alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.430 Appeals.

Appeals of test results for imported tobacco must be made in writing to the Director within 30 days from the receipt of notification. The statement must specify in detail the relief requested. The importer or entity requesting the appeal will bear the cost of any subsequent sampling and testing. Subsequent samples will be selected only from tobacco which is in the original package and from tobacco which has not been mixed, blended, or altered in any manner since the initial sampling.

[51 FR 30199, Aug. 22, 1986]
exv10w47



 






Exhibit 10.47




Addendum to Employment Contract




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



      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Contract of December 31,
2001 between them;



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



      1. Add a new section 4(b)(xiii) which reads: “Executive will continue as a participant in the
Company’s Enhanced Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan pursuant to its terms.”



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



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



      4. Revise section 7(c)(ii) to read: “The Company shall maintain in force, at its own expense, for
the remainder of the Executive’s life, life insurance under the Company’s Executive Split Dollar
Life Insurance Plan in an amount not less than $300,000.00, naming the Executive as beneficiary,
and payable to Executive’s estate upon death.”



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



	 	 	 	 	 
	Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
	 	Executive
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 
	

	 	Chair, Nominating and
Compensation Committee

Board of Director
	 	Jeffrey P. Freimark
	

	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	William R. Floyd

Chairman, President and CEO
#### § 29.2395 Rule 4.

All standard grades must be clean.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr42-02/RV

WAYNE ALLEN BIGGINS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on March 8, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION for modification of sentence and for hearing to clarify disputed

sentence factors 

Filed by Defendant on 2/20/2007 Doc.# 237

RESPONSES:

United States on 3/07/2007 Doc.# 238

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 12th day of

 March , 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00042-RV Document 239 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.6014 Elements of quality.

Physical characteristics used to determine the quality of tobacco. Words selected to describe degrees within each element are shown in the chart in § 29.6081.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2445 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CAFE Standards Re5 peal Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEALING THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

7 ECONOMY STANDARDS. 

8 Chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, and the 

9 item relating to such chapter in the analysis of chapters 

10 for subtitle VI of such title, are repealed. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BASAVARA J. HOOLI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv74-MW/GRJ

JORGE PEREZ and

DR. D. PAGIDIPATI,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER REJECTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the amended complaint 

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there is no federal 

question alleged and Plaintiff alleges that all parties are resident of Florida and thus 

there is no diversity of citizenship. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed what he styles as 

an “Addendum Complaint.” ECF No. 11. This Court construes the “addendum”

as a motion to amend. Therein, plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to reallege 

citizenship. He also appears to want to add another party which could also destroy 

diversity. While the motion may prove futile, this Court rejects the report and 

recommendation and remands the matter to the Magistrate Judge to consider 

Case 1:20-cv-00074-MW-GRJ Document 12 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Plaintiff’s motion to amend in the first stance. The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 

10.

SO ORDERED on June 17, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00074-MW-GRJ Document 12 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2
exv10wj



 






Exhibit 10.j.




Severance Policy for Executive Employees




Three-Tiered Structure




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	•	 	Tier I:	 	 	 	12 months of “pay”
	 	 	 	 	    —	CEO and President
	 	 	 	 	    —	Direct Reports to CEO and President
	 
	 	•	 	Tier II:	 	 	 	9 months of “pay”
	 	 	 	 	    —	Other Elected “Form 4” Corporate Officers
	 
	 	•	 	Tier III:	 	 	 	6 months of “pay”
	 	 	 	 	    —	Other Direct Reports to Tier I Employees






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Form of Delivery: One 3-year rolling (“top hat”) plan




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	•	 	Severance Benefit:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	— Tier I: 12 months of base pay and target bonus
	 	 	 	 	 	 	— Tier II: 9 months of base pay and target bonus
	 	 	 	 	 	 	— Tier III: 6 months of base pay and target bonus
	 	 	•	 	Benefit Trigger: Involuntary termination without cause or voluntary
	 	 	 	 	termination for good reason. (Note: “Cause” and “good reason” as defined in the CIC
	 	 	 	 	contracts)
	 	 	•	 	Payout Timing: Continuation of pay
	 	 	•	 	Annual Bonus: Pro rata target payout
	 	 	•	 	Long-Term Incentives: Unvested grants forfeited
	 	 	•	 	Retirement Benefits: Per plans; no enhancement
	 	 	•	 	Health Benefits: Continued at same employee cost and coverage level for
	 	 	 	 	18 months, for all tiers (i.e., COBRA)
	 	 	•	 	Restrictive Covenants: Noncompete and nonsolicitation (length to match
	 	 	 	 	severance period) and confidentiality
	 	 	•	 	Waiver: Required for benefit commencement/continuation
	 	 	•	 	Outplacement: Defined/provided via separate company policy
#### § 205.669 [Reserved]
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 9 Filed 10/09/01 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 9 Filed 10/09/01 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 9 Filed 10/09/01 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2355 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2355

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 
             of America for use by the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2013

 Mr. Braley of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. King 
of New York, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. LoBiondo) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 
             of America for use by the Federal Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``All-American Flag Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY MADE UNITED STATES 
              FLAGS FOR USE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Only such flags of the United States of America, regardless of 
size, that are 100 percent manufactured in the United States, from 
articles, materials, or supplies 100 percent of which are grown, 
produced, or manufactured in the United States, may be acquired for use 
by the Federal Government.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on or after 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
39–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–765 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 

SUSPEND THE RULES 

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, OCTOBER 7), 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 833] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 833, by a nonrecord vote, reports the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order at any 

time on the legislative day of Friday, October 8, 2004. The rule further provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the 

Minority Leader or her designee on any suspension considered 

under the rule. 

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 

day of Friday, October 8, 2004, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 

designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. 

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the annual report of International Gemini Technology Inc. (the Company) on
Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward Dolejsi, President and CEO of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report containing the financial statements of the Company 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. 
 Date: November 1, 2005 
 /s/ Edward DolejsiEdward DolejsiPresident and CEO   *
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-46056) and in the related prospectus and in the registration
statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-18932, 33-29291, 33-35091, 33-37696, 33-37697,
33-37698, 33-55596, and 33-73040) pertaining to the stock purchase plans of
Candela Corporation of our report dated August 10, 2001 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Candela Corporation included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2001.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
September 21, 2001
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2299 

To prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from expanding United States 

bank reporting requirements with respect to interest on deposits paid 

to nonresident aliens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. MARCHANT, and Mr. GARCIA) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from expanding 

United States bank reporting requirements with respect 

to interest on deposits paid to nonresident aliens. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREASURY REGULATIONS 

4 WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION REPORT5 ING ON CERTAIN INTEREST PAID TO NON6 RESIDENT ALIENS. 

7 Except to the extent provided in Treasury Regula8 tions as in effect on February 21, 2011, the Secretary of 

9 the Treasury shall not require (by regulation or otherwise) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2299 IH

1 that an information return be made by a payor of interest 

2 in the case of interest— 

3 (1) which is described in section 871(i)(2)(A) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and 

5 (2) which is paid— 

6 (A) to a nonresident alien, and 

7 (B) on a deposit maintained at an office 

8 within the United States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001014669
<NAME> Sterling Chemicals, Inc. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,527)
<INVENTORY>                                     73,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,554
<PP&E>                                         747,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                 297,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 762,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,546
<BONDS>                                        745,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (220,445)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   762,503
<SALES>                                        822,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               822,590
<CGS>                                          732,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  732,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (18,963)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,669)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,669)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Nicor
      Inc.


Form
      10-K


Exhibit
      21.01





**NICOR
      INC.**


**Subsidiary
      Listing**


**December
      31, 2006**














Subsidiary         Jurisdiction


Northern
      Illinois Gas Company (doing business as Nicor Gas Company)  IL


Birdsall,
      Inc. FL
#### § 29.62 When application may be rejected.

An application may be rejected (a) for noncompliance with the Act or the regulations in this subpart, or (b) when it is not practicable to provide the service. All expenses incurred in connection with an application rejected for noncompliance with the Act or the regulations in this subpart shall be paid by the applicant as provided in § 29.124.
### NTP Comments on 1,2,3

- Trimethylbenzene

During our review of the document on 1,2,4

- and 1,3,5

- TMB we along with other agencies recommended inclusion of information on 1,2,3

- TMB. We are pleased that EPA accepted the recommendation and has prepared the supplemental information on 1,2,3

- TMB. EPA has selected the appropriate critical studies, clearly described the critical endpoints of toxicity and derived the RfC based on the neurotoxicity, the most consistently observed endpoint in the toxicology databas e. The rationale for each uncertainty factor applied to derive the RfC is cl early and convincingly rationalized . Overall, we fully agree with the contents of the document and commend the authors for preparing an excellent document.

Submitted by:
Rajendra S. Chhabra, BVSc, PhD, DABT
98-1077.

#### Gecep Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 96-S-438 and 96-S-439. This cause is pending before the court from the Board of Tax Appeals. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due August 3, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
#### Bryan *vs.*Buford.

Case 110.

Error to tb(> Bourbnn Circuit; Fre-nch, Judge.

*Indemnity. Partners. Pleading. Duplicity. Special demurrer.*

Since the a^urrers. duplicity does vitiate aplea. Covenant to indemnify ¿ility to suit, not broken, "uec^oractually pay the whole or the*debt * °f

Endorsement, on a noteof PaJmi?at. by aoTion of"co° *336v«n:int where the defei'dam’s liability depend'on the fact of plaintiff’s having paid, not evidence unless its genuineness be" proved.

*335May 7.

Chief Justice Robertson

dfib'vp','ed Hie Opinion of rbe Court.

This is an action of *covenant*brought by William Buford, against George Brvan and Pier-son V!. Bryan for an alleged breach of their covenant to indemnify him against all liability resulting from debts -which had hp.en previously incurred hy himself and the said Pierson M. Brvan and Willis N. Brvan as partners in trade. The breach alleged was the non-pavmpnt, bv the covenantors, of a note which the partners, prior to the date of the covenant, had executed to one William Scótt, and the subsequent navment of it bv Buford, in consequence of the imputed delinquency of the covenantors. Buford •obtained a judgment in damages against George Brvan.

Various errors have been assigned; but we shall notice two of them only.

I. By a plea, no. 5, the- defendants in the action pleaded, among other things, that Buford had not, as he had averred, paid the amount of the note to Scott: and the circuit court sustained a demurrer to that plea. In this the circuit court erred, since the abolition of special demurrers, duplicity in pleading •is not fatal. Therefore, if the fifth plea, though it may be trouble, contain any available matter in bar ■of the *action it is*good on demurrer. As the covenantors undertook to indemnify the covenantor against a preexisting liability to suit, there was no breach of the covenant unless Buford bad been sued by Scott, or had actually paid to him the amount of the note or some portion of it (see Lewis et al. vs. Crocket, III. Bibb 196.) Therefore the plea, averring that he had not paid Scott, was a full and effeciual response to the alleged breach, and was a good plea.

•II. On the trial, Buford was permitted to read, to the jury, an endorsement on Scott’s note, purporting to be a receipt by him to Buford, for the amount ef the note. As the suit was brought in Buford’s *336name, for Scott’s benefit, and as there was no proof of the genuineness of the receipt, or other proof of the alleged payment to Scott, the endorsement on the note was impertinent and illegitimate as evidence.

*Brown*for plaintiff; *Marshall*and *JHanson*for de-fendant.

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court against Georgb Bryan, must be reversed,and the cause remanded for a new trial, and with instructions to overule the dotnurrer to the fifth plea.
CORDES JUNCTION

��

����

Riv

erR

iver

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area

Fria

Fria

Agu

aA

gua

BLACK CANYON CITY

Tonto National ForestTonto National Forest

����

Map 2-2Agua Fria

National MonumentSpecial Area Designations

and National Register DistrictAlternative A

(Current Management)

Agua FriaNational MonumentPlanning Area

Interstate

Highway

Major Road

Minor RoadMajor River, Stream or Wash

Perry Mesa ACEC

Larry Canyon ACEC

Suitable Wild River

Suitable Scenic River

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1-1

Note:  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the municipal  or county planning legislation of the State of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information shown.Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

0 1 2

Miles �

Bureau of Land ManagementPhoenix Field Office

Phoenix AZ. April 2004

National Register District

Special Area Designation

National Register District