alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 625.15 Transfer of land. ( a ) *Offers voided prior to enrollment.* Any transfer of the property prior to the applicant's acceptance into the program will void the offer of enrollment. At the option of the State Conservationist, an offer can be extended to the new landowner if the new landowner agrees to the same or more restrictive easement, agreement, and contract terms and conditions.
( b ) *Actions following transfer of land.* ( 1 ) For easements or 30-year contracts with multiple annual payments, any remaining payments will be made to the original landowner unless NRCS receives an assignment of proceeds.
( 2 ) Eligible cost-share payments will be made to the new landowner upon presentation of an assignment of rights or other evidence that title has passed.
( 3 ) Landowner protections will be available to the new landowner, and the new landowner will be held responsible for assuring completion of all measures and conservation practices required by the contract, deed, and incidental take permit.
( 4 ) If a SHA or CCAA is involved, the previous and new landowner may coordinate with FWS or NMFS, as appropriate, to transfer the agreement and associated permits and assurances.
( 5 ) The landowner and NRCS may agree to transfer a 30-year contract. The transferee must be determined by NRCS to be eligible to participate in HFRP and must assume full responsibility under the contract, including operation and maintenance of all conservation practices and measures required by the contract.
( c ) *Claims to payments.* With respect to any and all payments owed to a person, the United States will bear no responsibility for any full payments or partial distributions of funds between the original landowner and the landowner's successor. In the event of a dispute or claim on the distribution of cost-share payments, NRCS may withhold payments without the accrual of interest pending an agreement or adjudication on the rights to the funds.
§ 51.38 Basis for fees and rates. ( a ) For each calendar year, AMS will calculate the rate for services, per hour per program employee using the following formulas: ( 1 ) *Regular rate.* The total AMS inspection program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.
( 2 ) *Overtime rate.* The total AMS inspection program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5 plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.
( 3 ) *Holiday rate.* The total AMS inspection program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.
( b ) ( 1 ) For each calendar year, based on previous fiscal year/historical actual costs, AMS will calculate the benefits, operating, and allowance for bad debt components of the regular, overtime and holiday rates as follows: ( i ) *Benefits rate.* The total AMS inspection program direct benefits costs divided by the total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the next calendar year's percentage cost of living increase. Some examples of direct benefits are health insurance, retirement, life insurance, and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) retirement basic and matching contributions.
( ii ) *Operating rate.* The total AMS inspection program operating costs divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the percentage of inflation.
( iii ) *Allowance for bad debt rate.* Total allowance for bad debt divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked.
( 2 ) The calendar year cost of living expenses and percentage of inflation factors used in the formulas in this section are based on the most recent Office of Management and Budget's Presidential Economic Assumptions.
( c ) When an inspection is delayed because product is not available or readily accessible, a charge for waiting time shall be determined using the formulas in this section.
[79 FR 67320, Nov. 13, 2014]
#### ITC Limited et al., Appellants, v Punchgini, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 15, 2007;

decided October 18, 2007

Motion by International Trademark Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on consideration of the certified question herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
§ 623.21 Scheme and device. ( a ) If it is determined by NRCS that a landowner has employed a scheme or device to defeat the purposes of this part, any part of any program payment otherwise due or paid such landowner during the applicable period may be withheld or be required to be refunded with interest thereon, as determined appropriate by NRCS, and the contract with the landowner may be terminated. In such a case, NRCS may also continue to hold the easement interest acquired under this part.
( b ) A scheme or device includes, but is not limited to, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, depriving any other person of payments for cost-share practices or easements for the purpose of obtaining a payment to which a person would otherwise not be entitled.
( c ) An owner of land subject to this part who succeeds to the responsibilities under this part shall report in writing to NRCS any interest of any kind in the land subject to this part that is retained by a previous participant. Such interest includes a present, future or conditional interest, reversionary interest or any option, future or present, with respect to such land and any interest of any lender in such land where the lender has, will, or can obtain, a right of occupancy to such land or an interest in the equity in such land other than an interest in the appreciation in the value of such land occurring after the loan was made. A failure of full disclosure will be considered a scheme or device under this section.
J ONATHAN B. H ILL

M EMBER

D 202/776-2725 E JHILL @ DOWLOHNES

. COM

DF 202/776-4725

March 5, 2013

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request from 14 CFR § 91.151(a)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Trimble Navigation Limited (“Trimble”) ha s applied for two Special Airworthiness Certificates, Experimental, for an Unmanned Airc raft System (“UAS”) that it produces through its indirect subsidiary Gatewing N.V., a Belgium company. The Gatewing UAS will be registered in the name of Trimble, a U.S. compa ny and a U.S. citizen. As part of the application process, Trimble is petitioning the Federal Avia tion Administration, Office of Rulemaking for an additional exemption from the FARs , this time covering 14 CFR § 91.151. 1 Trimble notes that a similar exemption has been granted for anothe r UAS. The X-100, the subject of the two SAC applications, has operated for over 370 hours without significant incident in Europe and other

countries around the world. Relief from Part 91.151 would not result in any denigration to safety and would allow Trimble to conduct longer flight s under any authority granted by the FAA in a Special Airworthiness Cer tificate-Experimental.

The name and address of the applicant is:

Trimble Navigation Limited

935 Stewart Drive Sunnyvale, California 94085-3919

Attn: James Kirkland

Ph:408-481-8930

Fax:408-481-7780 Email:jim_kirkland@trimble.com

Trimble seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a).

1 The FAA granted Exemption 10700, in FAA docket 2012-1234, on February 8 th for relief from the following FARs: 21.191(f); 21.195(a); 45.23(b); 91.9 (b) (s); and 91.2 03(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
Exhibit 32(i)

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-K of National Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, I, James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

 

|   | (1) | such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securties Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ JAMES G. RAKES                                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| James G. Rakes

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Office

(Principal Executive Officer) |
#### § 51.1814 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.

The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1 except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by discoloration. The predominating discoloration on each fruit shall be of rust mite type. For tolerances see § 51.1820.
Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 153 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 153 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2
§ 631.10 Contracts. ( a ) To participate in the program, an applicant must enter into a contract agreeing to implement a conservation plan. All persons who control or share control of the operating unit for the proposed contract period must sign the contract or one person with power-of-attorney may sign the contract for all persons. The applicant must provide the contracting officer with satisfactory evidence of control of the operating unit for the life of the proposed contract.
( b ) Contracts may be entered into not later than September 30, 1991. The contract shall be for a period needed to establish the conservation treatment scheduled in the conservation plan and must extend at least 3 years but not more than 10 years.
( c ) Contracts may be transferred or modified by mutual consent. The transferee assumes full responsibility for the contract including operation and maintenance of all land treatment installed under the contract. Also included are payments made under the contract to the participant or preceding participants before and after the transfer.
( d ) Contracts may be terminated by mutual consent or by NRCS for cause.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationExpository WritingInstructional EffectivenessLearning DisabilitiesNarrationReader Text RelationshipReading ComprehensionReading StrategiesRemedial ReadingTeaching MethodsTransfer of Training

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRED J. TURNER,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5792/LAC/EMT

WARDEN JOSPEH,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March

10, 2021 (ECF No. 25). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

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

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

25) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05792-LC-EMT Document 27 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No.

20) is GRANTED and the Amended Petition (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st

 day of April, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5792/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05792-LC-EMT Document 27 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 2
32.503 Postaward matters.       This section covers matters that are generally relevant only after award of a contract. This does not preclude taking actions discussed here before award, if appropriate; *e.g.,* preaward review of accounting systems and controls.    **32.503-1 [Reserved]****32.503-2 Supervision of progress payments.****32.503-3 Initiation of progress payments and review of accounting system.****32.503-4 Approval of progress payment requests.****32.503-5 Administration of progress payments.****32.503-6 Suspension or reduction of payments.****32.503-7 [Reserved]****32.503-8 Liquidation rates-ordinary method.****32.503-9 Liquidation rates-alternate method.****32.503-10 Establishing alternate liquidation rates.****32.503-11 Adjustments for price reduction.****32.503-12 Maximum unliquidated amount.****32.503-13 [Reserved]****32.503-14 Protection of Government title.****32.503-15 Application of Government title terms.****32.503-16 Risk of loss.****Parent topic:** Subpart 32.5 - Progress Payments Based on Costs
Exhibit 10.2





Exhibit 10.2




Director Compensation




During
2009, the fees that each non-employee director, lead director, or committee chair, is
entitled to receive are the following:




	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $70,000 (which consists of $60,000 in cash and $10,000 in
phantom stock units);
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $20,000 retainer for the lead director;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $10,000 retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and
Nominating Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	An additional $7,500 retainer for the Chair of the Risk Management Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	An attendance fee of $1,500 for regularly scheduled Board or committee meetings,
other than Audit Committee meeting fees which are $2,000 per meeting; and
	 
	 	•	 	An attendance fee of $500 for telephonic special meetings of the Board of Directors.





At the time a new non-employee director joins the Board of Directors, the Company grants
20,000 options to such director, which are fully vested on the date of grant. At the annual
meeting of stockholders, the Company also grants to each non-employee director 15,000 options,
which are fully vested on the date of grant. The exercise prices of the options granted to the
directors when they join the Board of Directors and on the date of the annual meeting of
stockholders are based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Michael S. Kady, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, 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 fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially 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 the 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 control 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.







/ s / MICHAEL S. KADY

Michael S. Kady

Chief Executive Officer



Date:

April 17, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000759726
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3

<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Sep-30-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Oct-01-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          933,408

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                933,408

<PP&E>                          275,000

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,208,408

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           135,152

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,073,256

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,208,408

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0<F1>

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<FN>
<F1>
Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting 
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
Statement of Operations subsequent to 1996. See Note A
to the financial statements for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
The HONORABLE JOHN D. KELLY died on October 21, 1998, before a draft *

of this opinion was circulated. The opinion is consistent with the views Judge Kelly

expressed during the panel’s conference following submission on September 24, 1998.

The HONORABLE JOSEPH E. STEVENS, JR., United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1668

___________

John J. Farrell, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of * Western District of Missouri.

Health & Human Services, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 24, 1998

Filed: November 13, 1998 

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, LOKEN and KELLY, Circuit Judges. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

John J. Farrell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing 1

Farrell’s claim that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
-2-

discriminated against him on the basis of his disabilities in violation of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Farrell was employed by HHS as a

Children and Family Program Specialist, serving as the principal expert and technical

resource for the State of Iowa regarding federal laws, regulations, and policies

concerning child support. In January 1990, Farrell suffered a heart attack, resulting in

brain damage from oxygen deprivation that left him with visual, speech, and cognitive

impairments. After heart surgery and extensive rehabilitation, Farrell returned to work

full-time in May 1992. In November 1992, his supervisor identified performance

deficiencies and provided Farrell with a performance improvement plan. At year end,

the supervisor rated Farrell’s performance “unacceptable” in three critical elements and

“marginally successful” in two others. He was terminated on March 26, 1993.

The district court concluded that Farrell failed to establish a prima facie case of

a Rehabilitation Act violation because he could not refute HHS’s substantial evidence

that his cognitive impairments were so severe that no accommodations, reasonable or

otherwise, would have made him qualified to perform the essential functions of his job.

On appeal, Farrell argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment because

Farrell made a facial showing that a reasonable accommodation was possible through

the reports of a neurologist and his ergonomics expert and the deposition testimony of

Farrell and his wife. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court

that this evidence was speculative and did not overcome the government’s

overwhelming evidence that Farrell’s brain damage left him without the cognitive

ability to perform his analytical and consultative job duties, with or with

accommodation. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.