alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                            3167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   646101
<ALLOWANCES>                                     27450
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            4854
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  629519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         403350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      143032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    629519
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 81127
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 48978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               27081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  32149
<INCOME-TAX>                                     11900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              20249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2021197EN.01006701.xml

| 4.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 197/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 197/67

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/898

of 28 May 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania’s application to register the name ‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania’s application to register the name ‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Salată cu icre de știucă de Tulcea’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. – Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 May 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 39, 4.2.2021, p. 26.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Summary of Embarq Corporation 2009 Short-Term Incentive Program



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 Summary of Embarq Corporation 2009 Short-Term Incentive Program 
 On February 27, 2009, the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of Embarq Corporation (“Embarq”) established the performance objectives and other terms of its 2009 Short-Term Incentive Program for eligible employees, including executive officers, for January 1, 2009 to
June 30, 2009 (the “plan period”). The 2009 Short-Term Incentive Program provides for a payout calculation of incentive compensation based on the weighted achievement of performance objectives during the plan period relating to
telecommunications segment services revenue (35% weighting) and operating cash flow (65% weighting), both as adjusted for certain items. Threshold payment for telecommunications segment services revenue is at 50% and for operating cash flow is at
25%, target payment is at 100%, with a maximum of 200% of an individual’s target opportunity and a payment calculation resulting in 0% for performance below the threshold level. This payout calculation is subject to the discretion of the
Compensation Committee, who can decrease the payment to 0% of an individual’s target opportunity and increase the payment to 200% of an individual’s target opportunity. If Embarq’s proposed merger with CenturyTel, Inc. closes before
June 30, 2009, year-to-date results from the most recently completed month will be used to determine the percentage payout calculation for the plan period.
§ 5001.127 Borrower ineligibility conditions. A potential borrower is ineligible for a guaranteed loan under this part as identified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. The borrower remains ineligible until the condition causing ineligibility is resolved. ( a ) An entity is ineligible if any of the conditions identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section applies to the borrower, any owner with more than 20 percent ownership interest in the borrower, or any owner with control of the borrower. ( 1 ) There is an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court).
( 2 ) Delinquency on the payment of Federal income taxes.
( 3 ) Delinquency on a Federal Debt.
( 4 ) Debarment or suspension from receiving Federal assistance.
( b ) An entity is ineligible if it derives more than 15 percent of its annual gross revenue (including any lease income from space or machines) from gambling activity, excluding State-authorized lottery proceeds or Tribal-authorized gaming proceeds, as approved by the Agency, conducted for the purpose of raising funds for the approved project.
( c ) An entity is ineligible if it derives income from activities of a prurient sexual nature.
( d ) An entity is ineligible if it derives income from illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, or any other illegal product or activity as defined under Federal statute.
( e ) An entity is ineligible under B&I projects if it is a charitable or fraternal organization. For purposes of this section, an organization that derives more than 10 percent of its annual gross revenue from tax deductible charitable donations, based on historical financial statements, is considered a charitable organization. Fees for services rendered or that are otherwise ineligible for deduction under the Internal Revenue Code are not considered tax deductible charitable donations.
( f ) An entity is ineligible if its lender or any of the lender's officers has an ownership interest in the borrower or is an officer or director of the borrower with management control or where the borrower or any of its officers, directors, stockholders, or other owners have more than a five percent ownership Interest in the lender. Any of the lender's directors, stockholders, or other owners that are officers, directors, stockholders, or other owners of the borrower must be recused from any decision-making process associated with the guaranteed loan.
( g ) A borrower is ineligible if it is a lending institution, investment institution, or insurance company with exception of REAP or projects for a fund that invests primarily in cooperatives in accordance with § 5001.140, and NMTC projects in accordance with § 5001.141.
§ 500.12 Weapons and explosives. ( a ) No person while in or on USNA property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for authorized official purposes.
( b ) No person while in or on the USNA shall ignite fireworks or other pyrotechnical devices.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Chatsworth Acquisitions I, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry F. Schlueter certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 22, 2012
/s/ Henry F. Schlueter

Henry F. Schlueter Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                                LITTELFUSE, INC.
                        SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

      For 2005, directors who are not employees of Littelfuse, Inc. (the
"Company") are paid an annual director's fee of $40,000, $1,500 for each of the
regularly scheduled Board meetings attended and $1,000 for attendance at any
special teleconference Board or Committee meetings, plus reimbursement of
reasonable expenses relating to attendance at meetings. The Lead Director is
paid an additional $7,500 annually, the Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid
an additional $10,000 annually and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee is
paid an additional $5,000 annually. No fees are paid to directors who are also
full-time employees of the Company.

      Under the Littelfuse Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-employee Directors
(the "Non-employee Directors Plan"), a non-employee director, at his election,
may defer receipt of his director's fees. Such deferred fees are used to
purchase shares of the Company's Common Stock, and such shares and any
distributions thereon are deposited with a third party trustee for the benefit
of the director until the director ceases to be a director of the Company.

      The 1993 Stock Plan for Employees and Directors of Littelfuse, Inc. (the
"Stock Plan") provides for a grant at each annual meeting of the Board of
Directors to each non-employee director of non-qualified stock options to
purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock at the fair market value on the date of
grant.

      The Non-employee Directors Plan and the Stock Plan and the forms of awards
thereunder are filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 (the "Form 10-K"). These plans and agreements
will be discussed further in the Company's Proxy Statement relating to the 2005
Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be incorporated by reference into
this Form 10-K when filed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WEILY L. BOKEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(6:04-cr-70018-nkm; 7:06-cv-00639-nkm)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Weily L. Bokel, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Weily L. Bokel seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bokel has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**OMNIBUS ASSIGNMENT**

**(FUNB 2001-C4; Loan No. 502694601)**

 

**WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST, COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-C4 (“Assignor”),**for good and valuable consideration. the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, deli&, sets over, and conveys-to **EVEREST PROPERTIES II, LLC,**a California limited liability company (“Assignee”) and its successors and assigns, **WITHOUT RECOURSE TO ASSIGNOR AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR COVENANT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY ASSIGNOR, EXCEPT THOSEREPRESENTATIONS ANDWARRANTIES MADE IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST AND SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS OF THE SAME DATE AS THIS OMNIBUS ASSIGNMENT**all right, title and interest of Assignor in and to that certain loan from First Union National ~ a n k , a national banking association, to Sunwood Village Joint Venture, Limited Partnership, a Nevada limited partnership, in the original principal amount of Ten Million Eighty Thousand and No/00 U.S. Dollars (U.S. $10,080,000.00), for certain real property situated at 4020 South Arville, in Clark County, Nevada (the **“Loan”),**including, without limitation, all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to:

 

1.         that certain Stipulation and Order for Use of Cash Collateral dated October 2, 2006, filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, Case No. BKS-06-12463-BAM (Chapter 11), In re: Sunwood Village Joint Venture. Limited Partnership, Debtor;

 

2.         that certain Secured Proof of Claim filed by Assignor on January 11, 2007, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, Case No. BK-S-06-12463-BAM (Chapter 11), in re: Sunwood Village Joint Venture. Limited Partnership, Debtor; and,

 

3.         any claims, collateral, insurance policies, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, escrow accounts, performance bonds, demands, causes of action and any other collateral arising out of and/or executed and/or delivered in or to or with respect to the Loan, together with any other documents or instruments executed and/or delivered in connection with or otherwise related to the Loan.

 

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Assignee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Assignor and Assignor’s predecessors in interest, and any subsidiary or affiliate of Assignor and all of the past, present and future officers, directors, shareholders, controlling persons, partners, managers, members, contractors, employees, agents, representatives, consultants, servicers (including, but not limited to, Wachovia Bank, N.A., a national banking association, and LNR Partners, Inc., a Florida corporation), 

 

----
#### § 4279.61 Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In accordance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 *et seq.*), with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, neither the lender nor the Agency will discriminate against any applicant on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (providing the applicant has the capacity to contract), or because all or part of the applicant's income derives from a public assistance program, or because the applicant has, in good faith, exercised any right under the Consumer Protection Act. The lender must comply with the requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act as contained in the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation implementing that Act (see 12 CFR part 202) prior to loan closing.
April 7, 1997


H-A Limited Partnership ("Seller")
c/o The Balcor Company
Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza
2355 Waukegan Road
Suite A-200
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
Attention: Ilona Adams

Near North National Title Corporation ("Escrow Agent")
222 North LaSalle Street
First Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Attention: Lou Cohen

     Re:  Purchase Agreement dated March 18, 1997 (the "Purchase Agreement") 
          between Seller and Crosstown Asset Corp. I ("Purchaser") for Hammond 
          Aire Plaza, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Purchaser hereby terminates the Purchase Agreement pursuant to Section 7.1
thereof.  Attached is the required Due Diligence Termination Notice.  Escrow
Agent is hereby directed to return the earnest money together with all interest
accrued thereon to Purchaser in accordance with the attached wiring
instructions.


                                        Sincerely,

                                        CROSSTOWN ASSET CORP. I, a Delaware 
                                        corporation

                                        By:   /s/ Timothy Scott Clark
                                             -------------------------------
                                        Name:     Timothy Scott Clark
                                             -------------------------------
                                        Its:      Asst. Vice President
                                             -------------------------------
<PAGE>
cc:  The Balcor Company
     Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza
     2355 Waukegan Road
     Suite A-200
     Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
     Attention:   James Mendelson

     Katten Muchin & Zavis
     525 West Monroe Street
     Suite 1600
     Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693
     Attention:  Daniel J. Perlman, Esq.
<PAGE>
                       DUE DILIGENCE TERMINATION NOTICE

                              April 7, 1997

     Crosstown Asset Corp. I, a Delaware corporation, as Purchaser under that
certain Agreement of Sale dated March 18, 1997, providing for the sale of
property located in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana and known as Hammond
Aire Plaza has terminated the Agreement of Sale pursuant  to Paragraph 7.1
thereof.

     The undersigned demands return of all Deposit deposited under the
Agreement of  Sale  pursuant to its right therein.

                                        CROSSTOWN ASSET CORP. I, a Delaware
                                        corporation

                                        By:  /s/ Timothy Scott Clark
                                            ---------------------------------
                                        Name:    Timothy Scott Clark
                                            ---------------------------------
                                        Its:     Asst. Vice President
                                            ---------------------------------
<PAGE>
#### State of Missouri, to the use of J. A. Bond, Respondent, *v.*Charles A. Berry et al., Appellants.

May 4, 1880.

Where the court has jurisdiction, and the execution follows the judgment, the regularity of the judgment cannot be attacked by a motion to quash the execution.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Wickham, J.

*Affirmed.*

C. A. Davis and A. R. Taylor, for the appellants, cited:

*Covenant Ins. Co.*v. Clover, 36 Mo. 392 ; *Craig*v. Smith, 65 Mo. 336.

Charles E. Pearce, for the respondent, cited :

*Swinney*v. *Watkins, 22*G-a. 570 ; *Shorter*v. *Mims,*18 Ala. 638; *43
      *Skidmore*v. *Bradford,*4 Pa. St. 296; *Hendrickson*v. *Railroad,*34 Mo. 188 ; *Merrick*v. *Merrick,*5 Mo. App. 123.

Lewis, P. J.’,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A judgment was rendered against four defendants, one of whom, according to the sheriff’s return, had not been served with process. At a succeeding term of the court another defendant, who had been duly served, filed a motion to quash the execution, on the ground that the judgment was void as to the defendant not served; and, being void as to one defendant, was void as to all. The motion was overruled.

It may be questioned whether, by any proceeding, a judgment which is unexceptioable as to one defendant, may be attacked by him because of its irregularity as to another defendant who does not complain. For aught that appears, the latter may be content to have the judgment stand. In this case, the answer was filed on behalf of all the defendants by attorneys who afterwards made affidavit that they were never authorized to appear for the defendant who was not served, and that their failure to except him from the answering defendants resulted from mistake. It nowhere appears that this defendant has ever objected to the judgment. It might fairly be surmised, nothing appearing to the contrary, that he had acquiesced in, and ratified the representation of his interests by the gentlemen who filed the answer.

But, however this may be, it is clear that uuder the circumstances in this case, a motion to quash the execution is not the proper remedy. The court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the party who files the motion ; the judgment was not appealed from, and the execution corresponds to the judgment. When these facts concur, a motion to quash execution cannot be sustained. *Hodgson*v. *Banking-House, ante,*p. 24. The remedy, if any exists for *44tbe party moving in this case, must be by a motion to set aside the judgment. *Craig*v. *Smith,*65 Mo. 536.

All the judges concurring,

the judgment is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3404

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3404 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3404.6 Appeals.

Any person whose request is denied shall have the right to appeal such denial. Appeals shall be made in accordance with § 1.14 of this title and should be addressed as follows: Director, NIFA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.