alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.88 Agricultural spray adjuvants. ( a ) *Definition.* Products mixed in the spray tank with the herbicide, pesticide, or fertilizer formulas that will improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the chemicals, including sticking agents, wetting agents, etc.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 50 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than November 19, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased agricultural spray adjuvants. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased agricultural spray adjuvants.
[77 FR 69386, Nov. 19, 2012]
AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 



        Pursuant
to Section 14(b) of the FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”), dated January 1, 2008, by and between OSHKOSH CORPORATION, a
Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”), and ROBERT G. BOHN (the
“Executive”), Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of
February 1, 2009, to read in its entirety as follows: 



        (a)       Base
Salary. Subject to adjustment in accordance with this subsection           (a), the
Executive shall receive a base salary, payable not less frequently than           monthly
in arrears, at the annual rate of not less than $1,150,000. The           Committee shall
review the Executive’s base salary annually to determine           whether such
salary should be increased based upon (i) the Company’s           performance and/or
the Executive’s performance, (ii) an assessment of           competitive practice as
determined by the Committee or, in the Committee’s           sole discretion, by an
independent compensation consultant and (iii) such other           criteria as the
Committee shall consider in its sole discretion. Further, if the           Executive
initiates or agrees to a general reduction of base salaries of           executive
officers of the Company, then such base salary shall be subject to           reduction on
the same basis and terms that apply to the other officers of the           Company.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the period from February 1, 2009 to
          September 30, 2009, the Executive shall receive a base salary at an annual rate
          that represents a 15% reduction from the annual rate in effect on January 31,
          2009, and as of the close of business on September 30, 2009, the annual rate in
          effect on January 31, 2009 will be reinstated. (In this Agreement, the term
          “Base Salary” shall mean the amount established and adjusted from
time           to time pursuant to this subsection (a).)  




	OSHKOSH CORPORATION	EXECUTIVE
	

By:  /s/ Kathleen J. Hempel	/s/ Robert G. Bohn
	        Name:  Kathleen J. Hempel	Robert G. Bohn
	        Title:  Human Resources Committee Chair
	

Attest:_______________________________
	         Name:____________________________
	         Title:_____________________________
Exhibit 31.2
                          CERTIFICATION

I, James Ivchenko, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Epolin, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statements 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;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

     4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

          (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

          (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

          (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal
quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

          (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting.



Dated:  May 22, 2006          By: /s/ James Ivchenko
                                  James Ivchenko,
                                  President (Principal Financial
                                  Officer)
| 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)                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:                August 11, 2008                                                                         |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
| /s/                Robert Ellin                                                                              |   |   |   |
| Robert                Ellin, President and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal                Executive Officer |   |   |   |

----
p120406.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0406 Focus Ready Draft 7/9/2012 ENGINEER: Arnold \ BCS

ppm
Page 1p120406.eng

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p120406.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0406

Page 3p120406.eng

Page 5p120406.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0406

Page 6p120406.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0406

Page 7p120406.eng

Page 8p120406.eng

Page 10p120406.eng

Page 11
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILFREDO LARA-GARCIA,

A# 023–584–919,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv293–WS/MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR,, et al.,

Respondents.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 11) docketed June 30, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot based on

Petitioner’s release from detention. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

Case 4:20-cv-00293-WS-MAF Document 13 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.

3. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED as

moot based on Petitioner’s release from detention. 

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED."

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of July , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00293-WS-MAF Document 13 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 3570.80 Grant closing and delivery of funds. ( a ) “Community Facilities Grant Agreement” will be used as the grant agreement between the Agency and the grantee and will be signed by the grantee before grant funds are advanced.
( b ) Approval officials may require applicants to record liens or other appropriate notices of record to indicate that personal or real property has been acquired or improved with Federal grant funds and that use and disposition conditions apply to the property as provided by 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, or 3019, as subsequently modified.
( c ) Approval officials may require applicants to record liens or other appropriate notices of record to indicate that personal or real property has been acquired or improved with Federal grant funds and that use and disposition conditions apply to the property as provided by 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400 as subsequently modified.
( d ) Grant funds will not be disbursed until they are actually needed by the applicant and all borrower, Agency, or other funds are expended, except when: ( 1 ) Interim financing of the total estimated amount of loan funds needed during construction is arranged,
( 2 ) All interim funds have been disbursed, and
( 3 ) Agency grant funds are needed before RHS or other loans can be closed.
( e ) If grant funds are available from other agencies and are transferred for disbursement by RHS, these grant funds will be disbursed in accordance with the agreement governing such other agencies' participation in the project.
[62 FR 16469, Apr. 7, 1997, as amended at 79 FR 76013, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### §§ 3565.18-3565.49 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 3403
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3403 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3403.1 Applicability of regulations. ( a ) The regulations of this part apply to small business innovation research grants awarded under the general authority of section 630 of the Act making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies' programs for fiscal year ending 1987, and for other purposes as made applicable by section 101(a) of Pub. L. 99-591, 100 Stat. 3341, and the provisions of the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, as amended (15 U.S.C. 638), and the Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-554, which extends the SBIR Program through September 30, 2008. The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, as amended, mandates that each Federal agency with an annual extramural budget for research or research and development in excess of $100 million participate in a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program by reserving a statutory percentage of its annual extramural budget for award to small business concerns for research or research and development in order to stimulate technological innovation, use small business to meet Federal research and development needs, increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal research and development, and foster and encourage the participation of socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns in technological innovation. The Department will participate in this program through the issuance of competitive research grants which will be administered by NIFA.
( b ) The regulations of this part do not apply to research grants awarded by the Department under any other authority.
[72 FR 20703, Apr. 26, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 75998, Dec. 19, 2014]
Page 1 of 2

1

 In his objections, Defendant raises an issue—"the May 1, 2007 amendment to

the Drug Table that lowers the defendant's sentencing range"—that was not raised in

his letter (doc. 887) requesting relief. That issue was not addressed by the Magistrate

Judge and has not been considered by this court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4004-WS

CHARLES HUDSON,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (doc. 888)

docketed May 1, 2007. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's request

for relief (doc. 887) be denied. Defendant has filed objections (doc. 889) to the report

and recommendation.1

Upon review of the record in light of Defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (doc. 888) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 891 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendant’s request for relief (doc. 887) is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of May , 2007.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 891 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of William Wattley, Appellant, v Eugene LeFevre, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 16, 1979 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to compel respondent to credit time he was on parole prior to a declaration of delinquency against a subsequent sentence of imprisonment. It appears from the record that appellant was sentenced in October, 1972 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 0 to 7 years; that he was paroled on June 10, 1975; that following his arrest on new charges, he was declared delinquent on January 25, 1977; and that he was convicted on new charges and sentenced on September 16, 1977 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IVz*to 15 years to run concurrently with his original sentence. Appellant sought credit toward his new sentence of imprisonment for the time he spent on parole on the original sentence prior to a declaration of delinquency. Special Term dismissed his petition and this appeal ensued. Appellant contends that pursuant to section 70.40 of the Penal Law, he continued to serve his original sentence while on parole until the declaration of delinquency. Consequently, he argues that his time spent on parole should be credited toward his minimum period of imprisonment under the second sentence imposed. There is no provision, however, in section 70.40 of the Penal Law providing for a credit toward the term of a subsequent concurrent sentence although there is a provision for a credit for time spent in custody against the term of the interrupted sentence (Penal Law, § 70.40, subd 3, par [c]). Section 70.30 of the Penal Law specifically deals with the calculation of terms of imprisonment and, in our view, that section is controlling in the present case. Section 70.30 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Penal Law provides, in pertinent part, that "If the sentences run concurrently, the time served under imprisonment on any of the sentences shall be credited against the minimum periods of all the concurrent sentences”. It is the opinion of this court that appellant was not under imprisonment during the time he was on parole prior to the declaration of delinquency and, accordingly, he is not entitled to any credit for said time. Appellant also maintains that he is entitled to a credit of 50 days for time he spent in custody prior to his original sentence. Special Term noted that this contention was not argued *749or briefed by counsel, but only mentioned by appellant to his attorney during oral argument. No determination on the issue was made by Special Term and leave was granted to appellant to pursue this claim at a later date. Since the issue was not properly presented at Special Term and is not properly presented on the record, appellant’s arguments in this regard may not now be considered by this court (see *Bankers Trust Co. of Albany, N. A. v Martin,*51 AD2d 411). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3405 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3405.16 Access to peer review information.

After final decisions have been announced, NIFA will, upon request, inform the project director of the reasons for its decision on a proposal. Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of the peer reviewers, will be made available to respective project directors upon specific request.
exv10w09



 






Exhibit 10.09




OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2004 BONUS AWARD PLAN



On March 19, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved a 2004 Bonus
Award Plan under the 2002 Incentive Plan. Cash bonuses to be awarded under the Plan are based on
the accomplishment of results (Individual, Profit Center and Total Company). Awardees must be
amongst the nominated group for eligibility, and be employed by the Company at the time of funding.
Bonuses are earned when paid. Individuals, as designated, are subject to a maximum bonus
eligibility of 10%-125% of current annual base salary.



The 2004 Bonus Award Plan is based on the Individual achieving specific results, and the net income
results of his or her Profit Center and of the Total Company. In order to integrate each of these
performances in a fashion that benefits the Shareholders and Employees, each item is interrelated.
The amount of award payable is based on the following methodology:



Individual Coefficient



The Individual Coefficient is determined by taking the individual’s weighted average evaluation of
objectives achieved times the individual’s salary maximum. This is the beginning step in
determining the final award. An individual’s performance must meet certain minimum criteria or be
eliminated from bonus award consideration.



Profit Center Results Contribution



The Profit Center Contribution is determined by comparing the Profit Center Net Income Objective
with the results achieved and determining the Contribution to the Individual Coefficient.



If the Profit Center results are below a specified amount, then all the individuals in that Profit
Center may be eliminated from the Award Program. The Chief Executive Officer may review the
performance of areas within the region on a case-by-case basis and take appropriate action. Should
the actual results be equal to or greater than such specified amount, the individual becomes
eligible for an award.



Oceaneering International, Inc. Results Contribution



The Company Results Contribution is determined by comparing the Company’s Net Income Result with
the Objective planned. The results achieved determine the multiplier used. Thus, an individual
may, subject to the determined maximum, be recommended for an award equal to the Individual
Coefficient times the Profit Center Contribution times the Company Results Contribution times
current annual base salary.



The 2004 Bonus Award Plan is in effect for 2004. It is extremely important that the Company
continue improved results. All participants must be committed to a reward system based on
achieving results. The Company is entrepreneurially oriented and must use its maximum creativity,
effort and determination in achieving individual results that collectively increases its
Shareholders’ Net Wealth. The 2004 Bonus Award Plan is structured to foster that position.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Helen Weiss, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Third Department,

May 27, 1969.

*118
      *Helen Weiss,*appellant in person.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Irving Jorrisch, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Samuel Stern*and *Robert Himmelfarb*of counsel), for respondent.

Herlihy, J. P.

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, dated December 4, 1968, which affirmed a Referee’s decision that the claimant was not available for employment as of August 12, 1968.

From a record which does not permit a proper review, it appears that the investigation which resulted in claimant being declared ineligible for benefits was initiated as the result of a complaint by her former employer and it would further appear that the said employer might have been in some part responsible for the claimant’s inability to obtain employment. It is further contended, and not disputed, that the claimant was advised by a claims examiner not to place an “ad” in the newspapers because of statements by her former employer.

The claimant testified as to her personal application to “ Investors Funding ”; that she was interviewed by a Mr. Warshaw, which was noted in the examiner’s report but was no.t investigated, and which, if found to be true, would not sustain the board’s findings.

It may be that the claimant is not entitled to benefits, but on this record there is no substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board which found: “ The two efforts she submitted at an interview on August 23 were allegedly made with people who were no longer working for the employers ’ ’.

*Matter of Cohen*(Catherwood) (25 A D 2d 708) and *Matter of Sidlowski*(Catherwood) (28 A D 2d 773) relied upon by respondent are inapplicable to the present case. In *Cohen*it was established that claimant had made only a few visits to prospective employers. In *Sidlowski*it was established that several attempts were made to confirm the alleged inquiries for employment, but those attempts were unsuccessful. '

*119The decision should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the board for further proceedings, with costs.

Reynolds, Aulisi, Cooke and G-reenblott, JJ., concur.

Decision reversed, and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings, with costs.