alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0221 Focus Ready Draft 2/4/2013 ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ REC PV (kg/yr): 1,000 Import Only
SUBMITTER:

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: MSDS provided written in German. Respirator: Health Effects: TLV/PEL:file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM] SAT (concerns) (01/25/2013):
Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P1B1T2 . Health: 2 Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 6.00 ppb) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1 NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: No Pollution Prevention information provided by the submitter. EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0221 Processing:file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM]file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0221 Use:file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM]file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130221.eng.txt[3/4/2013 11:56:22 AM]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:96cr80/LC/CJK

3:14cv272/LC/CJK

STEVEN ANTHONY GRAHAM

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 19, 2014 (doc. 296). Defendant has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 295) is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED, asthis court lacksjurisdiction to consider a successive motion

absent authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

Case 3:96-cr-00080-LC-CJK Document 298 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10 day of July, 2014.

th

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Nos.: 3:96cr80/LAC/CJK; 3:14cv272/LC/CJK

Case 3:96-cr-00080-LC-CJK Document 298 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 2
#### Fidelity General Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Aetna Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 18, 1966, affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this ease, there were reasonable grounds for appeal, thereby initially obligating defendant, under its covenant to defend, to prosecute an appeal on the insured’s behalf *(Kaste*v. *Hartford Ace. & Ind. Co.,*5 A D 2d 203). Moreover, the excess insurance policy issued by plaintiff did not contain any covenant to defend and we do not construe the clause under *“*conditions ” as incorporating such covenant. In any event, even if the clause is susceptible of such construction, it is our opinion that the ensuing liability, from the very nature of the excess policy, is secondary and not equal to defendant’s primary obligation to defend and appeal. Accordingly, plaintiff, as excess insurer, in discharging defendant’s obligation, was entitled to be reimbursed for the reasonable expenses thereof as equitable subrogee to the rights of the insured (see, e.g., *Fidelity & Cas. Co.*v. *Secured Cas. Co.,*180 N. E. 2d 297 [Ohio] ; *Standard Sur. & Cas. Co.*v *Metropolitan Cas. Co.,*67 N. E. 2d 634 [Ohio App.]; *Fireman’s Fund Ind. Co.*v. *Freeport Ins. Co.,*30 111. App. 2d 69; *American Sur. Co.*v. *Canal Ins. Co.,*258 F. 2d 934). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4


[BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN COMPANY LETTERHEAD]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACTS: Joel Pomerantz or                                         NEWS RELEASE
          Ken DiPaola
          The Dilenschneider Group
          (212)922-0900

                     BALDWIN PIANO NAMES NEW EXECUTIVE V.P.
                TO OVERSEE OPERATIONS AT COMPANY'S PIANO PLANTS

   LOVELAND, Ohio, October 27, 1997 -- The Baldwin Piano & Organ Company
(NASDAQ:BPAO) today announced the appointment of Randolph Marks as executive
vice president, piano operations, a new position. Mr. Marks, 46, will supervise
all manufacturing activities at Baldwin's piano plants in the U.S. and Mexico.

   Commenting on the appointment, Karen L. Hendricks, chairman, chief executive
officer and president, said: "We are fortunate to have attracted Mr. Marks away
from his consulting firm to work full-time for Baldwin. Randy is well-equipped
to achieve our manufacturing goals. As Baldwin's chief manufacturing consultant
for the past 18 months, he has been a driving force in our plant revitalization
initiative since its inception. He also brings a level of knowledge and
experience in international markets that will be invaluable as the company moves
more aggressively into the export trade."

   For the last 15 years, Mr. Marks served as the managing director of
InterAmerican Holdings Co., (IAH), a diversified consulting organization with
expertise in manufacturing and operational restructuring and international
market development. During his tenure with IAH, Mr. Marks provided senior-level
advisory work to companies as diverse as Louisiana Pacific, Ace Hardware, Thomas
Built Bus, and Packaging Corporation of America.

   Mr. Marks was also co-founder, with Imperial Corporation of America, of
InterAmerican Partners I, the first investment fund dedicated to the acquisition
of labor intensive, low-skill manufacturing companies. He personally managed the
acquisition of the Eric Morgan Co. and Countess York, both home furnishing
manufacturers.

     The Baldwin Piano & Organ Company's Music Division makes and markets
America s best selling acoustic pianos under the Baldwin, Wurlitzer, and
Chickering brand names, as well as the Pianovelle(R) line of digital pianos and
Baldwin's newest product, the computerized ConcertMaster(R) player piano system.
Baldwin also provides its dealers with retail consumer financing through
Keyboard Acceptance Corporation and produces electronic parts and components for
original equipment manufacturers through Baldwin's Special Products Division.

   Baldwin currently employs some 1,400 workers at six locations, including
corporate headquarters in Loveland, Ohio, and five manufacturing facilities in
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Mexico.


                                      ###
http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_v2.2_en_121

8.pdf
#### § 370.1 Scope and purpose.

These regulations are issued pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), and in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture regulations in part 1, subpart A of this title. The availability of records of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the procedures by which the public may obtain such information, shall be governed by the Department regulations as implemented by the regulations in this part. It is the policy of APHIS to be an open agency and to promptly make available for public inspection any records or information which are required to be released under the Act. Material which is exempt from disclosure will also be promptly made available when the Agency in its discretion determines that release of such material is in the public interest.
#### § 29.3544 Side.

A certain phase of quality, color, or length as contrasted with some other phase of quality, color, or length; or any peculiar characteristic of tobacco.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 18, 2010 

# Order

March 18, 2010

138323(54)

DIANE GADIGIAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 138323 v COA: 279540 Wayne CC: 06-621978-NO CITY OF TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the mo tion by the Michigan Municipal League and
others for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is

GRANTED.
149 So.2d 765

#### STATE of Louisiana, through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. CIRCLE CENTER CORPORATION.

No. 46587.

Feb. 8, 1963.

Writ refused. In view of the provisions of R.S. 19:9, there is no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
#### § 29.403 Accessibility of tobacco.

All tobacco subject to inspection under § 29.400 shall be made accessible by the importer for examination in a manner prescribed by the inspector. This includes providing proper lighting, removal of package coverings, and such other provisions as the inspector may deem necessary for inspection.

[49 FR 27468, July 3, 1984]
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0444

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

A.N., J.G. and A.G.,

 Youths in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of Appellant Mother’s motion to consolidate, and good cause 

appearing, 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and Cause Nos. DA 21-0444, DA 21-0445, and 

DA 21-0446 are hereby consolidated under Cause No. DA 21-0444 and captioned as above.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 18 2022

02/18/2022
§ 4280.158 Awarding and administering EA and REDA grants. The Agency will award and administer EA and REDA grants in accordance with Departmental Regulations and with the procedures and requirements specified in § 4280.123, except as specified in paragraphs (a) through (b) of this section. ( a ) Instead of complying with § 4280.123(b), the grantee must provide satisfactory evidence to the Agency that all officers of grantee organization authorized to receive and/or disburse Federal funds are covered by such bonding and/or insurance requirements as are normally required by the grantee.
( b ) The power purchase agreement specified in § 4280.123 (h) is not required.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

RENEE PATTERSON,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER SETTING PROCEDURES ON MOTION FOR

EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Upon consideration of defendant’s motion for early termination of

supervised release (document 747), 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Probation Office shall provide a memorandum to the court (hereafter

referred to as a “fact memorandum”) setting forth the date when defendant’s

supervised release commenced and is scheduled to terminate, addressing the early

termination criteria listed in Monograph 109 as approved by the Judicial

Conference of the United States, and setting forth such additional information as

the Probation Office deems appropriate. The Probation Office shall provide a copy

of the fact memorandum to the parties. 

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 748 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

2. The Probation Office may include any recommendation in the fact

memorandum or, at its option, in a separate memorandum (hereafter referred to as

a “recommendation memorandum”) that will not be disclosed to the parties. No

action adverse to a party will be taken based on factual information included in a

recommendation memorandum without affording the party an opportunity to

respond. 

3. The government shall file a response to defendant’s motion for early

termination of supervised release within 14 days after service of the Probation

Department’s fact memorandum in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

SO ORDERED this 15th day of August, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 748 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Andrew Menschel, as Shareholder of Fluffy Restaurant, Inc., Appellant, v Fluffy Restaurant, Inc., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 17, 1979, granting cross motion of respondent Fluffy Restaurant, Inc., to dismiss the petition, without prejudice, as premature, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion; and the appraisal proceeding at bar is stayed until the making and determination of a motion to consolidate said appraisal proceeding with the pending plenary action entitled *Menschel v Walentas, et al.,*all without costs to either party. There must be a determination of petitioner’s claim to be a stockholder in Fluffy. On the present record, that presents issues of fact which must be determined on a trial. To dismiss this appraisal proceeding as premature and relegate petitioner to the plenary action for determination of whether he is a stockholder involve these disadvantages: (a) The period for bringing the appraisal proceeding (Business Corporation Law, § 623, subd [h], par [2]) will have expired and petitioner will be relegated to an application to the discretion of the Supreme Court to extend his time; (b) it will make *526petitioner proceed in two separate litigations to get the one relief of appraisal, if he is entitled to it. Furthermore, as the appraisal proceeding requests relief—appraisal—which is not requested in the earlier plenary action, it is inappropriate to dismiss the appraisal proceeding on the ground of "another action pending” under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 4); indeed the two actions cannot be said to be "for the same cause of action.” (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 4.) The sensible solution would appear to be to consolidate the plenary action and the appraisal proceeding; there are common questions of law and fact (CPLR 602, subd [a]). We do not order consolidation ourselves because there are parties to the plenary action who are not parties to the appraisal proceeding before us and who are entitled to an opportunity to be heard on the question of consolidation. Whether or not there is consolidation, the trial court or Special Term, in the exercise of its power to determine the sequence in which issues shall be tried (CPLR 4011), can determine the issue of whether petitioner is a stockholder before going into the appraisal and valuation aspects of the case. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
              UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Chell  Group   Corporation   (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending August 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"),
I, David Bolink, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
of the  Registrant,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to my best
knowledge:

      (1) the Annual  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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Date: October 12, 2004


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    David Bolink
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                    Accounting Officer
§ 4279.209 Borrower eligibility requirements. ( a ) *Eligible entities.* To be eligible, a Borrower must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Type of Borrower.* A Borrower must be an individual; an entity; an Indian Tribe; or a unit of State or Local Government, including a corporation; a Farm Cooperative; a Farmer Cooperative Organization; an Association of Agricultural Producers; a National Laboratory; an Institution of Higher Education; a rural electric cooperative; a public power entity; or a consortium of any of the above entities.
( 2 ) *Legal authority and responsibility.* Each Borrower must have, or obtain before loan closing, the legal authority necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Project and services and to obtain, give security for, and repay the proposed loan.
( b ) *Ineligible entities.* A Borrower will be considered ineligible for a guarantee if the Borrower, any owner with more than 20 percent ownership interest in the Borrower, or any owner with more than 3 percent ownership interest in the Borrower if there is no owner with more than 20 percent ownership interest in the Borrower: ( 1 ) Has an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court);
( 2 ) Is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes;
( 3 ) Is delinquent on a Federal Debt; or
( 4 ) Is debarred or suspended from receiving Federal assistance.
CD CD CD 0 

# B —.
—

— —S 

## z .- CD CD 

## 0

- 

# -I 

# V 

# m >rnc CD -cJ, -tJ 

### 0 

## 0 I 

### CD = CD —.
— 0 

### CD 

# N

# I I 0 

# (,- .‘I’ / 

# /

— 4- 

# /
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 24 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks 

by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 24 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve 

3 Transparency Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE 

5 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RE6 SERVE SYSTEM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 714 of 

8 title 31, United States Code, or any other provision of law, 

9 the Comptroller General shall complete an audit of the 

10 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 

11 the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) of such 

12 section 714 within 12 months after the date of the enact13 ment of this Act. 

14 (b) REPORT.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

16 the audit required pursuant to subsection (a) is com17 pleted, the Comptroller General— 

18 (A) shall submit to Congress a report on 

19 such audit; and 

20 (B) shall make such report available to the 

21 Speaker of the House, the majority and minor22 ity leaders of the House of Representatives, the 

23 majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the 

24 Chairman and Ranking Member of the com25 mittee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in 

26 the House of Representatives and the Senate, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 24 RDS 

1 and any other Member of Congress who re2 quests the report. 

3 (2) CONTENTS.—The report under paragraph 

4 (1) shall include a detailed description of the find5 ings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with 

6 respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, 

7 together with such recommendations for legislative 

8 or administrative action as the Comptroller General 

9 may determine to be appropriate. 

10 (c) REPEAL OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.—Subsection 

11 (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is 

12 amended by striking the second sentence. 

13 (d) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

14 Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (d)(3)— 

16 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 

17 (i) by striking ‘‘or (f)’’; 

18 (ii) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or (f)’’; 

19 and 

20 (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘or (f)’’; 

21 and 

22 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or 

23 (f)’’; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 24 RDS 

1 (2) by striking subsection (f). 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:03-CR-41-SPM

ANGELO BARKER,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion (doc. 60) to

reduce his sentence under the retroactive crack cocaine amendment (Amendments

706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and to appoint counsel (doc. 59).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change to

his sentencing range. Defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum

sentence, which determined his sentencing range. Because Defendant’s sentencing

range remains the same under the amended guidelines, he is not eligible for a

reduction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (doc. 60) is hereby denied.

2. Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel (doc. 59) is hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this twelfth day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00041-RH-CAS Document 61 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The State ex rel. Bryan, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Bryan v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 118.]

(No. 96-2420

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Law Office of Thomas Tootle*and *Thomas Tootle,*for appellant.

• *Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Constance A. Snyder,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Douglas, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1








March 23, 2009




Thomas Anderson

4 Arrowhead Trail

Sparta, NJ 07871




Dear Tom:


Reference is made to the letter regarding your employment with Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (the
“Company”), dated March 24, 2008 (the “Original Letter”), and the addendum letter dated December
31, 2008, regarding the clarification of certain terms in the Original Letter (together with the
Original Letter, the “Offer Letter”).



This addendum letter hereby confirms that, effective as of January 1, 2009, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the Offer Letter, you will not be eligible for a bonus modifier in 2009
or any subsequent year. Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions set forth in the Offer
Letter shall remain in effect.




Regards,




	 	 	 	 	 
	WYNDHAM WORLWIDE CORPORATION

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Stephen P. Holmes
 	 	 
	 	Name:  	Stephen P. Holmes 	 	 
	 	Title:  	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 	 	 
	 


Understood, accepted and agreed to as of March 23, 2009




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Thomas Anderson
 	 	 	 
	Thomas Anderson