminary 

application for review is contingent on the Authority's continued compliance with the 

procedural requirements of Title 49 U.S.C. § 47134. The final application when 

submitted, must include a title search of all federally obligated property and all fmancial 

terms of the transaction identified in FAA's Notice of final application procedures for the 

Airport Privatization Pilot Program, Application Procedures, 62 Federal Register 48693-

48708 (September 16. 1997) (Notice) (as modified. 62 FR 63211 . Nov. 26. 1997). If the 

FAA approves the final application for Luis Munoz Marin International Airport's 

participation in the pilot program~ the Authority can only lease the Airport; the Pilot 

Program does not allow the sale of commercial service airports. 

We would like to arrange a meeting at your convenience with either you or a member of 

your senior staff, and consultant to discuss the specific details of your proposal. If you 

have any questions. please contact Kevin Willis, Airport Compliance Officer at 202-267-

8741. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

cc: Jorge Gonzalez, Infrastructure Management Group
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sally Lister and Rose De Caines, Appellants.

Two judgments (each as to a respective appellant) of the County Court, Nassau County, both rendered June 27, 1967, and order of said court, dated October 17, 1966, affirmed. In our opinion, the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellants and, consequently, the search of their automobile and the resulting seizure of the merchandise found therein were lawful since they were incident to a lawful arrest (see *People*v. *Merola,*30 A D 2d 963, and authorities cited therein). Moreover, the sentences imposed were not excessive. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.