alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL10-77-000]


City of Pella, Iowa v. Midwest Independent Transmission System 
Operator, Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Company, Inc.; Notice of Amended 
Petition for Declaratory Order and Complaint

November 8, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 5, 2010, the City of Pella, Iowa 
(Complainant) amended its July 2, 2010 filed petition for declaratory 
order and formal complaint against Midwest Independent System Operator, 
Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Company, Inc. (Respondents), by adding an 
exhibit.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c5a594e5f5372707572794f696c6c736e685c7a796e7f327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="591f1c0b1a16373530373c0a2c2929362b2d193f3c2b3a773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28904 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 No. 33-37441 of Phosphate Resource Partners Limited Partnership
and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 26, 1998, with
respect to the financial statements and schedules of Phosphate Resource
Partners Limited Partnership included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                ------------------------------------
                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Docket No. 133556
Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1998
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WENDY KERNECHEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

OFFICER JIMMY HIGHSMITH,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF

UNITED STATES’ STATUS UPDATE AND 

UNOPPOSED THIRD MOTION TO STAY

The United States of America submits this status update to the Court and 

respectfully requests that the Court stay this civil action through Monday, 

November 1, 2021, and would show as follows:

1. On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff Wendy Kernechel filed this lawsuit 

against Defendants United States and Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officer 

Jimmy Highsmith, in his individual capacity. [Doc. 1].

2. On March 19, 2021, the Court granted the United States’ second 

motion to stay this case until May 17, 2021.

3. On February 2, 2021, defendant Jimmy Highsmith was indicted on 

charges related, at least in part, to the conduct that Plaintiff alleges in this matter.

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 4
2

[N.D. Fl. Case No. 4:21-cr-00008-MW-MAF, Doc. 1]. Trial was originally 

scheduled for April 26, 2021, but was recently rescheduled to October 25, 2021. 

[Id., Docs. 17 and 22].

4. The parties agree that this civil matter should not proceed until the 

criminal trial is completed, and, thus, seek to stay this matter until after that trial. 

The parties will monitor the status of the criminal matter and advise the Court if 

the criminal case resolves prior to trial.

Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests that the Court enter an 

order staying this case until Monday, November 1, 2021, and granting any other 

relief it deems just and proper.

LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have contacted counsel for Plaintiff, James V. 

Cook and Richard E. Johnson, by telephone and email to discuss this motion, and 

Plaintiff consents to this motion.

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 4
3

LOCAL RULE 7.1(F)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this memorandum contains 216 words, per

Microsoft Word’s word count, which complies with the word limit requirements 

set forth in Local Rule 7.1(F).

Respectfully submitted,

SEAN P. COSTELLO

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By:/s/ Keith A. Jones 

Keith A. Jones

Special Attorney to the United States 

Attorney General

Assistant United States Attorney

Southern District of Alabama

63 South Royal Street, Suite 600

Mobile, Alabama 36602

Telephone: 251-441-5845

Email: keith.jones2@usdoj.gov 

Attorney for United States of America 

Acting Under Authority Conferred 

by 28 U.S.C. § 515

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed on April 30, 2021, 

electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will 

provide notice of this filing to counsel for Plaintiff Kernechel and Defendant 

Highsmith.

/s/ Keith A. Jones

Special Attorney to the United States 

Attorney General

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:94-cr-03118-RV Document 63 Filed 12/02/94 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:94-cr-03118-RV Document 63 Filed 12/02/94 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:94-cr-03118-RV Document 63 Filed 12/02/94 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:94-cr-03118-RV Document 63 Filed 12/02/94 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:94-cr-03118-RV Document 63 Filed 12/02/94 Page 5 of 5
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.52 Policy.

Inventory and custodial real property will be effectively managed to preserve its value and protect the Government's financial interests. Properties owned or controlled by Rural Development will be maintained so that they are not a detriment to the surrounding area and they comply with State and local codes. Generally, Rural Development will continue operation of Multiple Family Housing (MFH) projects which are acquired or taken into custody. Servicing of repossessed or abandoned chattel property is covered in subpart A of part 1962 of this chapter, and management of inventory chattel property is covered in § 1955.80 of this subpart.
137 So.2d 514

#### Warren J. MOITY v. Alex MAHFOUZ.

No. 45912.

Nov. 29, 1961.

PER CURIAM.

Writs refused. The errors complained of by relator do not justify this Court in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. By denying this application for writs we are in no way approving of the holding of the Court of Appeal that it is without supervisory jurisdiction. See per curiam in case No. 510 of the Court of Appeal rendered No. 21, 1961. 137 So.2d 513.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Dorvin D. Lively  Dorvin                D. LivelyChief                Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*This      certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that      section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing      under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except      to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by      reference.*

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          58,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          50,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              994
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,792,267
<COMMON>                                     1,325,403
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,057,298)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,366
<SALES>                                         21,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               206,557
<CGS>                                          527,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  527,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (366,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (366,676)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (366,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (366,676)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
#### The State ex rel. Quarto Mining Company, Appellant, *v.*Easthon et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Easthon*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 545.]

(No. 98-466

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*Hanlon, Duff Paleudis & Estadt Co., L.P.A.,*and *John G. Paleudis,*for appellant.

*Robert B. Liss,*for appellee Richard Easthon.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Mary Ann O. Rini,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

The 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.
§ 201.56-8 Flax family, Linaceae. Kind of seed: Flax. ( a ) General description. ( 1 ) Germination habit: Epigeal dicot. (Due to the mucilaginous nature of the seed coat, seedlings germinated on blotters may adhere to the blotter and appear to be negatively geotropic.)
( 2 ) Food reserves: Cotyledons which expand and become photosynthetic.
( 3 ) Shoot system: The hypocotyl elongates carrying the cotyledons above the soil surface. The epicotyl usually does not show any development within the test period.
( 4 ) Root system: A primary root, with secondary roots usually developing within the test period.
( b ) Abnormal seedling description. ( 1 ) Cotyledons: ( i ) Less than half of the original cotyledon tissue remaining attached.
( ii ) Less than half of the original cotyledon tissue free of necrosis or decay.
( 2 ) Epicotyl: ( i ) Missing. (May be assumed to be present if cotyledons are intact.)
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) Hypocotyl: ( i ) Deep open cracks extending into the conducting tissue.
( ii ) Malformed, such as markedly shortened, curled, or thickened.
( 4 ) Root: ( i ) None.
( ii ) Weak, stubby, or missing primary root with weak secondary or adventitious roots.
( 5 ) Seedling: ( i ) One or more essential structures impaired as a result of decay from primary infection.
( ii ) Albino.
[59 FR 64505 Dec. 14, 1994]
» j r < j f ; K. 

•HIS PORiAiiON 

February 24, 2010 _ ^ 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's application to provide 

new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to 

Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December in reaching a 

landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York and Los Angeles to 

Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the world's financial and commerce 

centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance membership, have 

underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. American is likewise committed to 

New York and Los Angles - both vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education 

- providing unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from these proposed 

new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we need your help to make the 

JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly from Kennedy to 

Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

/S"KAA7K 'C^/^^^r^ C <^« ^ 0^^^ ^ /HlA, ^ ) 

H.I.S. International Tours (NY), Inc.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10744

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMAAR ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-104-2-C

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jamaar Robinson has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Robinson has

filed a response. Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, and Robinson’s response shows that there is no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EX-10(CXXIV)



 






Exhibit 10 (cxxiv)




AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO THE HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR-SILEX, INC.

UNFUNDED BENEFIT PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective as of October 1, 2001)




     Hamilton Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 3 to The Hamilton
Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc. Unfunded Benefit Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective October 1, 2001)
(the “Plan”), to be effective as of January 1, 2004. Words used herein with initial capital
letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined.



Section 1




     The first paragraph of Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:



     “ROTCE means the Company’s consolidated return on total capital employed (excluding
the HB/PS Adjustments) for the applicable time period calculated as follows:



Earnings Before Interest After-Tax (after HB/PS Adjustments)

divided by

Total Capital Employed (after HB/PS Adjustments)”




Section 2




     Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new clause (f), immediately following
clause (e), thereto, to read as follows:



     “(f) “HB/PS Adjustments” is defined as adjustments to consolidated net income of the
Company to exclude the manufacturing change program and CPSC charges, if any.”



     EXECUTED this 24th day of March, 2004.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR-SILEX, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Assistant Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70690-70691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,610]


Visteon Corporation Springfield Plant Formerly Known as VC 
Regional Assembly & Manufacturing, LLC Including On-Site Leased Workers 
From MSX International, Adecco, and Manpower, Springfield, OH; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on August 27, 2010, applicable to workers of Visteon Corporation, 
Springfield Plant, including on-site leased workers from MSX 
International, Adecco, and Manpower, Springfield, Ohio. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56142).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the production of fuel tanks, fuel delivery 
modules, and canister vent valves.
    New information shows that Visteon Corporation, Springfield Plant 
was formerly known as VC Regional Assembly & Manufacturing, LLC. 
Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages 
reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under 
the name VC Regional Assembly & Manufacturing, LLC.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected as a secondary 
component supplier to a TAA certified worker group.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,610 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Visteon Corporation, Springfield Plant, formerly 
known as VC Regional Assembly & Manufacturing, LLC, including on-
site leased workers from MSX International, Adecco, and Manpower, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after March 2, 2009 through August 27, 2012, and all workers in the 
group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on 
date of

[[Page 70691]]

certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of November 2010.
 Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-29099 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 10.38




AMENDMENT
TO RETENTION AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS IS
AN AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) to that
certain retention and severance agreement (the “Agreement”) dated
as of the 11th day of
October, 2001, between MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”) and
Roger Pachuta (“Executive”).




The
Company and Executive, for and in consideration of the promises, terms and
conditions contained herein, do hereby agree to make the following amendments to
the Agreement.





	1.  	
      Paragraph
      4(a) of the Agreement is amended as
follows:







4.
Severance
Benefit.




(a) You
are entitled to receive a severance benefit (the “Severance Benefit”) of one
times your salary immediately preceding your termination if your employment is
terminated (i) by the Company without Cause, (ii) due to your death or
Disability, or (iii) by you for Good Reason.





	2.  	
      Executive
      shall have no right to have paid or payable from any trust adopted by the
      Company, any portion of the Severance Benefit in excess of $150,000,
      unless and until all other employees entitled to receive payments from the
      trusts established by the Company for the purpose of paying severance
      benefits have been paid in full all of the severance benefits they are
      each entitled to.








	3.  	
      Except
      as amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement
      shall remain in full force and effect. Moreover, it is the intention of
      the parties hereto that if this Amendment is void, becomes voidable, or
      otherwise is or becomes unenforceable as drafted, then the Agreement shall
      continue in full force and effect, in accordance with the terms and
      conditions thereof immediately prior to the execution of this Amendment.
      This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts which
      together shall constitute one instrument, shall be governed by and
      construed in accordance with the laws and decisions of the State of New
      York applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein without
      giving effect to the principles of conflict of
laws.










IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have duly executed this Agreement as of this 4th day of
February, 2005.







MPOWER
COMMUNICATIONS CORP.






	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Rolla P. Huff	 	 	/s/ Roger Pachuta
	
      

    	 	 	
      

    
	Rolla P. Huff
Chairman and
    CEO
	 	 	
      Roger
      Pachuta