alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 24

                          DIRECTOR AND/OR OFFICER OF
                              PENTON MEDIA, INC.

                         ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of Penton Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby constitutes and
appoints Thomas L. Kemp, Daniel J. Ramella, Joseph G. NeCastro and Preston L.
Vice, and each of them, as the true and lawful attorney-in-fact or
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and revocation, for each of
the undersigned and in the name, place and stead of each of the undersigned, to
sign on behalf of each of the undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and to sign any and all amendments to such Annual Report,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, including, without limitation, a Form 12b-25, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to said attorney-in-fact or
attorneys-in-fact, and each of them, full power and authority to do so and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

Executed as of this 29th day of March 2001.

/s/ THOMAS L. KEMP
------------------------------
Thomas L. Kemp
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer & Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ JOSEPH G. NECASTRO
------------------------------
Joseph G. NeCastro
Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)

/s/ JOCELYN A. BRADFORD
------------------------------
Jocelyn A. Bradford
Vice President & Controller

/s/ KING HARRIS
------------------------------
King Harris
Director

/s/ PAUL W. BROWN
------------------------------
Paul W. Brown
Director

/s/ JOHN J. MEEHAN
------------------------------
John J. Meehan
Director

/s/ EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ
------------------------------
Edward J. Schwartz
Director

/s/ DAVID B. NUSSBAUM
------------------------------
David B. Nussbaum
Director

 /s/ DANIEL J. RAMELLA
------------------------------
Daniel J. Ramella
Director

/s/ ANTHONY DOWNS
------------------------------
Anthony Downs
Director

/s/ WILLIAM J. FRIEND
------------------------------
William J. Friend
Director

/s/ WILLIAM B. SUMMERS
------------------------------
William B. Summers
Director

/s/  DON E. SCHULTZ
------------------------------
Don E. Schultz
Director

/s/ RICHARD B. SWANK
------------------------------
Richard B. Swank
Director

/s/ R. DOUGLAS GREENE
------------------------------
R. Douglas Greene
Director
Exhibit 10.13


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT


TO THE


BIRDS EYE FOODS EXCESS BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN


 


This
Amendment is adopted by Birds Eye Foods, Inc., a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware (sometimes
referred to herein as the “Employer”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS,
the Employer had adopted the BIRDS EYE FOODS EXCESS BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN
(the “Plan”) which was amended and restated effective December 1, 2000, and


 


WHEREAS,
in accordance with Section 6.1 of the Plan, the Employer has reserved the right
pursuant to the provisions of the Plan to amend it at any time, and


 


WHEREAS,
it is the intent of the Plan, as stated in its Preamble, to provide benefits that
would have accrued under the Birds Eye Foods Master Salaried Retirement Plan
except for the limitations under Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue
Code, and


 


WHEREAS,
the Birds Eye Foods Master Salaried Retirement Plan provides a pre-retirement
death benefit to the surviving spouse of a vested participant who dies either before
or after the date the participant becomes eligible to commence benefits under
the plan, and


 


WHEREAS,
in order to clarify current administrative procedure related to providing a pre-retirement
death benefit in the event of death before age 55, the Employer now wishes to
amend the Plan,


 

















 


NOW, THEREFORE, Section IV
(Death Benefits Payable) is amended by replacing Section 4.1 with the
following:


 


4.1                                 If a vested
participant should die before commencing benefits hereunder,  the participant’s
surviving spouse shall receive a benefit determined in  accordance with Section
III, as if the participant had retired on the date  of his death, elected a
Surviving Spouse Annuity, commenced receiving a  benefit on the first of the
month coincident with or next following the  later of his date of death or
when the participant would have attained age  55, and died the following
day.  


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 9th day of December,
2005.


 


	
   

  	
  BIRDS EYE FOODS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  \s\ Lois Warlick-Jarvie

  
	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Vice President Human
  Resources
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 85 ) ll-K - (B ) -7 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:51 AM Sheet 85 of 325P. 2 

# it II-K-(B)-7 3 REVISE D INDUSTRIA L BOILE R RETIREMEN T RATE . Lette r fro mT . Hogan , EE At o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Ma y26 , 1981 , THI S INFORMATIO NCA

NB E FOUN D I NDOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE M II-K-(B)-7 3
#### John A. Spears, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 97598.)

[698 NYS2d 135]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Claimant was employed as a dump truck driver for Santaro Industries, Inc., an entity that contracted to renovate a highway owned by defendant, State of New York (State). While preparing to unload asphalt at the project site, claimant climbed to the top of the truck to repair the tarpaulin retracting device and fell approximately 15 feet, sustaining personal injuries. Claimant asserts causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) as well as for common-law negligence.

The Court of Claims properly denied claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed that cause of action *sua sponte.*Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to protect the safety of workers subjected to elevation-related risks in the course of construction, demolition, alteration or repair of a building or structure *(see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 499-500; *Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co.,*78 NY2d 509, 513-514). Because a highway at grade is not a building or structure within the meaning of section 240 (1), that section imposes no duty upon the owner of a highway under construction or repair *899
      *(see, Sciora v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*226 AD2d 621, *lv dismissed*88 NY2d 1017, *rearg denied*89 NY2d 861; *Matter of Dillon v State of New*York, 201 AD2d 793, 793-794). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the State has no duty to claimant based on the fact that his employer’s dump truck may be considered a structure within the meaning of that section *(see, Moore v Shulman,*259 AD2d 975, *lv dismissed*93 NY2d 998); the State neither owned nor contracted for the repair of the dump truck *(cf., Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295-296; *Covey v Iroquois Gas Transmission*Sys., 218 AD2d 197, 199, *affd*89 NY2d 952; *Cox v LaBarge Bros. Co.*[appeal No. 2], 154 AD2d 947, *lv dismissed*75 NY2d 808). (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Patti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26594-26595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-257-000]


Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. 
(OGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective June 1, 
2000:

First Revised Sheet No. 13
First Revised Sheet No. 17
First Revised Sheet No. 46
First Revised Sheet No. 47
First Revised Sheet No. 80

    OGT states that the proposed rate changes would increase OGT's 
revenues from jurisdictional transportation services by approximately 
$6.4 million, based on the twelve-month period ended December 31, 1999, 
as adjusted, compared with the underlying rates approved in the 
Commission's 1998 certificate order which approved the combination of 
two pipeline systems into what is now the OGT system. Ozark Gas 
Transmission Sys., et al., 84 FERC para. 61,002, reh'g granted in part, 
85 FERC para. 61,329 (1998).
    OGT states that the adjustments in rates are attributable to: (a) a 
change in the required rate of return and related taxes; (b) a 
reduction in the depreciation rate to be applied to transmission plant; 
(c) changes in operation and maintenance expenses and the inclusion of 
income taxes not reflected in the currently effective rates; (d) 
revised system rate design quantities; and (e) a reduction in the 
percentage governing fuel retention to reflect decreased fuel 
requirements.
    OGT further states that it has served copies of this filing upon 
the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings.

[[Page 26595]]

Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11362 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-4203 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-142-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

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 30 $2,550.00

$ 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: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,550

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

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:
#### § 296.20 Enforcement.

In case of any violation of any of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or of this part, or any other rule, regulation, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding under section 46101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance. The violator may also be subject to civil penalties under the provisions of section 46301 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or other lawful sanctions.

[ER-1261, 46 FR 54727, Nov. 4, 1981, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40103, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019]
#### In the Matter of Charles A. Steinbarge, Appellant, against Town Board of Norfolk et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 5, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*Francis E. Cullen*and *Frank L. Cubley*for appellant.

*Robert E. Whalen*and *Fred J. Flanagan*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT April 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1453 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 20 79 1- CR-F AM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us JUAN VASQUEZ, D ef en dant- Appe llant Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, SELIN SANTANA, RUDYS MARI NE, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 14, 200 8)Ho no ra ble Pa sc o M . B ow man, I I , Unit e d St ate s Ci rc uit Judg e fo r t

he Ei g hth Cir c uit * sitti ngby desig nation. 2 Be fo re W IL SO N , CO X a nd B O W MA N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: A ft er ac ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n of

the br ie fs , r ev ie wof

the r ec or d onappe al , and having heard oral argum ent in the m atter, we find no reversible err or. Appellants raise no less than ten issu es on appeal. O nly one issue, however , m er its dis cu ssi on. Juan V as que z (“ V as que z” ) ar gue s th at the im posi tio n of

a240
- m onth se nte nc e, w hic h w as appr oxi m at el y double the se nte nc e at

the top of

his
co urt- ca lc ulate d a dvi sor

y gui de lin e range ( 97- 121 m onths) , w as unr ea sona ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

oc use d si ngl e- m ind ed ly

on i ts f ind ing of obs tr uc tio n of j ustice, w hich Vasquez had alre ady rec eived an enhancem ent for. V asquez atte m pts to re ly

on U nit ed Sta tes v . Cr isp , 454 F
. 3d 1 285, 129 2 ( 11 Ci r. 200 6) th (h old ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s un j ust if ie d r el ianc e uponthe sin gle goa l of restitution to the detrim ent of all of the other sentencing factors produced an unreasonable sentence). W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt w as “ sin gle -m ind ed ” in i ts
co nsi de ratio n of

the 18 U
. S. C. 355 3( a) f

ac tor s. W e ag re e w iththe gov er nm en t that while the district court em phasized its find ing th at V asquez com m itted3

pe rj ur y , it a lso ba se d th e se nte nc e on o the r fa ct or s, suc h a s: ( 1) the na tur e an d ci rc um stanc es of

V as que z’ s of

fe nse s w er e ve ry

se ri ous; ( 2) V as que z w as , on the
w hol e, m or e cu lpa

ble than hi s c o- de fe ndant, S el in S an tana , w ho r ec ei ve d a200
m onth se nte nc e; a nd ( 3) V as que z w as r es pons ibl e fo r m or e dr ug quanti ty

than th e a mo u n to f

th r e e k i l o g r a ms e n t e r e db y t h e j u ry o n t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c tf o rm. In light of all

of the f ind ing s m ad e by

the dis tr ic t c ourt a t se nte nc ing , w e do
no t h ol d t ha t t he sen te nc e im po se d was un reas on ab le . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3789 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3789

            To make a clarifying amendment to the CARES Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2020

Mr. Cassidy (for himself and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To make a clarifying amendment to the CARES Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE CARES ACT.

    Section 5001(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act (Public Law 116-136) is amended by striking ``for fiscal 
year 2020 under section 601(a)(1)'' and inserting ``under title VI''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.718 Filing.

Any air carrier that is a party to a contract to which this subpart is applicable shall file three (3) copies of the contract in the Office of Aviation Analysis, X-50, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, not later than ninety (90) days before the effective date of the contract. A copy of such contract shall be served upon the persons specified in § 302.720 and the certificate of service shall specify the persons upon whom service has been made. One copy of each contract filed shall bear the certification of the secretary or other duly authorized officer of the filing air carrier to the effect that such copy is a true and complete copy of the original written instrument executed by the parties.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00239-CR

Harold Schatz

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 10

of Tarrant County (G850948-A2584679)

August 13, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that  information  contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003,  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Gateway
International Holdings, Inc.


By:    /s/ Jitu Banker
       -----------------------------
Name:  Jitu Banker
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  August 11, 2005

                                       59
#### Alicia M. Cracknell, Appellant, *v.*Long Island Lighting Company, Respondent.

(Argued October 8, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*E. Judge Shelly*and *John C. Judge*for appellant.

*Philip Huntington*and *David S. Hill, Jr.,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
---

Exhibit 99.3

|                                   | KPMG LLP             | Telephone (514) 840-2100
|---------------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------------
|Chartered professional accountants | Fax (514) 840-2187  
|600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West      | Internet www.kpmg.ca
|Suite 1500                         |                     
|Tour KPMG                          |                     
|Montréal, Québec H3A 0A3           |                     

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

The Board of Directors Gildan Activewear Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of:

- our Independent Auditors Report of Independent Registered Public
  Accounting Firm dated November 28, 2012 on the consolidated statement of
  financial position as at September 30, 2012, October 2, 2011 and October 4,
  2010, the consolidated statements of earnings and comprehensive income,
  changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended September 30, 2012 and
  October 2, 2011, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting
  policies and other explanatory information;
- our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated November
  28, 2012 on the Companys internal control over financial reporting as at
  September 30, 2012;

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F
of Gildan Activewear Inc. for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

December 5, 2012 Montréal, Canada





|*CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. A120841                                 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member
      firm of the KPMG
|network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG
      International Cooperative
|(KPMG International), a Swiss entity.                                                 
|KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.                                              

---