alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
12/30/2010 13:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA -> DM S g|001/006 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

fN THE MATTER OF 

FLIGHTSTAR AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10GL0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-1076 

FAA CASE NO. not currently determinable 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

DECEIVED 

JIEARING tj">CKET 

O 

13 

rn^ m 

ago 

CO 

AGENCY MEMORANDUM ON VENUE 

Now Comes the Agency in accordance with the Administrative Law Judge's Procedural 

Order Dated November 30, 2010, and states the following: 

The Respondent has requested that the venue for this case be Jacksonville, Florida. 

The Agency has no objection to that location. The Agency has advised Respondent that 

it would file this as a joint response to the Judge's Order, but has been unable to 

confirm with Respondent that this is acceptable. 

Additionally, the parties are actively involved in settlement negotiations on this case, 

which would obviate the need to obtain hearing facilities. The Agency believes such 

negotiations should be resolved within the next 30 days, and recognizes its obligation to 

give timely notice to the Administrative Law Judge if those negotiations bear fruit. 

For the Agency 

Slenn L. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
12/30/201 0 T3:1 1 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @1002/00G 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested, ,to; 

Qriqinal and One Copy: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn; Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

One Copy: 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room E-12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq, 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MO 20850 

Facsimile 301 294 2525 

Dated this 16th day of December, 2010. 

m^ 

YAliindB Quiles 

Lfegal Technician 

FAA Great Lakes
### The U.S. Geological Survey Drinking Water Initiative

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs04797

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
EX-10(x)



 




EXHIBIT 10(x)




03/05




COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS






		
	Ø	
    Non-Employee Directors receive the following annual retainers
    (paid in advance semi-annually in May and November, prorated
    quarterly as applicable) and meeting fees:




	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
    
    Annual Board Retainer:

    	 	$	40,000	 
	
    
    Lead Director Annual Retainer

    	 	 	10,000	 
	
    
    Committee Chair Annual Retainer:

    	 	 	10,000	 
	
    
    Audit Committee Annual Retainer (includes eight regularly
    scheduled meetings per year including conference call meetings)
    (If there are nine or more meetings, the Audit Chair can call
    for payment of a $1,000 meeting fee for all participating
    Committee members in the event any extra meeting exceeds 30
    minutes)

    	 	 	5,000	 
	
    
    Board Meeting Fee (typically five meetings per year):

    	 	 	2,000	 
	
    
    Committee Meeting Fee:

    	 	 	 	 
	 	
    
    In connection with Board meeting

    	 	 	500	 
	 	
    
    Other meeting

    	 	 	1,000	 







		
	Ø	
    They also receive stock options as follows through March 2008:




	 	 	 	 	 
	
    
    Initial grant upon joining Board (vesting in three annual
    increments):

    	 	$	175,000 face value,	 
	
    
    Annual grant each February (one-year vesting):

    	 	 	7,500 shares*	 
	
    
    (prorated by quarter if director elected after prior February)

    	 	 	 	 
	
    
    *but growth in face value capped at cumulative compound annual
    rate of 8% from February 2004 option exercise price

    	 	 	 	 







		
	Ø	
    Under an unfunded fee deferral program, retainer and/or meeting
    fees may be deferred into one or both investment vehicles.
    Transfers of account balances between vehicles are not permitted.






			
	 	• 	
    Interest rate option tied to 24-month average rate on 7-year
    Treasuries, fixed at each year end for the next year.
	 
	 	• 	
    JP phantom stock, with dividend equivalents credited in shares.
    JP currently hedges the cost of this phantom stock through a
    Rabbi Trust that holds JP shares.






		
	Ø	
    Directors also are eligible for matching of charitable gifts up
    to $5,000 per year.
	 
	Ø	
    Directors also are covered by Travel Accident Insurance.
	 
	Ø	
    JP covers travel expenses for Directors to attend meetings.



E-12
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Stanley A. Galanski, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 of  The Navigators Group, Inc.; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 30, 2019 | By:    | /s/ Stanley A. Galanski               |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:  | Stanley A. Galanski                   |
|                 | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Public Limited Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the
Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2010



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName:

Roger M. BoissonneaultTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Paul HerendeenName:

Paul HerendeenTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company and will be retained by Warner Chilcott Public
Limited Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00821

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 26133

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County



### Real party in interest, Amanda Marie Sanch ez Garza, filed an unopposed mot i on

for extension of time to file her response to relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus. T he

motion is granted

. Real party in interest ’ s response brief is due Jan uary 8, 20 20

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

________ /s/ Russell Lloyd

_______________________________ Acting individually

Date: December 5, 2019
#### Hanford FARRELL, et al., Appellants, v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation.

No. 14986.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 1954.

Sharp & Sharp, Brinkley, Ark., for appellants.

Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, Ark., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, 114 F.Supp. 486, on stipulation of parties.
Appeal No. 79-378.

#### Alan F. MacDonald *et al. v.*Richard M. Vars *et al.*

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Vernon A. Harvey, Gregory F. Fater,*for plaintiffs, *Moore, Virgadomo ir Lynch, Ltd., Joseph Palumbo, Jr.,*for defendants.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal is granted.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPreliminary Subsystem Designs for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), volumes 1-3A long term manned facility in space must include provisions for the safety of the crew. The resolution of this need was the design of an Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV). The main focus is on the braking and landing system of the ACRV. This subsystem of the ACRV was divided into three phases. The Phase 1 analysis showed that the use of a tether to aid in the reentry of the ACRV was infeasible due to cost and efficiency. Therefore, a standard rocket would be used for reentry. It was also found that the continental United States was an achievable landing site for the ACRV. The Phase 2 analysis determined the L/D of the vehicle to be 1.8, thus requiring the use of a lifting body for reentry. It was also determined that shuttle tiles would be used for the thermal protection system. In addition, a parachute sequence for further deceleration was included, namely a ringslot drogue chute, a pilot chute, and finally a ringsail main parachute. This sequence was found to be capable of slowing the vehicle to a descent velocity of 9 to 10 m/s, which is the required velocity for aerial recovery. The Phase 3 analysis proved that a Sikorsky CH-53E helicopter is capable of retrieving the ACRV at 5.5 km altitude with minimal g-forces induced on the ACRV and minimal induced moments on the helicopter upon hookup. The helicopter would be modified such that it could stabilize the ACRV close to the bottom of helicopter and carry it to the nearest designated trauma center.Document ID19900014139Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference ProceedingsDate AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186662NAS 1.26:186662Accession Number90N23455Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-4435Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014139.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
#### § 201.29a Germination of vegetable seed in containers of more than 1 pound.

Each variety of vegetable seeds in containers of more than 1 pound shall be labeled to show the percentage of germination and the percentage of hard seed (if any).

[32 FR 12779, Sept. 6, 1967]
§ 201.11 Type. ( a ) When type is designated, such designation may be associated with the name of the kind but shall in all cases be clearly associated with the word “type.” The percentage, which may be shown as “pure seed”, shall apply only to the type designated. If separate percentages for the kind and the type are shown, such percentages shall be clearly associated with the name of the kind and the name of the type.
( b ) If the type designation does not include a variety name, it shall include a name descriptive of a group of varieties of similar character and the pure seed shall be at least 90 percent of one or more varieties all of which conform to the type designation.
( c ) If the name of a variety is used as a part of the type designation, the seed shall be of that variety and may contain: ( 1 ) An admixture of seed of other indistinguishable varieties of the same kind and of similar character; or,
( 2 ) an admixture of indistinguishable seeds having genetic characteristics dissimilar to the variety named by reason of cross-fertilization with other varieties. In either case, at least 90 percent of the pure seed shall be of the variety named or upon growth shall produce plants having characteristics similar to the variety named.
[5 FR 30, Jan. 4, 1940]
APC Category 	APC Category Description 
1	Skin
2	Cardiovascular tests/procedures
3	GI tests/procedures
4	Genitourinary/Renal procedures
5	Musculoskeletal procedures
6	Access device procedures (Vascular /Other)
7	Access device procedures (Endoscopy /Laproscopy)
8	Nerve/Neuro tests/procedures
9	Drug administration
10	Pathology
11	Prostate tests/procedures
12	Female Reproductive tests/procedures
13	Male Reproductive tests/procedures
14	Biopsies
15	Psych tests/treatments
16	ENT
17	Eye
18	Blood/Lymph/Marrow procedures
19	E&M
20	Imaging
21	Breast procedures
22	Screening tests
23	Radiation therapies
24	Nuclear Medicine
25	Special OPPS Payment Status
26	Special OPPS Payment Status
27	Other Minor Services
28	Pulmonary tests/procedures 
29	"Drugs, Vaccines "
30	Brachytherapy Sources 
31	Devices 
32	Blood and Blood Products
#### James HUGHEY v. Fred SPEAKER, Attorney General, Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner, Bureau of Correction, Paul J. Gernert, Chairman, Pennsylvania Board of Parole.

Civ. A. No. 70-2410.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 15, 1970.

James Hughey, in pro. per.

Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.

OPINION

HUYETT, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, has filed a civil rights action seeking a permanent injunction against the lodging of a state detainer for parole violation *192lodged against him when he was arrested by federal authorities for bank robbery in 1966.

While on parole in October, 1965, from a state sentence for armed robbery, plaintiff was declared delinquent by the state parole board because he allegedly absconded from supervision and could not be located. Subsequently, he was arrested and convicted by the federal district court for bank robbery and is presently confined at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, under a federal sentence.

Plaintiff contends that the state officials had ten months to grant him a hearing on his alleged parole violation while he was in Philadelphia County Prison awaiting trial on the federal charges. By lodging the detainer, plaintiff alleges that he was denied bail on his federal offense and the delay in affording him a hearing on his alleged absconding from bail supervision prevented him from rebutting the allegations. Plaintiff also contends that he is not able to take full advantage of the rehabilitative facilities at the federal prison. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which the plaintiff has answered.

We conclude that plaintiff’s complaint is without merit. Regardless of the original charge of absconding from state supervision, plaintiff violated his state parole when he was convicted of the federal crime of bank robbery. Under the circumstances, the state detainer warrant is validly lodged and the plaintiff, being a convicted parole violator, is not entitled to a hearing before the Parole Board before recommitment. United States ex rel. Heacock v. Myers, 251 F.Supp. 773 (E.D.Pa.1966) aff’d per curiam 367 F.2d 583 (3 Cir. 1966).

ORDER

Now, this 15th day of December, 1970, it is ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
§ 1488.3 General. When considering the extension of CCC credit for the purpose of financing agricultural commodities, CCC will take into account the extent to which CCC credit financing will: ( a ) Permit U.S. exporters to meet competition from other countries.
( b ) Prevent a decline in U.S. commercial export sales.
( c ) Substitute commercial dollar sales for sales made pursuant to Pub. L. 480 or other concessional programs.
( d ) Result in a new use of the agricultural commodity in the importing country.
( e ) Permit expanded consumption of agricultural commodities in the importing country and thereby increase total commercial sales of agricultural commodities to the importing country.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.680 Limitation on grantee selection.

After all preapplications have been reviewed under the selection criteria and if more than one preapplication has met the criteria of § 1944.679(a) of this subpart, the State Director or approval official may not approve more than 50 percent of the State's allocation to a single entity.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00243

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF S.P., A.P., A.P.,

AND J.P., C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 97th District

Court

of Montague County (2015

- 0340M

- CV)

December 13, 2018

Opinion by Ju stice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

B y /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
98-1725.

#### Nash v. Mack.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**AnnualCertification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersignedofficers of CKX, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

Theannual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 1, 2007 | /s/ ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN                                                        |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Robert F.X. Sillerman                                                            |
|                      | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to CKX, Inc. and will be retained byCKX, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
§ 240.8 Payments to program schools, service institutions, nonresidential child care institutions and commodity schools. ( a ) Each State agency shall promptly and equitably disburse any cash received in lieu of donated foods under this part to eligible program schools, service institutions and nonresidential child care institutions, as applicable. Funds withheld from States under §§ 240.3 and 240.4 shall be disbursed to eligible program schools, service institutions, and nonresidential child care institutions by FNSRO's in the same manner.
( b ) Unless the school food authority of a commodity school elects to have cash payments for donated-food processing and handling expenses retained for use on its behalf by the State agency, the State agency shall make such payments to the school food authority of such a school on a monthly basis in an amount equal to the number of lunches served (as reported in accordance with § 210.13(a) of this chapter) times the value per lunch elected by the school food authority in accordance with § 240.5 of this part. For the period November 11, 1981, through the close of the month in which this part is published in the Federal Register, a retroactive payment shall be made, where applicable, to the school food authority of a commodity school based on the number of lunches served during that period which meet the nutritional requirements specified in § 210.10 of this chapter.
§ 201.69 Classes of certified seed. ( a ) Classes of certified seed are as follows: ( 1 ) Breeder.
( 2 ) Foundation.
( 3 ) Registered.
( 4 ) Certified.
[38 FR 25662, Sept. 14, 1973]
#### In the Matter of Irene Foley, Respondent, v Joseph Foley, Appellant.

— in a proceeding to punish Joseph Foley for contempt for failure to obey a support order entered pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeals are from (a) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated February 28, 1978, as amended on April 24, 1978, which, *inter alia,*adjudged appellant to be in contempt but suspended sentence on condition that appellant pay arrears of $1,000, and (b) a further order of the same court, dated May 14, 1979, which directed that appellant be committed to the Suffolk County Jail in accordance with the sentence previously imposed. Order dated February 28, 1978, as amended, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Order dated May 14, 1979, reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing in accordance herewith. In our opinion, the Family Court erred in not permitting appellant, at the May 14, 1979 hearing, to testify as to his inability to comply with the prior order, as amended, both with respect to the terms of support therein and the terms of payment to purge himself of the contempt. The record reveals that the Family Court, at the May 14, 1979 hearing, elicited testimony from the petitioner as to the failure of the appellant to comply fully with the terms of the February 28, 1978 order, as amended. However, it erroneously refused to permit appellant to testify as to the efforts he made to comply and that his failure to comply was not willful. As this court has previously noted, the question of ability to pay is crucial to the issue of willfulness and is one which should be explored in depth *(Matter of Burchett v Burchett, 43*AD2d 970; *Matter of Pizzo v Pizzo, 47*AD2d 948). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a *de novo*hearing as to whether appellant’s failure to make the required payments was willful (see Family Ct Act, § 454). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.