alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 99.11

CONTACTS:    Duane Kimble                      Ken Di Paola or Joel Pomerantz
             Baldwin Piano & Organ Company     The Dilenschneider Group
             (513) 754-4647                    (212) 922-0900


                 BALDWIN PIANO SELLS ELEVEN RETAIL PIANO STORES
                           TO BIASCO FOR $4.6 MILLION

                 SALE WILL FURTHER REDUCE DEBT AND SG&A EXPENSES

         Mason, Ohio, March 22, 2001 -- Baldwin Piano & Organ Company (NASDAQ:
BPAO) today announced the $4.6 million sale of eleven retail piano stores --
located in Cincinnati, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville and Lexington -- to an
affiliate of Chicago-based Biasco Musical Instrument Company, Baldwin's largest
dealer. Net proceeds from the transaction will be used to further reduce
outstanding debt.

         The sale includes all retail piano inventories, lease obligations, and
a lease of a company-owned retail store in Atlanta. Biasco also agreed to sell
only the Baldwin family of products -- Baldwin, Chickering, Wurlitzer,
Pianovelle and ConcertMaster -- in these cities. The sale will be recorded in
first quarter 2001 as part of continuing operations, along with a pre-tax
contingent liability of approximately $250,000 related to certain other
potential incentives offered to the buyer.

         Karen L. Hendricks, chairman and chief executive officer of Baldwin
said, "For Baldwin, the benefit of operating our own retail stores does not
currently outweigh the risk of high fixed expenses and required inventory
levels. While our retail stores have enjoyed strong market penetration, their
overall performance has not produced an adequate return on investment. We
believe that the sale to Biasco, one of the nation's largest and most successful
piano retailers, will result in higher sales for Baldwin and reduce our annual
SG&A expenses by $4.2 million. This sale is part of our ongoing plan to
deleverage Baldwin's balance sheet and restore the company to profitability."

                                     -more-


<PAGE>   2

                                       -2-

         Baldwin Piano & Organ Company, the maker of America's best selling
pianos, has marketed keyboard musical products for over 140 years.

                                      # # #

"Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995: This release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks
and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive
products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance, reliance on key
strategic alliances, fluctuations in operating results and other risks detailed
from time to time in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
52.216-11 Cost Contract-No Fee.       As prescribed in 16.307(e), insert the clause in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated that provides no fee and is not a cost-sharing contract. This clause may be modified by substituting "$10,000" in lieu of "$100,000" as the maximum reserve in paragraph (b) if the Contractor is a nonprofit organization.          Cost Contract-No Fee (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The Government shall not pay the Contractor a fee for performing this contract.                                          (b) 						            After payment of 80 percent of the total estimated cost shown in the Schedule, the Contracting Officer may withhold further payment of allowable cost until a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Contracting Officer considers necessary to protect the Government’s interest. This reserve shall not exceed onepercent of the total estimated cost shown in the Schedule or $100,000, whichever is less.                                 (End of clause)                    *Alternate I*                (Apr 1984). In a contract for research and development with an educational institution or a nonprofit organization, for which the Contracting Officer has determined that withholding of a portion of allowable costs is not required, delete paragraph (b) of the basic clause.    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
49.104 Duties of prime contractor after receipt of notice of termination.       After receipt of the notice of termination, the contractor shall comply with the notice and the termination clause of the contract, except as otherwise directed by the TCO. The notice and clause applicable to convenience terminations generally require that the contractor-                                       (a) 						            Stop work immediately on the terminated portion of the contract and stop placing subcontracts thereunder;                                          (b) 						            Terminate all subcontracts related to the terminated portion of the prime contract;                                          (c) 						            Immediately advise the TCO of any special circumstances precluding the stoppage of work;                                          (d) 						            Perform the continued portion of the contract and submit promptly any request for an equitable adjustment of price for the continued portion, supported by evidence of any increase in the cost, if the termination is partial;                                          (e) 						            Take necessary or directed action to protect and preserve property in the contractor’s possession in which the Government has or may acquire an interest and, as directed by the TCO, deliver the property to the Government;                                          (f) 						            Promptly notify the TCO in writing of any legal proceedings growing out of any subcontract or other commitment related to the terminated portion of the contract;                                          (g) 						            Settle outstanding liabilities and proposals arising out of termination of subcontracts, obtaining any approvals or ratifications required by the TCO;                                          (h) 						            Promptly submit the contractor’s own settlement proposal, supported by appropriate schedules; and                                          (i) 						            Dispose of termination inventory, as directed or authorized by the TCO.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 49.1 - General Principles
##### 



Exhibit 31.3
 Certificate Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
of the Principal Executive Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of Transforma Acquisition
Group Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement 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 registrants other certifying officer 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
registrant 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
registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 2, 2007
    
    /s/ Larry J. Lenhart

Name: Larry J. LenhartTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-185-AW-GRJ

UNITED STATES MILITARY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is one of the many frivolous pro se cases Christopher Jon Pergrossi has 

recently filed in this court. I have considered the magistrate judge’s omnibus order 

to show cause and report and recommendation. ECF No. 4. No objections were 

filed.* I agree with the magistrate judge that the action is frivolous and has wasted 

court resources. On the issue of sanctions, the judge in the first-filed case found it to 

be a close call but did not impose sanctions. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF 

No. 7. I will likewise not impose sanctions at this time.

The clerk will enter judgment that says, “This case is DISMISSED without 

leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” The clerk will close the file.

* In another of his cases, Pergrossi filed an objection to the omnibus Report 

and Recommendation. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF No. 6. Although he did 

not file that objection (or any objection) in this case, I have nonetheless considered 

de novo the issues raised in that objection. 

Case 1:20-cv-00185-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on October 5, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00185-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 2
# 32.610 Compromising debts.

For debts under $100,000, excluding interest, the designated agency official *may* compromise the debt pursuant to the Federal *Claims* Collection Standards (31 CFR part 902) and agency regulations. Unless specifically authorized by agency procedures, *contracting officers* cannot compromise debts.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 32.6 - Contract Debts
162 So.2d 10

#### Dallas FONTENOT v. BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS.

No. 47138.

March 30, 1964.

In re: Board of Barber Examiners applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 159 So.2d 530.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.

HAMITER, and SANDERS, JJ., are of the opinion that the writ should be granted.
AAM-13-099-E

December 6, 2012

 Exemption No. 10190A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-1223

Ms. Valerie Williamson

President

Longhorn Helicopters, Inc.

10 Hayes Court

Trophy Club, TX 76262

Dear Ms. Williamson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10190. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 9, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Longhorn Helicopters, Inc. (Longhorn Helicopters), for an extension of 

Exemption No. 10190. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Longhorn Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts 

of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Longhorn 

Helicopters.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10190

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Longhorn Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Longhorn Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10190 to January 31, 2015, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
§ 51.1583 Damage. *Damage* means any injury or defect which materially injures the edible or shipping quality, or the appearance of the individual potato or the general appearance of the potatoes in the container, or which cannot be removed without a loss of more than 5 percent of the total weight of the potato including peel covering defective area. Loss of outer skin (epidermis) shall not be considered as damage when the potatoes are designated as “Early” unless the skinned surface is materially affected by dark discoloration. Any one of the following defects, or any combination of defects, the seriousness of which exceeds the maximum allowed for any one defect, shall be considered as damage: ( a ) Second growth or growth cracks which have developed to such an extent as to materially injure the appearance of the individual potato or the general appearance of the potatoes in the container.
( b ) Air cracks which are deep, or shallow air cracks which materially injure the appearance of the individual potato or the general appearance of the potatoes in the container.
( c ) Shriveling, when the potato is more than moderately shriveled, spongy, or flabby.
( d ) Sprouting, when the sprouts are not dried and are more than one-half inch long.
( e ) Surface scab which covers an area of more than 5 percent of the surface of the potato in the aggregate.
( f ) Pitted scab which affects the appearance of the potato to a greater extent than the amount of surface scab permitted or causes a loss of more than 5 percent of the total weight of the potato including peel covering defective area.
( g ) Rhizoctonia, when the general appearance of the potatoes in the container is materially injured or when individual potatoes are badly infected.
( h ) Wireworm, grass root or similar injury, when any hole on potatoes ranging in size from 6 to 8 ounces is longer than three-fourths inch, or when the aggregate length of all holes is more than one and one-fourth inches; smaller potatoes shall have lesser amounts and larger potatoes may have greater amounts, provided, that the removal of the injury by proper trimming does not cause the appearance of such potatoes to be injured to a greater extent than that caused by the proper trimming of such injury permitted on a 6 to 8 ounce potato.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HERBERT H. HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 3:04cv19/MCR/MD

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 25, 2005. The plaintiff 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), and I have made a de

novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation andanyobjections 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. The plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs (doc. 30) is GRANTED

as set forth below.

3. Plaintiff’s counsel, Gilbert B. Laden, Esquire, is entitled to recover a

reasonable fee and expenses for representing plaintiff before the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (EAJA);

attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of $1,750.00 are reasonable; and the

Case 3:04-cv-00019-MCR-MD Document 33 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:04cv19/MCR/MD

Commissioner is directed to pay counsel that amount. Costs in the amount of

$150.00 are also awarded, to be paid from the Judgment Fund.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:04-cv-00019-MCR-MD Document 33 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2
28.101-3 Authority of an attorney-in-fact for

a bid bond.

(a) Any person signing a bid bond as an attorney-in-fact shall include with the bid bond evidence of

authority to bind the surety.

(b) An original, or a photocopy or facsimile of an original, power of attorney is sufficient evidence of

such authority.

(c) For purposes of this section, electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signatures, seals and

dates on the power of attorney shall be considered original signatures, seals and dates, without

regard to the order in which they were affixed.

(d) The contracting officer shall-

(1) Treat the failure to provide a signed and dated power of attorney at the time of bid opening as a

matter of responsiveness; and

(2) Treat questions regarding the authenticity and enforceability of the power of attorney at the time

of bid opening as a matter of responsibility. These questions are handled after bid opening.

(e)

(1) If the contracting officer contacts the surety to validate the power of attorney, the contracting

officer shall document the file providing, at a minimum, the following information:

(i) Name of person contacted.

(ii) Date and time of contact.

(iii) Response of the surety.

(2) If, upon investigation, the surety declares the power of attorney to have been valid at the time of

bid opening, the contracting officer may require correction of any technical error.

(3) If the surety declares the power of attorney to have been invalid, the contracting officer shall not

allow the bidder to substitute a replacement power of attorney or a replacement surety.

(f) Determinations of non-responsibility based on the unacceptability of a power of attorney are not

subject to the Certificate of Competency process of subpart 19.6 if the surety has disavowed the

validity of the power of attorney.

Parent topic: 28.101 Bid guarantees.
# L_2014147EN.01007001.xml

| 17.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/70

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUTM MALI/2/2014

of 13 May 2014

on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)

(2014/285/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/34/CFSP of 17 January 2013 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2013/34/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2013/34/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States.

| (2) | Following recommendation on contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro by the EU Mission Commander and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, the contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro should be accepted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following recommendation on contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro by the EU Mission Commander and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, the contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro should be accepted.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) are accepted and are considered to be significant.

2.   Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro are exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUTM Mali.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 13 May 2014.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 14, 18.1.2013, p. 19.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Philip Sherman, Respondent, v. Russell G. Oswald, as Chairman, Board of Parole, Appellant.

Judgment entered January 30, 1969, directing reinstatement of petitioner-respondent in his prior position with respondent-appellant board as of November 17, 1968, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and petition dismissed. The order of this court of November 7, 1968, by which petitioner-respondent’s punishment for misconduct was reduced from dismissal to suspension for a total period of two years, the memorandum decision implemented by that order, and the memorandum decision and order of this court of December 4, 1968, denying reargument, all spelled out clearly that it was the court’s intention that the reduced punishment was to amount, in effect, to a deprivation of pay for a period of two years. Respondent-appellant board’s position is in accord with the court’s intention. Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.