alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2 Amendment to Exec. Voluntary Deferral Plan


    
      

    


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    Amendment
      to the

    LandAmerica
      Financial Group, Inc.

    Executive
      Voluntary Deferral Plan

    


    


    FIRST,
      Plan section 3.2(vii) is amended, effective for distributions from the Plan
      made
      on or after July 24, 2006, to revise the third sentence of such Plan section
      to
      read as follows:

    


    The
      Benefit Commencement Date specified in the Participant’s Deferral Election may
      be accelerated upon the Participant’s death, Disability, termination of
      employment at or after age 65 or upon a Change of Control as further provided
      in
      this Plan.

    


    SECOND,
      Plan section 7.7 is amended, effective for distributions from the Plan made
      on
      or after July 24, 2006, to (i) revise the header to read “Deferral
      Benefit Upon Disability or Termination of Employment At or After Age
      65” and (ii) revise subsection (b) to read as follows:

    


    In
      the
      event of the Participant’s termination of employment at or after age 65 prior to
      his selected Benefit Commencement Date, the Participant’s Benefit Commencement
      Date for his Pre-2005 Account shall be adjusted to the first day of the month
      following the Participant’s termination of employment at or after age 65. The
      Participant’s Pre-2005 Account shall be increased as of the applicable date by
      (i) the value of any amounts deferred by the Participant that have not yet
      been
      credited to the Participant’s Account and (ii) any Deferral Premium owed to the
      Participant that has not been credited. To the extent not paid out in a lump
      sum
      payment, the Deferred Stock Unit Account of a Participant who has elected to
      receive his Deferral Benefit in installments shall continue to be credited
      with
      additional Deferred Stock Units in accordance with Section 4.2. The Deferred
      Cash Account shall continue to accrue interest at the Rate of Return. The
      Participant’s Deferral Benefit for his Pre-2005 Account shall be paid in the
      manner prescribed on the Participant’s election form, except with regard to the
      Participant’s originally selected Benefit Commencement Date. The Participant’s
      Post-2004 Account shall be paid in the manner prescribed on the Participant’s
      election form.
#### § 2867.10 What does this part do?

This part adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the Department of Justice policies and procedures for nonprocurement debarment and suspension. It thereby gives regulatory effect for the Department of Justice to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327).
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

193) ll-K-(I)-6 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 193 of 325 
f\-QO~C I 

II-K-(I)-6 

PRINCIPAL ASPECTS OF CONVERTING STEAM GENERATORS BACK 

TO COAL FIRING. 

Bogot, A. and R.C. Sherill. Combustion Engineering, 

Inc. Publication No. TIS-4588. Presented at the 

NCA/BCA Coal Conference and EXPO II. Louisville. 

October 21-23, 1975. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-6
July 7 , 2015

M r. Wayne Lee

5 618 Powell Grove Drive

Midlothian, VA 23112

Dear Mr. Lee :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your June 26 th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2015

-

2477 ), but we are unable to process your request any fur ther. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you mus t send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, th e extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

woul d provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to suppo rt your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (2 02) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
223 So.2d 871

#### The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY v. HENDRY CORPORATION et al.

No. 49918.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Hendry Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 221 So.2d 674.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### § 200.112 Conflict of interest.

The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy.
#### GALVESTON TOWING CO. et al. v. CUBAN S. S. CO., Limited.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 9, 1912.)

No. 2,187.

On petition for rehearing.

Decree amended, and petition denied.

For former opinion, see 195 Fed. 711.

Before PARDEE and SHEEBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.

*905PER CURIAM.

The decree entered in this case is hereby amended, by adding thereto the words, to wit: “The costs of this court to be paid by the appellee.” It is further ordered in this case that the petition for rehearing be denied.
# EUR-Lex - 31991R1604 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31991R1604

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1604/91 of 10 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1037/72 laying down general rules for granting and financing aid for hop producers **

*
Official Journal L 149 , 14/06/1991 P. 0013 - 0013 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 37 P. 0254 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 37 P. 0254 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1604/91 of 10 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1037/72 laying down general rules for granting and financing aid for hop producers

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organization of the market in hops (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 (2), and in particular Article 13 (3) thereof;

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;

Whereas, through the insertion of Article 12a into Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 by Regulation (EEC) No 2780/90 (3), a new reference was made to the granting of aid to hop producers; whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Articles 1 and 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1037/72 (4) in order to take account of the new provisions related to the granting of aid to hop producers,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1

In Articles 1 and 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1037/72, 'Article 12' shall be replaced by 'Articles 12 and 12a'. Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 10 June 1991. For the Council

The President

J.-C. JUNCKER (1) OJ No L 175, 4. 8. 1971, p. 1. (2) OJ No L 353, 17. 12. 1990, p. 23. (3) OJ No L 265, 28. 9. 1990, p. 1. (4) OJ No L 118, 20. 5. 1972, p. 19.
# EUR-Lex - 31987R4005 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31987R4005

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4005/87 of 23 December 1987 amending Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing **

*
Official Journal L 377 , 31/12/1987 P. 0048 - 0048 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 25 P. 0220 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 25 P. 0220 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) N° 4005/87

of 23 December 1987

amending Regulation (EEC) N° 845/72 laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 3985/87 (2), and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 establishes, with effect from 1 January 1988, a combined goods nomenclature based on the Harmonized System which will meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and the nomenclature of goods for the external trade statistics of the Community;

Whereas, as a consequence, it is necessary to express the descriptions of goods and tariff heading numbers which appear in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 845/72 (3),

according to the terms of the combined nomenclature; whereas these adaptations do not call for any amendment of substance,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) N° 845/72 is replaced by the following:

'1. In order to encourage action by trade and joint trade organizations to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements, Community measures to improve quality may be taken in respect of silkworms falling within subheading 0106 00 99 of the combined nomenclature and in respect of silkworm eggs falling within subheading 0511 99 90 of the combined nomenclature.'

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1988.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 1987.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

SPA:L377UMBE24.96

FF: 5UEN; SETUP: 01; Hoehe: 421 mm; 48 Zeilen; 2016 Zeichen;

Bediener: JUTT Pr.: B;

Kunde: ................................

(1) OJ N° L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ N° L 376, 31. 12. 1987, p. 1.

(3) OJ N° L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1.
#### § 2429.300 Whom in HUD does a recipient who is an individual notify about a criminal conviction?

A recipient who is an individual and is required under 2 CFR 182.300(b) to notify Federal agencies about a conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify each HUD office with which he or she currently has an award.
#### § 421.505 Who in the USDA determines that a recipient who is an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary's designee or designees are authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.505.
#### § 784.7 Class waiver.

This section covers relinquishing of patent title rights by the Government to a class of persons or to a class of inventions. The authorization for class waivers is to be found at 42 U.S.C. 5908(c). Class waivers may be appropriate in situations where all members of a particular class would likely qualify for an advance or identified invention waiver. Normally, class waivers are originated by the Department. However, any person with a direct and substantial interest in a DOE program may request a class waiver by forwarding a written request therefor to the Patent Counsel. While no particular format for requesting a class waiver is prescribed, any request for a class waiver and any resulting determination by the Secretary or designee must address the pertinent objectives and considerations set forth in §§ 784.3(a), 784.4, 784.5, and 784.6.
# EUR-Lex - 31992R0478 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992R0478

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 478/92 of 25 February 1992 opening an annual Community tariff quota for dog or cat food, put up for retail sale and falling within CN code 2309 10 11 and an annual Community tariff quota for fish food falling within CN code ex 2309 90 41, originating in, and coming from, the Faroe Islands **

*
Official Journal L 055 , 29/02/1992 P. 0002 - 0002 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 478/92 of 25 February 1992 opening an annual Community tariff quota for dog or cat food, put up for retail sale and falling within CN code 2309 10 11 and an annual Community tariff quota for fish food falling within CN code ex 2309 90 41, originating in, and coming from, the Faroe Islands

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty etablishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of Denmark and the local Government of the Faroe Islands was approved by Decision 91/668/EEC (1);

Whereas that Agreement provides for an annual quota of 1 000 tonnes for dog or cat food, put up for retail sale and falling within CN code 2309 10 11 and for an annual quota of 5 000 tonnes for fish food falling within CN code ex 2309 90 41, originating in, and coming from, the Faroe Islands, with a reduction to zero of the levy; whereas these annual quotas should be opened on a permanent basis from 1992 and provision made for operational rules for them to be set by an implementing Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The import levy on dog or cat food, put up for retail sale and falling within CN code 2309 10 11 and on fish food falling within CN code ex 2309 90 41, originating in, and coming from, the Faroe Islands, shall be set at ECU 0 per tonne, within the limit of an annual quota of 1 000 tonnes for CN code 2309 10 11 and of 5 000 tonnes for CN code ex 2309 90 41.

Article 2

Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 (2).

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall apply from 1 January 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 February 1992. For the Council

The President

Vitor MARTINS

(1) OJ No L 371, 31. 12. 1991, p. 1. (2) OJ No L 281, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3653/90 (OJ No L 362, 27. 12. 1990, p. 28).
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.447 Predecessor.

*Predecessor* means a non-Federal entity that is replaced by a successor and includes any predecessors of the predecessor.
Exhibit 99.1





                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that:

     (a)  the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.




                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
(logo) C-III | C-III AssetManagement

 

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

 

The undersigned, KevinDonahue, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (*f/k/a Centerline ServicingLLC*), the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 1, 2013, relating to the **J.P. Morgan ChaseCommercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C10, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2013-C10** (the “Pooling and ServicingAgreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1. a review of the activitiesof the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement during the calendar year 2016 (the “Reporting Period”)has been made under the undersigned’s supervision;

 

2. to the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** as of the 1st day of March, 2017, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

 

/s/ Kevin Donahue

**Kevin Donahue**, President

C-III Asset Management LLC, a

Delaware limited liabilitycompany

 

 

JPM2013-C10
#### William Church vs. St. Paul Title Insurance & Trust Co.

Argued by respondent, submitted on brief by appellant, June 28, 1894.

Affirmed Aug. 16, 1894.

No. 8799.

Assignee in insolvency may be sued without leave in any court.

An action to recover a debt incurred by an assignee under the insolvency laws of this state may be brought in any court haying jurisdiction of the amount involved.

Appeal by defendant, the St. Paul Title Insurance and Trust Company, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul, *John Twohy, Jr.,*J.,< entered February 9,1894, against it for $127.58.

The Church Paint and Manufacturing Company, a corporation, being insolvent made an assignment November 16, 1893, of all its property to defendant under Laws 1881, ch. 148, in trust to pay its debts. The defendant accepted the trust and as assignee employed the plaintiff, William Church that day as general manager of the plant and estate so assigned. He continued in charge until December 80, 1898. Not being paid for his services he brought this suit January 8, 1894, in the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul to recover their rea*473sonable value. The defendant answered that as assignee it is an officer of the District Court of Ramsey County and as such officer of that court employed plaintiff. That on account thereof the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction to hear or adjudge its controversy with plaintiff and asked that the suit be dismissed. Plaintiff moved the Municipal Court to strike out this answer as frivolous and irrelevant, and for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the motion and judgment was entered. Defendant appeals.

*Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht,*for appellant.

*John B. é E. P. Sanborn,*for respondent.

Collins, J.

The appellant’s contention here is that the District Court, having jurisdiction of the proceedings in insolvency, is the only tribunal in which the controversy between those parties can be litigated and determined. The statute (Laws 1893, ch. 54) would seem to be broad enough to confer upon any court in the state, having jurisdiction of the amount involved, authority to try and determine cases of this character. But, in any event, the question was really-disposed of in *Irwin*v. *McKechnie, ante,*p. 145, (59 N. W. 987.)

Judgment affirmed.

Buck, J., absent; did not sit.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 1103.)
Dear Sir or Ma’am,

Recently the Houston FSDO has deemed that 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) exams are aircraft specific and can

only be given to our company airmen by check airmen that are current, qualified, and type rated on the

same aircraft as what the company airmen is current, qualified, and type rated in.  For years, it has been

the practice that any qualified company check airman can give the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) check to any

company pilot no matter what aircraft that pilot is flying.  This was due to the thought that the 135.293a

(1) and (4‐8) was not aircraft specific.

Although Wing Aviation Charter Services has not received any official ruling that the 135.293a (1) and (4‐

8) is indeed aircraft specific and is of the opinion that it is not, our company is respectfully requesting

that the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) check be allowed to be given by any of its qualified company check

airmen to any company pilot no matter which type rating either the company check airman or the pilot

to be checked has.  

If this ruling becomes official it will create a large burden on the Houston FSDO who will need to provide

many more FAA representatives to accomplish the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) exams.  Our company by itself

has 10 different types of aircraft that would require FAA representatives to perform the exams that we

have always done in house.

This procedure of using in house check airmen to give the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) exams has been done

ever since this company opened its doors in 2001 and we have never had any kind of safety incident.  

We feel because of this safety would not be adversely affected and in fact, the safety margin would

increase because our in house check airmen are subject matter experts in our company procedures.  We

believe they are more versed in our procedures than an FAA representative brought in from the outside

to perform the exam.

In summary, Wing Aviation Charter Services (Y9PA) does not believe the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) exams

are aircraft specific and would like an official ruling that they are or are not.  In the meantime, we

respectfully request for our company to continue to allow any of our company qualified check airman to

give the 135.293a (1) and (4‐8) exams to any of our company pilots.

Thank you so very much for your help and consideration.

Very respectfully,

Jon Mostyn

Director of Operations

Wing Aviation charter Services, LLC (Y9PA)