alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.30


 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE


TO


TDS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION


EXECUTIVE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM


 


WHEREAS, TDS Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains a deferred
compensation plan for the benefit of its employees and employees of affiliates
of the Company which are participating employers, designated the “TDS
Telecommunications Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Program” (the “Plan”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to change the
method of determining the rate of interest to be used for monthly crediting to
each Participant’s Account.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 8.1
of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective for Plan Years beginning on
and after January 1, 2009 by restating the first sentence of Section 4.2
to read as follows:


 


Section 4.2.  Crediting
of Interests.  On the last day of
each month until all of a Participant’s Deferred Compensation Account has been
paid (or forfeited pursuant to Section 7.9), there shall be credited to
the balance of such Deferred Compensation Account interest compounded monthly
computed at a rate equal to one-twelfth (1/12) of the sum of (i) the
average thirty (30) year Treasury Bond rate of interest (as published on the
U.S. Department of Treasury website for the last business day of such month)
plus (ii) 1.25 percentage point.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number One to
the TDS Telecommunications Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Program
to be adopted this 8th day of October, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /S/ Michael A. Pandow

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Michael A. Pandow

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President
  Human Resources

  and Administration

  



 


1
#### § 1108.155 Development.

*Development* means, when used in the context of “research and development,” the systematic use of scientific and technical knowledge in the design, development, testing, or evaluation of potential new products, processes, or services to meet specific performance requirements or objectives. It includes the functions of design engineering, prototyping, and engineering testing. It typically is funded within programs in Budget Activities 4 through 7 of DoD's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the
foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed by Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.        
|                        |  | Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.            
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: February 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Irving L. Smith                  
|                        |  | Irving L. Smith                      
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer              



Page 27
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04384

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04384\04384_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04384\04384_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04384\04384_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04384\04384_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

04384\Supporting Documents\4384_Part A Question A11-2 Carbon Capture Description.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04384\Supporting Documents\4384_Part A Question A2-3 EIS Results.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\4384_Part A Question A5-2 Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\4384_Part A Question A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\4384_Part F Question F5-6 Map.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\Emails\1_21_11\RE Questions about the steam electric questionnaire-4384.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\Emails\2_16_11\02-09-2011 Responses To EPAQuestions Regarding The Steam Electric Questionnaire.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\Supporting Documents\Emails\2_16_11\RE Questions about the steam electric questionnaire-4384.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04384\4384_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04384\04384_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### § 860.3 Trespass.

Unauthorized entry upon any facility, installation or real property subject to this part is prohibited.
#### SULLY v. TIFFANY & CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 8, 1914.)

Action by Emma F. Sully against Tiffany & Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1088, 1144.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.321 Individual protection standard for human intrusion. ( a ) DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion (see § 63.322) could occur without recognition by the drillers.
( b ) DOE must demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed individual receives, as a result of the human intrusion, no more than the following annual dose: ( 1 ) 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) for 10,000 years following disposal; and
( 2 ) 1.0 mSv (100 mrem) after 10,000 years, but within the period of geologic stability.
( c ) DOE's analysis must include all potential environmental pathways of radionuclide transport and exposure, subject to the requirements of § 63.322.
[74 FR 10829, Mar. 13, 2009]
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |
|----------------------------------|
| Fact Sheet 078–95          |

|                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / FAQ |
|                                                                                                                                     |

## Geophysical Data Grids for the Conterminous United States

### Introduction

Gridded geophysical data sets for the conterminous United States are available  on CD-ROM from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The data sets include magnetic  anomalies; Bouguer gravity anomalies; isostatic residual gravity anomalies;  uranium, thorium, and potassium gamma-ray measurements; and topography with  and without bathymetry. The magnetic anomaly and gamma-ray data sets are gridded  at a 2- kilometer grid interval; the gravity anomaly and topographic-bathymetric  data sets are gridded at a 4-kilometer grid interval. The gridded data are  provided in both ASCII and PC-binary formats. Potential-field geophysical software,  included with the data sets, can be used to display, process, and interpret  the gridded data.

### Data Descriptions

Magnetic anomalies are produced by variations in the distribution of iron minerals,  usually magnetite, in the rocks of the Earth's crust. Igneous and metamorphic  crystalline rocks can be very magnetic. By comparison, sedimentary rocks are  usually nonmagnetic. Magnetic anomalies therefore provide a way of mapping  exposed and buried crystalline rocks.

Gravity anomalies are produced by density variations within the rocks of the  Earth's crust and upper mantle. Mapping of these density variations is the  primary use of gravity anomalies. Gravity measurements made on the surface  of the Earth must be corrected in various ways before they can be made into  an anomaly map.

The free-air correction adds to the measured gravity the predicted difference  in gravity between sea level and the elevation of the observation. The simple-Bouguer  correction subtracts the predicted effect of the mass between the observation  and sea level, using a uniform slab of constant density to model the mass.  The complete-Bouguer correction adds the predicted effect of constant-density  topography within 166.7 km of the measurement location. A gravity reference  field is subtracted from the corrected measurements to produce the free-air,  simple-Bouguer, or complete-Bouguer anomaly.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greyhound Lines, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report. Date: August 16, 2004 /s/ Stephen E. GormanName:
    Stephen E. GormanTitle:
    President and Chief Executive
Officer /s/ Cheryl W. FarmerName:
    Cheryl W. FarmerTitle:
    Senior Vice President - Finance A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as a part of this report or on a separate
disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,800
<INVENTORY>                                     83,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,400
<PP&E>                                       1,116,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 544,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 986,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,400
<BONDS>                                        882,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   (239,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   986,700
<SALES>                                        198,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198,800
<CGS>                                          178,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 5.130 Effect of employment opportunities.

The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for members of one sex than for members of the other sex.
Interim Decision #1411 

MAL lax OF MARTINEZ-TORRES 

Application for PERMISSION TO REAPPLY 

A-6618013 

Decided by Regional Commissioner October 16,1964 

Application for permission to reapply for admission, pursuant to section 212(a) 

(17), Immigration and Nationality Act, is denied, in the exercise of discretion, to an alien convicted of a law relating to illicit traffic in marijuana (26 

U.S.C. 4744(1)), since he is mandatorily excludable from the United States 

under section 212(a) (23) of the Act and no purpose would be served in granting the application. 

This case is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the 

District Director's decision denying the application as a matter of 

discretion. 

The applicant is a 51-year-old male, a native and citizen of Mexico. 

He is married to a native and citizen of Mexico who resides in Mexico. 

The applicant has no children. 

The applicant was last deported from the United States on January 2, 1962 at El Paso, Texas under the provisions of section 241 (a) 

(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in that "he at any time 

has been convicted of a violation of any law or regulation relating to 

the illicit traffic in marihuana. (26 U.S:C.'4744(1) )." The record 

in this ease contains a record of criminal proceedings wherein the applicant was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court 

at El Paso, Texas for violation of 26 U.S.C. section 4744(1), in that 

he was a transferee of a quantity of marijuana without paying the tax 

thereon as required by law, and as a result of such conviction was on 

December lb, 1961 sentenced by the court to a term of two years imprisonment, and the execution of the sentence was suspended for a period of two years, the defendant (applicant) being placed on probation for that term. 

As the applicant is mandatorily inadmissible to the United States 

under the provisions of section 212(a) (23) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act as one who has been convicted of a law relating to 

the illicit traffic in marijuana (26 U.S.C. 1744(1) ), no purpose would 

776 
Interim Decision 40411 

be served in granting his application for permission to reapply for admission into the United States. Accordingly, the District Director's 

action in denying the application as a matter of administrative discretion was proper and the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER : It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

777
**Exhibit 3.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

** **

**OF**

** **

**AMERICAN HONDA RECEIVABLES LLC**

 

This Certificate of Formationof American Honda Receivables LLC(the “**Company**”),dated as of March 16, 2011, is duly executed and filed to form a limited liability company in accordance with the Delaware LimitedLiability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-201, et seq.).

 

1.          Name.The name of the limited liability company is American Honda Receivables LLC.

 

2.          RegisteredOffice. The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street,in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

3.          RegisteredAgent. The name and address of its registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware is The Corporation TrustCompany, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of American Honda Receivables LLC as of the 16th day of March, 2011.

** **
#### MOONEY, Respondent, v. BAUMANN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1914.)

Action by Michael J. Mooney against Charles O. Baumann.

No opinion. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
RODERICA MARIE HARDAWAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4403

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL ANGEL AVILA-QUEZADA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50303

D.C. No. 3:08-CR-02023-TJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Miguel Angel Avila-Quezada appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

FILED

MAR 31 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAT/Research 2 09-50303

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Avila-Quezada contends that the district court procedurally erred by, among

other things, applying a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because there was insufficient evidence as to the nature of his

predicate conviction. The district court did not err by relying on the

uncontroverted pre-sentence report to determine that Avila-Quezada’s conviction

was categorically a violent felony. See United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d

1159, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Heron-Salinas, 566 F.3d 898,

899 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Next, he asserts that the fact of the prior conviction was required to be

charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. This contention lacks merit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998); see also United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d

1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).

Avila-Quezada also contends that the district court insufficiently explained

why it rejected his downward-departure motion for cultural assimilation. This

contention is belied by the totality of the record, which contained an adequate

explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc). 
DAT/Research 3 09-50303

Finally, he argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable pursuant to

United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009), because,

among other reasons, his qualifying crime-of-violence conviction was too stale. 

However, in the instant case, unlike the offense in Amezcua-Vasquez, the predicate

felony was not too old to score under the Sentencing Guidelines’ criminal history

provisions. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1); see also Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at

1058 (“We make no pronouncement as to the reasonableness of a comparable

sentence were Amezcua’s conviction more recent[.]”). The record reflects that the

sentence imposed was substantively reasonable, under the totality of the

circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 53-60 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
PGI 225.903 Exempted supplies.

(b)(i) The term “supplies”—

(A) Includes—

(1) Articles known as “stores,” such as food, medicines, and toiletries; and

(2) All consumable articles necessary and appropriate for the propulsion, operation, and

maintenance of the vessel or aircraft, such as fuel, oil, gasoline, grease, paint, cleansing compounds,

solvents, wiping rags, and polishes; and

(B) Does not include portable articles necessary and appropriate for the navigation, operation, or

maintenance of the vessel or aircraft and for the comfort and safety of the persons on board, such as

rope, bolts and nuts, bedding, china and cutlery, which are included in the term “equipment.”

(ii) Format for duty-free certificate.

(Date) _______________________

I certify that the acquisition of this material constituted a purchase of supplies by the United

States for vessels or aircraft operated by the United States, and is admissible free of duty

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1309.

(Name) _______________________

(Title) _______________________

(Organization) _______________________

Parent topic: PGI 225.9 -CUSTOMS AND DUTIES
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

723 

KA 11-01263 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell

P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered May 18, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree

(two counts) and burglary in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of two counts of burglary in the second degree

(Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and one count of burglary in the third degree

(§ 140.20). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to

appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the

sentence because he waived his right to appeal before Supreme Court

informed him of the potential periods of imprisonment that could be

imposed (see People v Mingo, 38 AD3d 1270, 1271; see generally People

v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). Nevertheless, we conclude that the

sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court