alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72825-72826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29681]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 20, 2010.

[[Page 72826]]

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291: 1. James A. Jorgenson, Kenmare, North Dakota; as an 
individual, to acquire and retain voting shares of Bozeman Bancorp, 
Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire and retain control of Bank of 
Bozeman, both of Bozeman, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 19, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-29681 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D.
Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 9, 2008By:

/s/ Clifford D. NastasClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report, I, James M. Froisland, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
Information Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 9, 2008By:

/s/ James M. FroislandJames M. FroislandSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary
#### § 3565.109 Minimum loan prohibition.

A lender must not establish a minimum loan amount for loans under this program.
Summary of Supplemental Pension Plan of Philip Morris in Switzerland



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Supplemental Pension Plan of Philip Morris in Switzerland 
 Plan Summary 
  

			
	  
 Overview:
	  	 A non-qualified plan that provides retirement, disability and death benefits to executives whose retirement benefits would otherwise be limited by the compensation caps
under the Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors’ and Disability Pension Plans in Switzerland (LPP). This plan is not intended to otherwise increase the benefits promised under the broad-based retirement plans.

		
	  
 Eligible Population:
	  	 Swiss-based employees in salary band D or above, or those with pensionable earnings in excess of the salary limit described in article 79c of the LPP, currently 820,800
CHF.

		
	  
 Benefits:
	  	 The benefits under this plan are determined based on the formulas of the Pension Fund of Philip Morris in Switzerland and the Philip Morris in Switzerland IC Plan (formula
applicable to salary bands G and below), respectively, without regard to the compensation limits applicable to those plans. Offsetting these benefits under this plan are those benefits earned under the Pension Fund of Philip Morris in Switzerland
and the Philip Morris in Switzerland IC Plan and any personal contributions that employees would have made to those plans absent the compensation limits.

		
	 Employee Contributions:
	  	 None

		
		  	
	 Company Contributions:
	  	 100% funded by the company into a non-qualified trust arrangement.

		
	  
 Form of Payment:
	  	 Lump sum payment at retirement, disability, death or termination of employment, subject to approval of the plan’s Board of Trustees.

		
	  
 Tax Impact:
	  	 Benefits are taxable to the employee upon distribution and a tax gross-up will be applied.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Anthony Joseph Piazza, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-18-00050-CV v.

Carolyn Neill Jennings, Appellee

Appeal from the 123rd District Court of 

Shelby County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

16CV33571). Memorandum Opinion

delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Anthony Joseph Piazza, Jr., pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
2006-0305.

#### Celmer v. Rodgers.

Trumbull App. No. 2004-T-0074, 2005-Ohio-7054.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

Motion to consolidate with 2006-0304, *Celmer v. Rodgers,*Trumbull App. No. 2004-T-0083, 2005-Ohio-7055, denied.
14.201-5 PartIV-Representations and

instructions.

The contracting officer shall prepare the representations and instructions as follows:

(a) Section K, Representations, certifications, and other statements of bidders. Include in this section

those solicitation provisions that require representations, certifications, or the submission of other

information by bidders.

(b) Section L, Instructions, conditions, and notices to bidders. Insert in this section solicitation

provisions and other information and instructions not required elsewhere to guide bidders.

Invitations shall include the time and place for bid openings, and shall advise bidders that bids will

be evaluated without discussions (see 52.214-10 and, for construction contracts, 52.214-19).

(c) Section M, Evaluation factors for award. Identify the price related factors other than the bid

price that will be considered in evaluating bids and awarding the contract. See 14.201-8.

Parent topic: 14.201 Preparation of invitations for bids.
§ 3560.1 Applicability and purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth requirements, policies, and procedures for multi-family housing (MFH) direct loan and grant programs to serve eligible very-low, low- and moderate income households. The programs covered by this part are authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 and are: ( 1 ) *Section 515 Rural Rental Housing, which includes congregate housing, group homes, and Rural Cooperative Housing.* Section 515 loans may be made to finance multi-family units in rural areas as defined in § 3560.11.
( 2 ) *Sections 514 and 516 Farm Labor Housing loans and grants.* Housing under these programs may be built in any area with a need and demand for housing for farm workers.
( 3 ) *Section 521 Rental Assistance.* A project-based tenant rent subsidy which may be provided to Rural Rental Housing and Farm Labor Housing facilities.
( b ) The programs covered by this part provide economically designed and constructed rural rental, cooperative, and farm labor housing and related facilities operated and managed in an affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary manner.
( c ) Internal Agency procedures containing details for Agency processing under these regulations can be found in the program handbooks, available in any Rural Development office, or from the Rural Development Web site.
file:////RTIFILE02/...st_Promul/Data_and_Tools/Electroplating/Docket%20-%20RTR/added%209-9/CMP%20Cost%20Quote%20Followup.txt[9/9/2010 1:35:03 PM]

 

 From: "Art Brooks" <abrooks@kchservices.com> 

 To: Phil Mulrine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 06/18/2010 11:02 AM 

 Subject: RE: List Priced for Spectras 

Hello Phil and Rick

I will answer your questions below

We are willing to help in any way we can, so if you need additional costing on 

fans, hoods or duct, stacks etc, let me know

1. These are just the capital costs of just the main control devices, and do 

not include taxes, install, freight, etc. No ductwork, hoods fan, or stack in 

included with these costs.

The costs given for these main control devices do include inlet and outlet 

transitions which are somewhat expensive, but required, and we frequently 

give discounts of 10% or a little bit more on this equipment in competitive 

situations. Our pricing may be slightly higher, but we have more knowledge 

and experience with chrome control device systems, and with our state of the 

art computer routers the quality of this equipment is second to none.

2. The Spectra U III is a three stage and the U IV is a four stage.

We would recommend the U IV for hard chrome plating unless we have physical 

room to install a "pre-control" mesh pad in the hood or just above the hood. 

The Spectra U IV gives additional protection to the finer composite mesh 

pads further down stream if a hood mesh pad or pre-control mesh pad is not 

physically feasible. Therefore you may want to use the price of the U IV 

four stage for your cost analysis.

Please call me or email me and I will continue to help with additional 

information when you need it.

Thank you

Art Brooks

VP Sales

KCH Engineered Systems

1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2582 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2582

To end the application of sequestration to the United States Patent and 
               Trademark Office, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

  Mr. Honda (for himself, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. Eshoo) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To end the application of sequestration to the United States Patent and 
               Trademark Office, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Patents and Trademarks Encourage New 
Technology Jobs Act'' or the ``PATENT Jobs Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF SEQUESTRATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR THE PATENT 
              AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.

    Notwithstanding the Presidential order issued on March 1, 2013, 
under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a), on and after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the budgetary resources sequestered under such order with 
respect to the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall be 
available for obligation for the same purpose and in the same manner as 
if such order had not been issued.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM SEQUESTRATION IN FISCAL YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2021.

    (a) In General.--Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``The United States Patent and Trademark Office (13-1006-0-
        1-376).''.
    (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any sequestration order issued by the President under section 254 of 
such Act.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No: 3:94cr3012/LAC 

 

LEONARD BRADSHAW

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 742) of this court’s denial of his

motion for miscellaneous relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) which this court construes as a

request for a certificate of appealability.1 The appeal of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion

requires certificate of appealability (“COA”). Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of

Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003). A COA should not issue in such an

appeal unless the appellant shows, at a minimum, that it is debatable among jurists of

reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096,

1097 (11

th Cir. 2002) ("This Court reviews a denial of a 60(b) motion for an abuse of

discretion."). Because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right, his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 745) should also

be denied as the court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith and the defendant

is not otherwise entitled to so proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Defendant shall pay the

$455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 748 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:94cr3012/LAC

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 748 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3565.111 Lobbying activities.

An approved lender must comply with RD Instruction 1940-Q (available in any Rural Development Office) regarding lobbying activities.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AKEEM MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:97-cv-00383-MP

STORR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on doc. 74, Letter from Akeem Muhammad to

Florida Department of Corrections. The letter concerns a matter completely unrelated

to the claims in the underlying lawsuit and to the issues on appeal. To the extent the

letter is intended to initiate a new suit, the letter is stricken because plaintiff's challenge

should be filed in state court, the claim is not on the court's form, and if plaintiff wants to

bring the claim in federal court it must be filed as an independent action.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Clerk is directed to strike plaintiff’s letter to Florida Department of

Corrections, doc. 74, from the record.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2011. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:97-cv-00383-MP Document 76 Filed 12/16/11 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 3405

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 3405.22 Evaluation of program.

Grantees should be aware that NIFA may, as a part of its own program evaluation activities, carry out in-depth evaluations of assisted activities. Thus, grantees should be prepared to cooperate with NIFA personnel, or persons retained by NIFA, evaluating the institutional context and the impact of any supported project. Grantees may be asked to provide general information on any students and faculty supported, in whole or in part, by a grant awarded under this program; information that may be requested includes, but is not limited to, standardized academic achievement test scores, grade point average, academic standing, career patterns, age, race/ethnicity, gender, citizenship, and disability.
Tredegar Corporation








Exhibit 10.6.1


 



	
            Tredegar Industries, Inc.
 



 


Amendment to


1992 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan


(Effective November 19, 1997)


 


 



	
            1.
 	
            Article VII,  Section 7.02 Nontransferability shall be amended by deleting the word “Any” at the beginning of the first sentence of Section 7.02 and inserting in its place the phrase “Except as provided in Section 7.04, any”.
 



 



	
            2.
 	
            The following shall be added as a new Section 7.04 to Article VII:
 



 


7.04 Transferable Options.  Section 7.02 to the contrary notwithstanding, if the applicable Agreement provides, an Option that is not an incentive stock option may be transferred by a Participant to the Participant's children, grandchildren, spouse, one or more trusts for the benefit of such family members or a partnership in which such family members are the only partners; provided, however, that such Participant may not receive any consideration for the transfer.  In addition to transfers described in the preceding sentence, the Administrator may grant Options that are not incentive stock options that are transferable on other terms and conditions as may be permitted under Securities Exchange Commission Rule 16b-3, as in effect from time to time.  The holder of an Option transferred pursuant to this section shall be bound
by the same terms and conditions that governed the Option during the period that it was held by the Participant, and may not subsequently transfer the Option, except by will or the laws of descent and distribution.  In the event of a transfer pursuant to this section, the Option and any Corresponding SAR that relates to such Option must be transferred to the same person or persons or entity or entities.


 



	
            3.
 	
            Article XIII  hereby is amended by deleting it in its entirety and substituting therefor the following language:
 



 


ARTICLE XIII


 


AMENDMENT


 


The Board may terminate this Plan from time to time.  The Committee may amend this Plan from time to time; provided, however, that the approval of the Board shall be required to amend Section 4.01 or Article V or VI hereof; and provided, further, that no amendment may become effective until shareholder approval is obtained if the amendment increases the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan, or the amendment changes the class of individuals eligible to become Participants.  No amendment shall, without a Participant's consent, adversely affect any rights of such Participant under any outstanding Stock Award, Option, SAR or Incentive Award outstanding at the time such amendment is made.
AFS-11-032-E Dec 13 2010 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9032

Mr. Jeff Goin United States Powered Paragliding Association

931 West 75 th Street

#137-150, Naperville, IL 60565

Dear Mr. Goin:

This is in response to your October 16, 2010 letter (FAA-2002-12476) and the letter dated November 16, 2010 requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clarify the intent of the exemptions issued to United States Powered Paragliding Association (USPPA) and to Aero Sports Connection (ASC). Th e USPPA exemption (9751A) permits training using foot-launched, two-place powered paragliders. The ASC exemption (9785A) permits training using foot-launched two-place powered or unpowered paragliders or hang gliders.

Both the USPPA and ASC exemptions contain virtually the same wording and are intended to convey the same meaning. These exemptions permit only the operation of foot-launched powered or unpowered paragliders or hang gliders. The use of wheels is not acceptable. The addition of wheels, skids, carts, etc., will create a powered parachute or a weight shift control (WSC) trike, both of which are subject to FAA certification as aircraft.

Below you will find specific answers to the questions you forwarded to the FAA for

clarification:

1. Is it acceptable that foot launchable powered paraglider that happens to have wheels be launched or landed on a tandem instructional flight, using those wheels, under either exemption listed above?

Response – It is not acceptable for a two place foot-launched powered paraglider (or hang glider) to use wheels for any launch or landing, solo or under the exemptions in question.2

2. Is it acceptable that the motor unit has skids or wheels intended to support its own weight during launch or landing? The instru ctor or student are supporting their own weight during the launch and landing.

Response – Any support of the motor unit is acceptable only when static. The launch and landings must be solely by foot.

3. Is there any difference in applicability or meaning of the term “foot-launched” between the ASC and USPPA exemptions?

Response – There is no difference in the applicability or meaning of the term

“foot-launched.”

A copy of this clarification will be provided to ASC to ensure standardization.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
§ 3560.457 Negotiated debt settlement. ( a ) *Borrower proposals to settle debt.* A borrower who cannot pay the full amount of loan payments may propose an offer to settle an outstanding debt for less than the full amount of that debt. The Agency may approve a negotiated debt settlement only in cases where a default is evident and doing so is in the best interest of the Federal Government and tenants.
( b ) *Required information.* Borrowers requesting debt settlement must submit complete and accurate information from which a full determination of financial condition can be made. Debt settlement offers will not be approved by the Agency unless the financial information submitted by the borrower indicates that the borrower will be able to make the debt settlement payments as proposed.
( c ) *Effective date of approval.* Debt settlement offers will not be accepted until the borrower receives written approval from the Agency.
( d ) *Appraisal requirement.* No debt settlement offer will be accepted for less than the net recovery value of the security as determined by a licensed appraiser or other qualified official, and concurred in by the Agency's qualified appraisal review official or other qualified official.
( e ) *Disposition of security prior to offer.* Borrowers are not required to dispose of security prior to making a debt settlement offer. However, if a borrower has disposed of security prior to making a debt settlement offer, the proceeds from the disposed security must be applied to the borrower's account prior to any negotiations on the debt settlement offer.
( f ) *Final release condition.* Upon full payment of the approved debt settlement, the Agency will release the borrower from liability.