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

                             ABINGTON BANCORP, INC.

                BOARD OF DIRECTORS TRANSITION AND RETIREMENT PLAN

                                  JUNE 22, 2000

PURPOSE OF PLAN:

         This Plan is intended to encourage Directors who have made significant
contributions to the Bank and the Holding Company to consider voluntarily
transitioning off the Board of Directors in order to provide opportunities for
increased diversity on the Board and generally to permit others to serve on the
Board, to serve as a source of new ideas, business networking and community
input to the Bank and the Holding Company.

MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENTS:

-        To be eligible a Director must have served on the Board of the Holding
         Company or the Bank for at least 10 years.

-        To be eligible a Director must have attained the age of 55.

AMOUNT OF RETIREMENT AND TRANSITION PAYMENT:

-        Transitioning Directors who have served at least 10 but less than 15
         years as Directors of the Holding Company or the Bank would receive an
         amount equal to their Board Compensation.

-        Transitioning Directors who have served at least 15 years but less than
         20 years as Directors of the Holding Company or the Bank would receive
         an amount equal to two times their Board Compensation.

-        Transitioning Directors who have served at least 20 years as Directors
         of the Holding Company or the Bank would receive an amount equal to
         three times their Board Compensation.

BOARD COMPENSATION:

         The term "Board Compensation" shall mean an amount equal to the sum of
(x) the annual Directors retainer fee and (y) the aggregate annual fees payable
for attendance at 12 monthly meetings of the Board. Fees for serving as a member
of a committee shall not be included in determining Board Compensation.

PAYMENT SUBJECT TO BOARD APPROVAL:

         The Board reserves the right to disapprove payment of the Retirement
and Transition Payment to any Director for any reason if the Board concludes
that such payment would be inappropriate under the circumstances. Additionally,
any parties electing to participate in this plan will be subject to a standard
form Confidentiality Letter upon acceptance by the Board of Directors.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41722 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaint iffAppellee,

versus JULIO ZUNIGA-ZUNIGA, DefendantAppellant.

--------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-600-ALL

--------------------------------------------------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julio Zuniga-Zuniga appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien present in the United States following a prior deportation for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). Zuniga’s waiver-of-appeal provision does not bar this appeal because the record reflectsthat the magistrate judge who administered Zuniga’s plea erroneously described the waiver-ofappeal provision. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(N). Zuniga argues that the district court erred in assigning a 16-level increase to his offense level based upon a prior conviction for second degree assault that occurred in Kentucky. This issue is reviewed de novo as Zuniga raised it in the district court. See United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government concedes that the district court erred in assigning the 16-level increase because the record does not conclusively establish that the prior conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)(Nov. 2004). Accordingly, Zuniga’s sentence is vacated and remanded. Zuniga also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in sentencing him using and unconstitutional mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime in violation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 739 (2005). Zuniga’s argument will not be addressed in light of this court’s remand for resentencing. See United States v. Southerland , 405 F.3d 263, 270 (5th Cir. 2005). VACATE and REMAND.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32375]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to 
the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification 
Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 
3632(b)(3).

DATES: December 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[reg] hereby 
gives notice that on December 16, 2010, it filed with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to 
Add Priority Mail Contract 31 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at http://www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2011-10, CP2011-46.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010-32375 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Emerson K. Devitt, Appellant, v. Ulster County Board of Realtors, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury, dismissing appellant’s application, in a proceeding brought under CPLR article 78, to compel respondent to accept him into its membership as an active member. There are some 200 licensed real estate brokers in Ulster County, of which 54, or 27%, are members of respondent. Appellant, a licensed real estate broker, argues that because of certain definite advantages in membership, he is unable to make a living on an equal competitive basis with members of the respondent and, therefore, respondent should be compelled to admit him. It is well settled that the courts of this State will interfere in these matters only when there is a showing of “ economic necessity ” for membership and that the membership corporation is a party to a monopoly *(Matter of Salter*v. *New York State Psychological Assn.,*14 N Y 2d 100, 106-107; *Matter of Kurk*v. *Medical Soc. of County of Queens,*24 A D 2d 897, affd. 18 N Y 2d 928). To establish *“*economic necessity ”, a petitioner must demonstrate that he cannot successfully continue in his profession without membership in the corporation or association (cf. *Matter of Salter*v. *New York State Psychological Assn., supra,*p. 107). It is not enough, as petitioner contends, to show he is unable to “ make a living on an equal competitive basis with members of the respondent.” On the instant record, the trial court could properly find that appellant is successfully engaged in the real estate field in Ulster County and thus that he has not fulfilled his burden of establishing economic necessity. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
#### HYDE PARK TERRACE CO., Respondent, v. JACKSON BROS. REALTY CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by the Hyde Park Terrace Company against the Jackson Bros. Realty Company and others, copartners, etc.

No opinion. Order settled and signed. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1117.
#### In the Matter of Anthony R. Mandarino, Petitioner, v Nicholas G. Baich, as Administrator of the Erie County Pistol Permit Dept., et al., Respondents.

Application unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs. (Art 78.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
**Massachusetts**

**No Active Borrowers in Massachusetts**
Return to state directory
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                        85
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          36,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,665
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (68)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,686
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86
        

</TABLE>
223 So.2d 869

#### SIMMONS COMPANY v. FURNITURE DISTRIBUTORS OF PLAQUEMINES PARISH, INC.

No. 49909.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Furniture Distributors of Plaque-mines Parish, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Plaquemines. 221 So.2d 672.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
February 14, 2011Ms. Diana Esher, Director 1 2011 RECEIVEDAir Protection Division ip3O U.S. EPA Region 3 FEB 152011

1650 Arch Street (3APOO) Division Director C3APOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Re: Clean Data Showing Attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS for the West Virginia

Nonattainment Areas of Charleston and Weirton

DearMs:

As you know, West Virginia has two areas that are presently designated nonattainment for the2006 PM2.524-hour air quality standard of 35jig/m 3.Based upon the most recent 2008-2010

monitoring data certified in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), both those areas are now attainingthe standard. In fact, Charleston also met the standard during 2007-2009 at 32tg/m. For 2008-20 10, the design value for Charleston is and for Weirton is 31tg/m .Likewise, the

annual standard is being met in both areas with the design value for Charleston at 13.2 g/i andfor Weirton at 13.7 ig/m 3.

Data available in AQS does not indicate any violations in the corresponding portions of adjacent

states. The federal PM2.5Implementation Rule states:

(c) Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for

the PM2.5NAAQS has attained the standard, the requirements for such area

to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available

control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures,

and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5NAAQS shall besuspended until such time as: the area is redesignated to attainment, at which

time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area hasviolated the PM25 NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to submit

such plans. [72 FR 20665, April 25, 2007; 40 CFR 5 1.1004 (c)j

Promoting a healthy environment.
SIPs and other listed items are suspended in accordance with the federal PM2.5Implementation

Rule.

If you or your staff have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free tocontact me at (304) 926-0462 or Fred Durham, Deputy Director, at (304) 926-0499 ext. 1242.cc: Cristina Fernandez

Marilyn Powers

- Division of Air Quality
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,517,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,758,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                   488,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,588,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,524,849
<PP&E>                                      10,942,606
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,923,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,720,654  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,857,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       323,931
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,700,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,720,654
<SALES>                                      7,544,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,544,005
<CGS>                                        4,038,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,957,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               413,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             438,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,462
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            172,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   172,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### JUDD v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 6, 1915.)

Action by Ora Judd against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion denied. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 733.
#### § 73.3 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretations of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized as binding upon the Commission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          53,122
<SECURITIES>                                    31,852
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     74,836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,317
<PP&E>                                         174,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 724,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,774
<BONDS>                                        772,877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (113,647)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   724,264
<SALES>                                        199,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,580
<CGS>                                          114,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,398)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 600.128 Period of availability of funds.

Where a funding period is specified, a recipient may charge to the award only allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the funding period and any pre-award costs authorized by DOE.

Property Standards
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN FLUKER, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv785-MHT

 ) 

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Based on the Judgment entered in this case favor of Plaintiff Calvin Fluker

(Fluker) (Doc. #67), it is 

ORDERED that Fluker’s Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena (Doc. #58)

and Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to File Response to Fluker’s

Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena (Doc. #60) are DENIED as MOOT.

DONE this 15th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 72 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 1 of 1
AAM

- 1 3

- 2 48

- E

March 08, 2013

Exemption No. 1071 8

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 01 87

Mr. Brian K Coshatt

Express Helicopters, I nc

. P.O. Box 131373

Birmingham, AL 35213

Dear M r

. C oshatt :

T his letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter da ted February 1 5 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Express Helicopters

, Inc. ( Express Helicopters ) for an exemption from part 120

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow E xpress Helicopters to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing

program

.

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Express Helicopters

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exempti on No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing

programs into one would be in the p ublic interest and would maintain an equivalent level of2

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed you r reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant

of Exemption No. 9703 ;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 al so apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Express Helicopters

, Inc

. an exemption from 14 CFR

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Express Helicopters to cover its safety

- sensitive

employees under one drug and alcohol testing program , subj ect to the conditions and

limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitation s

1. Employees of Express 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 program must be implemented under the same auspices of

the Express Helicopters par t 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2015 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

James R. Fraser, M .D.

Deput y Federal Air Surgeo n

Enclosure
#### The People *of*the State *of*New York ex rel. Louis Hutchings, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 9, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Appeal dismissed, without costs, as moot in view of the fact that appellant subsequently obtained the relief he sought. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### § 745.119 Research undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects.

Except for research waived under § 745.101(i) or exempted under § 745.104, in the event research is undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects, but it is later proposed to involve human subjects in the research, the research shall first be reviewed and approved by an IRB, as provided in this policy, a certification submitted by the institution to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research, and final approval given to the proposed change by the Federal department or agency component.
§ 603.640 Audits of for-profit participants. If the TIA is an expenditure-based award, the contracting officer must include in it an audit provision that addresses, for each for-profit participant: ( a ) Whether the for-profit participant must have periodic audits, in addition to any award-specific audits, as described in § 603.645;
( b ) Whether the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or an independent public accountant (IPA) will perform required audits, as discussed in § 603.650;
( c ) How frequently any periodic audits are to be performed, addressed in § 603.655; and
( d ) Other matters described in § 603.660, such as audit coverage, allowability of audit costs, auditing standards, and remedies for noncompliance.