alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.404 Schedule of charges and rates. ( a ) A provider authorized under § 869.401 or § 869.402 must furnish AMS with copies of its current schedule of charges and rates for all services as they become effective.
( b ) Charges and rates assessed any user by the provider must be in effect for a minimum period of one year.
( c ) Providers must furnish AMS and all users a 60-calendar day advance notice of their intent to change any charges and rates.
[67 FR 50783, Aug. 5, 2002. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 45645, 45647 Aug. 30, 2019]
CERTIFICATIONI, Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. (the“Company”), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify asfollows:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and2. The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 5th day of August, 2009.   /s/ LAWRENCE E. KREIDER, JR.   Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
# Subpart 707.1—Acquisition Plans

**Parent topic:**PART 707—ACQUISITION PLANNING

## 707.104 General procedures.

Policies, procedures, and internal guidance for acquisition planning are found in ADS 300.
FAR Correction(s) 		Please complete this form to notify the Regulatory Secretariat of errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the text of the FAR or FACs and submit via mail or facsimile to: 			General Services Administration 			Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) 			1800 F Street, NW 			Washington, DC 20405 			 			Telephone: (202) 501-4755 			Facsimile: (202) 501-4067 			 			FAR Part, Subpart, or Section: ____________________________________________ 			Page Number: ___________________________________________________________ 			 			Nature of Error(s): _____________________________________________________ 			________________________________________________________________________ 			________________________________________________________________________ 			________________________________________________________________________ 			 			Name: __________________________________________________________________ 			Telephone: _____________________________________________________________ 			E-mail Address:_________________________________________________________ 			Address: _______________________________________________________________ 			________________________________________________________________________
#### ANDERSON, Appellant, v. BAGG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by August Anderson against Samuel F. Bagg, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Whitestone Savings and Loan Association, Respondent-Appellant, v. Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action by the mortgagee of a parcel of improved real property, which action, insofar as it is against defendant Allstate Insurance Company, the insurer of the property, is to recover for a loss caused by fire (first and third causes of action) and for fraud (second cause of action), plaintiff and said defendant cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 21, 1969, which denied said defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and failed to grant plaintiff summary judgment on the second cause of action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Allstate Insurance Company, and action severed so that it may proceed separately as against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff, after filing a claim for loss under the fire policy covering the mortgaged premises, but before its negotiations with the defendant insurer had come to final fruition, instituted fore-closure and bid in the property at the sale for a sum sufficient to pay in full the amount due on the mortgage debt with interest, taxes, expenses and costs. Since the mortgage debt was completely satisfied by the proceeds of the sale, plaintiff is entitled to no further payment on account thereof (Real Prop. Actions and Proc. Law, § 1371; *Glen Cove Trust Co.*v. *Trypuc,*110 N. Y. S. 2d 368, affd. *Matter of Glen Cove Trust Co.*v. *Trypuc,*281 App. Div. 1034; *Lang*v. *New York Joint Stock Land Bank of Rochester,*155 Misc. 779; *Klein*v. *Gray,*127 N. Y. S. 2d 459; 2 Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure [5th ed.], § 830). Plaintiff’s contention that it is entitled to summary judgment on its second cause of action, the essential allegations of which were denied in the defendant insurer’s amended answer, is without merit. It claims that during the negotiations the insurer falsely expressed a willingness to pay a stated sum in settlement, intending thereby to induce plaintiff to proceed with the foreclosure. However, it is not alleged that the insurer urged or suggested when the foreclosure should be consummated or that the insurer tried to influence the amount of the bid. That was solely the decision of plaintiff. Thus there was no showing of a misrepresentation by the insurer of a material fact. Nor did plaintiff suffer any damage, since the debt owing to it was fully satisfied as a result of the sale. Since a material misrepresentation and damage are among the elements essential for the maintenance of a suit for fraud, plaintiff’s cause of action therefor is not maintainable (24 N. Y. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 14, and cases there cited). Christ, P. J., Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Farley at the Special Term. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY DEESE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv643-MHT

) WO

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the defendants’ motion for HIPAA order (Doc. # 21) filed on

October 20, 2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B) and ¶ 5 of the General Order of this court entered on

November 22, 1993.

The applicable provision of this court's General Order reads as follows:

The court will not consider any motion relating to discovery, such as a motion

to compel or a motion for protective order, unless the motion is accompanied

by a written certification that the moving party has made reasonable goodfaith effort to reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth

in the motion.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B), as amended on December 1,

1993, require litigants to seek to resolve discovery disputes by a good faith conference

before seeking court intervention. Discovery motions filed pursuant to these Rules must be

accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 22 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. 

It is further ORDERED that, if the parties agree that a protective order is appropriate,

the parties are DIRECTED to confer and attempt to agree on a joint motion and proposed

order. 

DONE, this 24th day of October, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 22 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.6

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made as of February 27, 2018, by and between EagleBank (the “Bank”) and the Executive named below.

 

RECITAL:

 

Bank has retained Executive as an executive officer, pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 31, 2017 (the “Agreement”). The parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for clarity in how to apply IRC Section 280G to the extent applicable.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 10.1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:

 

10.1        Section 280G

 

If any of the payments or benefits received or to be received by the Executive (including, without limitation, any payment or benefits received in connection with a Change in Control or the Executive’s termination of employment, whether pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or any other plan, arrangement or agreement, or otherwise) (all such payments collectively referred to herein as the “280G Payments”) constitute “parachute payments” within the meaning of Section 280G of the Code and would, but for this Section 10.1, be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code (the “Excise Tax”), then prior to making the 280G Payments, the 280G Payments shall be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to ensure that no portion of the 280G Payments is subject to the Excise Tax.  In applying the foregoing limitation,  benefits shall be reduced so as to maximize the economic value payable to the Executive and, if two economically equivalent amounts are subject to reduction but are payable at different times, the amounts shall be reduced (but not below zero) on a pro rata basis.

 











 

2.              But for the above change, the Agreement remains in full force and effect, unmodified.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

EAGLEBANK

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Ronald D. Paul
    	
 
    
	
Name:   Ronald D. Paul
    	
 
    
	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    
	
Date:   February 27, 2018
    	
 
    


 

Executive

 

	
/s/ Laurence E. Bensignor
    	
 
    
	
Name: Laurence E. Bensignor
    	
 
    
	
Title: Executive Vice President, General Counsel
    	
 
    
	
Date: February 27, 2018
    	
 
    


 

2
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit #31.2

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, William A. Owen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Outdoor Channel
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly 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, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation;

         (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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 function):

         (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
controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003  /s/ William A. Owen
                         -------------------------------------------------------
                         WILLIAM A. OWEN, Chief Financial Officer


                                      -19-
52.231 [Reserved]           **Parent topic:** Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3-2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3-2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3-2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3-2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 3-2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 5 of 5
#### § 925.112 Fiscal period.

Beginning January 1, 1988, *fiscal period* will mean January 1 through December 31 of each year.

[52 FR 27538, July 22, 1987]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico

# AGENCY:

United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (USIBWC).

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Final Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508), and the United States Section`s Operational Procedures for Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, published in the                         **Federal Register**                         September 2, 1981, (46 FR 44083); the USIBWC hereby gives notice of availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and FONSI for Arroyo Colorado South Levee Rehabilitation Project located in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, Texas are available. An environmental impact statement will not be prepared.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lisa Santana, Natural Resources Specialist, Environmental Management Division, United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission; 4171 N. Mesa, C-100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 832-4707; e-mail:                         *lisa.santana@ibwc.gov*.                    

*Availability:*                         Single hard copies of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact are available by request at the above address. Electronic copies are available from the USIBWC homepage at                         *http://www.ibwc.gov/​Organization/​Environmental/​reports_​studies.html.*

Dated: December 6, 2010.

Steven Fitten,

Attorney.

[FR Doc. 2010-31141 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7010-01-P
§ 948.62 Powers. Each committee shall have the following powers: ( a ) To administer the provisions of this subpart as specified herein;
( b ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this subpart;
( c ) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violation of the provisions of this part; and
( d ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this part.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pursuant to the discussions held during the pretrial hearing on June 18, 2007, it is

CONSIDERED and ORDERED that, on or before, July 2, 2007, the parties file a

proposed pretrial order with amended contentions which correspond with the court's

rulings on summary judgment as set out in the memorandum opinion and order entered

this same date, by transmitting an electronic copy of the proposed pretrial order to the

court as an attachment to an email message sent to propord_dement@almd.uscourts.gov. 

For this purpose, the electronic copy should be in WordPerfect or Word format and not in

Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

The parties also are hereby reminded of their obligations, imposed by § 13 of the

Uniform Scheduling Order entered in this case on August 30, 2006 (Doc. No. 8), to file

any requested voir dire questions, motions in limine fully briefed, and proposed jury

instructions, together with citations of law thereon, on or before July 2, 2007. 

Done this 28th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 43 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00027

- CR

RODERICK UNDREA WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1323471

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderick Undrea Williams , appellant, has submitted to the trial court a personal letter

requesting dismissal of his appeal in this matter. The letter was submitted to t his Court as part of

the clerk’s record, and we view the letter as the clearest possible expression of Williams ’ desire

to dismiss this appeal. As authorized by Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

,

we grant Williams’ request

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 2 , 2014

Date Decided: September 3 , 2014

Do Not Publish
Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 33 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
(4910-13-U]

DEP ARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION

Fcdcr-al Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

(Docket No. FAA-2010-XXXXXj [)irectorate Identifier 201O-SW-078-ADj

Amendment 39-XXXX; AD 2010-18-52]

RIN 2120-AA64

Ainvorthiness Directivesj MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document supersedes AD 2010-18-51 and publishes in the Federal

Register an amendment adopting Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-18-52

which was sent previously to all known owners and operators of MD Helicopters, Inc.

(MDH!) Model MD900 helicopters by individual letters. This AD requires visually

inspecting the main rotor hub (hub) for a crack. If a crack is found, this AD requires,

before further night, replacing the unairworthy hub with an airworthy hub. Additionally,

if a cracked hub is found, this AD requires reporting the finding to the Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification OfTice within 10 days of finding the crack. This AD is prompted by

two reports of cracks detected in the hub in the area near the flex beam bolt hole locations

during maintenance on two MDHI Model MD900 helicopters. 'fhe actions specified by

this AD are intended to detect a crack in the hub and prevent failure of the hub and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective [insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Fedentl

Registcr), to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective

by Emergency AD 2010-18-52, issued on August 23, 20 I0, which contained the

requirements of this amendment.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before [insert

date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].

~ONCCRP.f!\CE5

Ol.'Tl:-.iG SY\I!~'}l

ACO Egr

IdoL

:'lIn \I.,~~l',

£5cwi~

'.\11:

Cj- ;;l7-/D

-.If t .',\.', "'I'~

?D,L~('/'()

"r/Z-r/to
#### FUNSOOSTEN, Respondent, v. SUMMIT FOUNDRY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department,

October 3, 1906.)

Action by Hammond Funsoosten against the Summit Foundry Company.

PER OURIAM.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted without costs. Held that, wherever the complaint alleges, after specifying defects, "or otherwise failed," etc., the order should require the plaintiff to state in what particulars the defendant failed to perform its duty to the plaintiff, in what respect the place where the plaintiff was at work was "otherwise" dangerous, and in what respect the plaintiff was "otherwise seriously in3ured." In case the plaintiff elects to strike these various allegations from the complaint, he will be permitted to do so, in which event the motion is denied, with $10 costs and disbursements in this court to the appellant; the form of the order to he settled by and before Mr. Justice SPRING on two days' notice.
#### § 75.13 When application may be rejected.

Any application for service may be rejected by the Director (a) for noncompliance with the Act or the regulations relating to applications for service in this subpart, or (b) when it is not practicable to provide the service. Each such applicant shall be promptly notified in writing.
#### § 915.7 Committee.

*Committee* means the Avocado Administrative Committee established pursuant to § 915.20.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

 DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

 

September 1, 2006

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

RE: Robert Prueter v. CDA Detective & Security Services et al

Civil Action No. 1:06cv00694-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to District Judge Myron H. Thompson.

Please note that the case number is now 1:06cv00694-MHT. This new case

number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this action.

Sincerely,

Sheryl K. Lent

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 7 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 5141.1 - General

**Parent topic:**Part 5141 - Acquisition of Utility Services

## 5141.102 Applicability.

See Army Regulation 420-41 Acquisition and Sale of Utilities Services.