alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1



# OAR Box 1190 Prepped byCandice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 37 ) ll-A-30
Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/20089:13:51 AM

Sheet 37of 106P. 2 / fAT E O FCALIFORNI A PET E WILSON , Governo r

* RESOURCE

S BOAR D 202 0 L STREE T P.O
. BO X281 5 SACRAMENTO , C

A 9581 2 Septembe r 15 , 199 3

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browner , Administrato r U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y 40 1 M Street , S.W . Washington , D'C , 2046 0

Dea r Ms . Browner : OnSeptembe r 14 , 1993 , th e Californi a Ai r Resource s Boar dmaile da lette r from

Jame s D . Boyd , requestin gtha t th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y gran t a waive r t o Californi a fo r it s regulation s regardin g on-boar d diagnosti c system

requirement s fo r 199 4 an dlate r passenge r cars , light-dut y trucks , an

dmedium-dut y

vehicles . Tha t letter , a t pag e 1 4 i nreferenc e t o th e enclosures , inadvertentl y state dtha t a

nexecutiv e order , formall y adoptin gth e 199 3 amendments , hadt o dat e no t bee nsigned . I nfact , Executiv e Orde r G-85 1 wa s signe do nAugus t 16 , 199 3 an

dwa s include da s par t o f th e enclosure s t o tha t lette r unde r ta b(5) . I f yo uhav e any

questions , pleas e d o no t hesitat e t o cal l m e a t (916 ) 322-3283 . Sincerely , 

# 0 ^ Michae l L . Terri s Senio r Staf f Counse l
cc : Leil a Coo k



## fi t% Q 

## fl 

# 1 0

\K A 

## 'AP. 3 V- .



## it:

-~yt>s / 's . •' •/
**Exhibit32.1**

 

Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joel R. Jacks, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Date:  August 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/    Joel R. Jacks |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | **Joel R. Jacks**                        |
|                   |   | **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                   |   | **(Principal Executive Officer)**        |

 

1

----
§ 247.16 Certification period. ( a ) *How long is the certification period* — ( 1 ) *Minimum certification period.* The State agency must establish certification periods that are not less than one year but not more than three years in duration. If the State agency chooses to establish a certification period that exceeds one year, the State must first receive approval from FNS by submitting a State Plan amendment. FNS shall approve State requests for a certification period exceeding one year on the condition that, on an annual basis, local agencies do the following: ( i ) Verify the address and continued interest of the participant; and
( ii ) Have sufficient reason to determine that the participant still meets the income eligibility standards, which may include a determination that the participant has a fixed income.
( 2 ) *Temporary certification.* An eligible CSFP applicant, including individuals on waiting lists, may be provided with a temporary monthly certification to fill any caseload slot resulting from nonparticipation by certified participants.
( 3 ) *Recertification.* Participants must be recertified following the application procedures outlined at § 247.8 in order to continue receiving program benefits beyond the expiration of their certification period.
( b ) *On what day of the final month does the certification period end?* The certification period extends to the final day of the month in which eligibility expires.
( c ) *Does the certification period end when a participant moves from the local area in which he or she was receiving benefits?* No. The State agency must ensure that local agencies serve a CSFP participant who moves from another area to an area served by CSFP and whose certification period has not expired. The participant must be given the opportunity to continue to receive CSFP benefits for the duration of the certification period. If the local agency has a waiting list, the participant must be placed on its waiting list ahead of all other waiting applicants. The local agency that determined the participant's eligibility must provide verification of the expiration date of the certification period to the participant upon request.
( d ) *What must the local agency do to ensure that participants are aware of the expiration of the certification period?* The local agency must notify program participants in writing at least 15 days before the expiration date that eligibility for the program is about to expire. The local agency must include a statement in the written notification that informs the applicant that program standards are applied without discrimination by race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0293) [70 FR 47063, Aug. 11, 2005, as amended at 75 FR 5879, Feb. 5, 2010; 79 FR 38751, July 9, 2014; 85 FR 68722, Oct. 30, 2020]
#### § 29.2534 Mixed color or variegated (M).

Distinctly different colors of the type mingled together, or any leaf of which 20 percent or more of its surface is off brown, grayish, mottled, or bleached and does not blend with the normal colors of the type or group. (See Rule 16, § 29.2632.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
Exhibit
10.42


 


FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED


MIRANT SERVICES


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 


WHEREAS,
Mirant Services, LLC (the “Company”) heretofore adopted the Mirant Services
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), effective June 25, 1998,
and subsequently amended and restated the Plan effective as of April 2, 2001;
and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Managers has delegated its authority to amend the Plan, provided such
amendment does not have a material effect on the cost of the Plan, to the
Americas Benefits Committee (the “Committee”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee desires to remove all references to a “Change in Control” from
the Plan effective as of August 27, 2004; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee has determined that the above amendments would not have a
material effect on the cost of the Plan.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows,
to be effective as of August 27, 2004:


 


I.


 


Section
2.8 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“2.8         [Deleted]”


 


II.


 


Section
5.8 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“5.8         [Deleted]”


 


III.


 


Section
6.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“6.2         Amendment
and Termination. 
The Plan may be amended or terminated at any time by the Board of
Managers, provided that no amendment or termination shall cause a forfeiture or
reduction in any Accrued SERP Benefits as of the date of such amendment or
termination.”


 





















 


IV.


 


Except as amended herein by this Fourth Amendment, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect as amended by the Company prior to
the adoption of this Fourth Amendment.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Mirant Services, LLC, through its duly
authorized officer pursuant to a unanimous consent of the Committee dated
September 29, 2004, has adopted this Fourth Amendment to the Mirant Services
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan on this 29th day of September, 2004, to
be effective August 27, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
  MIRANT SERVICES, LLC:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vance
  N. Booker

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  SVP,
  Administration

  



 


2
#### In the Matter of Donald F. Senecal, Petitioner, v. City of Cohoes et al., Respondents.

Reynolds, J.

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the respondent, the Mayor of the City of Cohoes, removing petitioner from his office as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Cohoes as of May 17, 1965. Petitioner, appointed to his position by respondent in January, 1964, was removed from office by the respondent who found, *774after a hearing as required by section 62 of the Charter of the City of Cohoes, that petitioner allowed a grader to be diverted from 'municipal purposes to the financial benefit of the Craib Engineering Compa'ay of Berlin, New York and that petitioner certified that a city employee worked and was entitled to overtime while said employee was vacationing in the State of Florida. Petitioner asserts that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the charges, that the refusal of an adjournment was a denial of due process and that the hearing was not held before a properly constituted tribunal. Section 62 of the Charter of the City of Cohoes provides in pertinent part: “ Except as otherwise provided in this act the mayor niay remove any appointed officer in the following manner: The mayor shall sei-ve written charges upon the officer and shall give him a hearing at which all the testimony in the matter shall be taken under oath and reduced to writing. If in the judgment of the mayor such testimony is sufficient to warrant the removal of the officer, the mayor may remove the officer and shall file all the, evidence together with his written detailed reasons for the removal, signed b,y him, in the office of the city clerk.” On the instant record, we cannot ss.y that the respondent could not properly have reached the. decision rendered with respect to the charges asserted under section 62 and the rationale qnd test of *Sharkey*v. *Thurston (268*N. Y. 123). We find no merit in petitioner’s allegations that he was improperly denied an adjournment of the hearing to investigate the charges. The affidavits of the Corporation Counsel $-nd the attorney retained to represent the city in the proceeding both indicate that petitioner’s then attorney requested only that petitioner not be called as a witness on the first day of the proceeding. Significantly, there is no Affidavit from petitioner’s then attorney refuting these assertions, and concedegy this request was complied with. Furthermore, the hearing continued , over five separate days between May 22, 1965 and June 2y 1965. Nor do we find a violation of section 3 of the Public Officers Law or section 8 of the Charter of the City of Cohoes in the fact that a nonresident of the City of Coho as acted as counsel in this proceeding on behalf of the city. Such counsel was neither appointed nor elected to office but rather retainc d in his professional capacity pursuant to section 190 of the Charter of the City of Cohoes, Determination confirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.
<PAGE>

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS                          OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
        NO. 2                                              107,902 SHARES
                                       
                                L.A. GEAR, INC.
                SERIES B CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
                           1,161,822 SHARES AUTHORIZED


            THIS CERTIFIES THAT TREFOIL CAPITAL INVESTORS, L.P.

is the record owner of xxxx107,902xxxx fully paid and non-assessable shares 
of Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock of L.A. Gear, Inc. (the 
"Company"), transferable on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in 
person or by duly authorized attorney upon the surrender of this Certificate 
properly endorsed. See the reverse side of this Certificate for a summary of 
the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions of the Series B 
Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock as set forth in the Certificate of 
Determination for the Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, which 
Certificate of Determination and any and all amendments thereto may be 
obtained, upon request and without charge from the Company at its principal 
executive office.

THE SHARES EVIDENCED HEREBY ARE REDEEMABLE AND CONVERTIBLE AS SET FORTH IN 
THE CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE SERIES B CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE 
PREFERRED STOCK AND RESTRICTED AS TO TRANSFER AS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE 
HEREOF.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this Certificate to be 
signed by its duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto 
affixed this 12th day of April, 1996.



  /s/ THOMAS F. LARKINS                    /s/ WILLIAM L. BENFORD
------------------------------             -------------------------------
Thomas F. Larkins    Secretary             William L. Benford    President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793935
<NAME> NASHVILLE LAND FUND, LTD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         257,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,925,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,204,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,975
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,191,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,204,625
<SALES>                                        320,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,214
<CGS>                                          189,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,346
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45


</TABLE>
Case 3:95-cr-03089-RV Document 1149 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 1
140 So.2d 5

#### STATE of Louisiana v. I. B. LASHLEY.

No. 45850.

March 26, 1962.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1962.

Hilary J. Gaudin, New Orleans, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank H. Lang-ridge, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Thalheim, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

The Judge of the Juvenile Court for Jefferson Parish adjudged the defendant (an adult male) guilty of the offense of indecent behavior with a juvenile (a six year old female) and sentenced him to serve one year in the parish prison.

On this appeal no bills of exceptions are presented for our consideration. Nor do we perceive any error of law patent on the face of the record.

Defense counsel argues here only questions of fact, they relating solely to the credibility of several witnesses and the weight to he given certain testimony. We lack jurisdiction for determining these. See Article 7, Section 52 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, as amended, LSA.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### § 29.2564 Type 23.

That type of Fire-cured tobacco, known as Western District Fire-cured or Dark-fired, produced principally in a section west of the Tennessee River in Kentucky and extending into Tennessee.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,052,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,165,026
<PP&E>                                      19,467,903
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,916,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,716,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     990,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,716,205
<SALES>                                      2,573,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,686,095
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,600,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             6,475,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,848,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,238,860)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,238,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,238,860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RICHARD BRYSON MOORE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3499

[February 6, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 502017CF006339AMB, 502017CF006340AMB, 

502017CF006341AMB, 502017CF006344AMB, 502017CF006348BMB, 

502017CF006460AMB and 502017CF006462AMB.

Richard Bryson Moore, Sneads, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,429]


Masonico, LLC, a Subsidiary of Cadence Innovation, LLC, DIP, 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Personnel Unlimited, Fraser, MI; 
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 May 24, 2010, applicable to workers of Masonico, LLC, including on-
site leased workers from Personnel Unlimited, Fraser, Michigan. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register June 16, 2010 (75 FR 
34174).
    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 injection molded parts and interior trim 
products.
    New information shows that Masonico, LLC is a subsidiary of Cadence 
Innovation, LLC DIP. Workers separated from employment at the Fraser, 
Michigan location of Masonico, LLC had their wages reported under a 
separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name Cadence 
Innovation, LLC DIP.
    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 Masonico, LLC, a subsidiary of Cadence Innovation, who 
were adversely affected as a secondary component supplier to a TAA 
certified worker group.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,429 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Masonico, LLC, a subsidiary of Cadence, LLC DIP, 
including on-site leased workers from Personnel Unlimited, Fraser, 
Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after January 29, 2009 through May 24, 2012, and all workers 
in the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on date of 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. 2010-29097 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P