alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1902.101 Definitions.       As used throughout this regulation, the following words and terms are used as defined in this subpart unless (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning or (b) a different definition is prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part.          *Board* means the Broadcasting Board of Governors, acting through any of its duty authorized officials.          *Board Procurement Executive* means the Director, Office of Contracts.          *AR/CO* means Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (see 1942.202-70).          *Contracting activity* means the Office of Contracts, which has the responsibility to contract for the acquisition of supplies and services (including construction).          *Head of the Board* (also called *Board head*) means the Board Director or Deputy Director; and the term *authorized representative* means any person, persons or board (other than the contracting officer) authorized to act for the Head of the Board.          *Purchasing Activity* means an office with one or more Level I or Level II Small Purchases Contracting Officer(s) exercising limited redelegations of contracting officer authority.          *BBG* means the Broadcating Board of Governors.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1902.1 - Definitions
#### § 501.11 Address for filing documents.

Send all petitions, self-certifications and written communications to the following address: Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Fuels Programs, Coal and Electricity Division, Mail Code FE-52, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

[54 FR 52891, Dec. 22, 1989]
Exhibit 12.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)

I, K.C. Kummerfeld, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F of Arcturus Therapeutics Ltd.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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.

Date: July 10, 2018

|                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ K.C. Kummerfeld                                                              |
| K.C. Kummerfeld                                                                  |
| Vice President, Finance and Corporate Controller 

(principal financial officer) |
Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.





Date:  August 13, 2002





/s/    MICHAEL C.
MILLERMichael C. Miller Chief
Executive Officer





Date:  August 13, 2002





/s/    JERRY A.
LITTLEJerry A. Little Chief
Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John J. Duffy, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 23, 1979, which reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge and, as modified, sustained an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant to be ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed; charged him with an overpayment of benefits ruled to be recoverable; and held he had willfully made false statements to obtain benefits by reason of which a forfeiture of effective days was imposed. Claimant frequently visited his former place of employment while receiving unemployment insurance benefits and, on occasion, assisted or replaced the proprietor for brief periods of time. Based on his own statements concerning these activities, the board was amply justified in concluding that claimant was ineligible because he was not totally unemployed. It also ruled that all payments were recoverable and imposed a forfeiture of effective days on the additional finding that he had made willful false statements to obtain such benefits (Labor Law, § 594). Specifically, the board determined claimant "presented his calendar insert falsely marked to show he had done no work” when he knew he had "performed services for the employer on three days in each week during the period from January 29 through June 3, 1979”. In our opinion, this portion of the decision lacks substantial evidentiary support. Although claimant was familiar with reporting requirements and marked his booklet in a manner indicating he had done no work, he maintained at the hearing that his efforts were undertaken without compensation as a favor to the proprietor who was a personal friend. As in *Matter of Czarniak (Ross)*(60 AD2d 745), this account does not appear to be implausible on its face and, even if rejected on the basis of credibility, the remaining proof does not suggest the existence of any willful misrepresentation. To the contrary, claimant and his former employer both testified that most of the time he spent on the premises was unrelated to the business and that those services he provided which did constitute work occurred infrequently. The record contains nothing tending to disprove their evidence or to establish that, in fact, claimant actually worked three days each week throughout the *736disputed period. Decision modified, by annulling so much thereof as finds a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits ruled to be recoverable and imposes a forfeiture of effective days, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur; Main, J., not taking part.
Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
2007-2016.

#### State v. Sowards.

Gallia App. No. 06CA13, 2007-Ohio-4863. On emergency motion to stay execution of sentence. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.
exv10w24






Exhibit 10.24



Amendment One to the

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Employee Retirement Plan
Supplement




          The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Employee Retirement Plan Supplement (the
“Plan”) is amended, effective as of January 1, 2009, as set forth below:





	 	1.	 	Section 5.01. Basic Benefit. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of
Section 5.01:






          (d) “Notwithstanding anything in this Section 5.01 or in Section 5.02
of the Plan, in the case of a Participant who is a member of the
Senior Executive Supplemental Death, Disability and Retirement Benefits
Plan, the Participant’s Benefit in respect of any year commencing on or
after January 1, 2009, shall not exceed the increase, if any, in the
Participant’s Monthly Retirement Income (as defined in the Senior Executive
Supplemental Death, Disability and Retirement Benefits Plan) during the
course of such year, after giving effect to the reduction in Section 5.03(a)
and prior to giving effect to the reductions in Section 5.03(b), Section 
5.03(c), Section 5.03(d) and Section 5.03(e) thereof, multiplied by twelve.”




	 	2.	 	Section 5.03. Payment of Benefits. The following language is hereby added to the last
sentence of Section 5.03(a) immediately following the words “in the event of the death of the
Participant”:






          “prior to the commencement of his benefits under the
Plan”




	 	3.	 	Section 6.03. Statute of Limitations. The first sentence of Section
6.03 is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “within three years” and
replacing it with the phrase “within one year”.





* * * * *




          Except as set forth herein, the Plan remains in full force and effect.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 338 

Recognizing the importance of sports in fostering the leadership ability and 

success of women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2005 

Ms. DELAURO (for herself, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. NADLER, Mr. HONDA, 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, and Mr. SHERWOOD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of sports in fostering the 

leadership ability and success of women. 

Whereas the the leadership skills taught by participating in 

sports benefit women throughout their lives, giving them 

the tools to teach, to effect change, and to inspire their 

families, friends, and colleagues; 

Whereas more than 4 out of 5 executive businesswomen 

played sports as children, and the vast majority of those 

businesswomen say the lessons they learned through athletics, such as discipline, team-building, competitiveness, 

and risk-taking, have contributed to their success in business; 
2 

•HRES 338 IH 

Whereas research indicates that girls who participate in 

sports are more likely to experience academic success and 

graduate from high school than those who do not participate in sports; and 

Whereas women student-athletes graduate from high school 

at a significantly higher rate (68 percent) than women 

students in general (58 percent): Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the role of women’s sports programs in the develop3 ment of women’s leadership skills and supports the goals 

4 of ‘‘Women’s Leadership Through Sports’’. 

Æ
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0495 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-236-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
#### In re WASHINGTON AVE. IN CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 18, 1914.)

In the matter of the opening, etc., of Washington Avenue.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1117.
PGI 245.103-73 Government property under sustainment contracts.       (1) Sustainment contracts, including those for performance-based logistics, sustainment support, contractor logistics support, life-cycle product support, and weapon systems product support (see 10 U.S.C. 4324(d)), may require the contractor to hold or manage Government inventory. In such cases, regularly scheduled (typically, semiannually) inventory reporting from the contractor is required to ensure that inventory levels meet program requirements and Government inventory in excess of authorized amounts is identified. The requiring activity is responsible for providing the contracting officer with reporting requirements for Government inventory. See the Data Item Description DI-PSSS-80727A, Government Furnished Material (GFM) by National Stock Number, and the instructions for completing the DD Form 1423 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for inventory reporting requirements on sustainment             contracts available at http://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/gfp-resources.          (2)  During acquisition planning, pricing contracts, exercising options, and assessing past performance, contracting officers should review the requiring activity’s assessment of the information generated by the inventory reporting requirements.          (3) In some circumstances, under fixed-price sustainment contracts, contract deliverables consist of non-hardware items, such as operational readiness rate goals or mean time between failures of a system. In order to meet these deliverables, contractors are required to provide certain property items to the Government. In such cases, the contract does not include specific delivery line items requiring formal delivery of the property. By extension, the Government will not have title to the property at the time the contractor provides the property. In such cases, title to the property passes to the Government upon Government acceptance (as defined in FAR 46.101) of the items at the destination stated in the contract. Contracting officers shall ensure that the contract—          (i) Clearly defines how and when acceptance will be performed; and          (ii) Includes applicable requirements for quality assurance, part marking, anti-counterfeiting, or other requirement for the delivery of the property.    **Parent topic:** PGI 245.103 General.
PGI 209.570-3 Procedures.       (1) After assessing the offeror’s direct financial interests in the development or construction of any individual system or element of any system of systems, if the offeror—          (i) Has no direct financial interest in such systems, the contracting officer shall document the contract file to that effect and may then further consider the offeror for award of the contract;          (ii) Has a direct financial interest in such systems, but the exception in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(2) applies, the contracting officer shall document the contract file to that effect and may then further consider the offeror for award of the contract;          (iii) Has a direct financial interest in such systems and the exception in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(2) does not apply, but the conditions in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1)(i) and (ii) do apply, the contracting officer—          (A) Shall document the contract file to that effect;          (B) May, in coordination with program officials, request an exception for the offeror from the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection; and          (C) Shall not award to the offeror unless the Secretary of Defense grants the exception and provides the required certification to Congress; or          (iv) Has a direct financial interest in such systems and the exceptions in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1) and (2) do not apply, the contracting officer shall not award to the offeror.          (2)(i) To process an exception under DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1), the contracting officer shall submit the request and appropriate documentation to—          Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting          ATTN: OUSD(A&S) DPAP/PACC          3060 Defense Pentagon          Washington, DC 20301-3060.          Phone: 703-695-4235		FAX: 703-693-9616          (ii) The action officer in the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Program Acquisition and Contingency Contracting (DPAP/PACC), will process the request through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and, if approved, to the appropriate committees of Congress. The contracting officer shall not award a contract to the affected offeror until notified by the DPAP/PACC action officer that the exception has been approved and transmitted to Congress.    **Parent topic:** PGI 209.570 Limitations on contractors acting as lead system integrators.
Order entered February 25 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01068
- CR No. 05
- 18
- 0106 9
- CR ROBERT HOWARD GREEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F16
- 76425
- T & F16
- 76426
- T



### O RDER On February 12 , 2019, we ordered app ellant to provide this Court with written proof he requested the reporter’s record. On January 20, 2019, we received a letter from appellant in which he certified he hand delivered a request for the reporter’s record to court reporter s Debi
Harris and Sharina Fowler on February 13, 2019. In light of this, w e ORDER the complete reporter’s record fil ed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela Lawrence Mays, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Debi Harris, court reporter; Sharina Fowler, court reporter; and to couns el for all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Order entered December 17, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01355-CR

L.D. MILLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-27250-Y

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Sharon Hazelwood’s motion for extension of time to 

file the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Ms. Hazelwood to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY (30) DAYS

from the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Director Compensation Program



 Exhibit 10.2 
 WINDSTREAM CORPORATION 
 Director Compensation Program 
 Approved February 17, 2010 
 Compensation for directors who are not officers of the Corporation will consist of the following components: 
  

	 	1.	Initial Retainer. Each new member will receive a grant of $60,000 in restricted stock under the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, in connection with his or
her appointment or election to the Board. 

  

	 	2.	Annual Retainer. Each member will receive an annual cash retainer of $60,000. Commencing with 2010, the Chairman will receive a supplemental annual cash retainer
of $100,000. 

  

	 	3.	Meeting Fees. Each member will receive a cash fee of $2,000 for each Board and Committee meeting attended, except that no meeting fee will be paid for meetings
(i) of the Governance Committee or (ii) at which the Board receives periodic updates from management and no actions are taken by the Board. 

  

	 	4.	Committee Chair Fees. Each member who serves as Chair of a Board Committee will receive the following indicated annual cash fee: 

  

									
	 •
	  	Audit	  	-        	 	$20,000	 	
	 •
	  	Compensation	  	-	 	$15,000	 	
	 •
	  	Governance	  	-	 	$ - 0 -	 	

  

	 	5.	Annual Restricted Stock. Each member will receive an annual grant of $80,000 in restricted stock under the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended.


 All other terms and conditions of the grants of restricted stock shall be determined and approved by the Compensation
Committee. 
 Members will receive a prorated amount of the Annual Retainer, Committee Chair Fees and Annual Restricted Stock Grant for the

 portion of the first year for which they are appointed or elected to serve as a Board member or Committee Chair. For future years, directors
will receive the Annual Retainer, Committee Chair Fees and Restricted Stock grants at the first regularly scheduled board meeting of the year.
PGI 239.7405 Delegated authority for

telecommunications resources.

Related Documents:

Documents related to DoD’s delegated authority to enter into telecommunications service contracts

are available here.

Parent topic: PGI 239.74 -TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
#### § 52.169 [Reserved]
Subpart 1205.1—Dissemination of

Information

Parent topic: PART 1205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

1205.101 Methods of disseminating information.

(a) The DOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590 publishes a Procurement Forecast of planned procurements each fiscal year

on their website at https://www.transportation.gov/osdbu/procurement-forecast/summary/.
PGI 219.804 Evaluation, offering, and

acceptance.

PGI 219.804-2 Agency offering.

PGI 219.804-3 SBA acceptance.

Parent topic: PGI 219.8 -CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (THE

8(A) PROGRAM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN FLUKER, RICARDO )

WRIGHT, BERYL JACKSON, )

TRACEY MARTIN, LISA )

PITCHFORD, KIMBERLY LOVE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. and )

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. - )

MONTGOMERY DIVISION, )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Please be advised that the Birmingham office ofJackson Lewis, LLP has moved.

Please forward copies of all pleadings, correspondence, etc. to Tammy Baker at the

following address:

First Commercial Bank Building

800 Shades Creek Parkway

Suite 870

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 55 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker (ASB-9522-B62T)

E-Mail: BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

First Commercial Bank Building

800 Shades Creek Parkway

Suite 870

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Thisisto certify that on November 29, 2007, the undersigned electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.

Maury S. Weiner, Esq.

Ethan R. Dettling, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

301 19

th

Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

/s/ Tammy L. Baker

Counsel of Record

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 55 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
PGI 206.000 Scope of part.

For information on various approaches that may be used to competitively fulfill DoD requirements,

see the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Guidelines for

Creating and Maintaining a Competitive Environment for Supplies and Services in the Department

of Defense.

Parent topic: PGI Part 206 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS