alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1615
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

§ 1615.135 Electronic and information technology requirements. ( a ) Development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and information technology.—When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, the Commission shall ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on it, that the electronic and information technology allows, regardless of the type of medium of the technology— ( 1 ) Individuals with disabilities who are Commission employees to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Commission employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and
( 2 ) Individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from the Commission to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.
( b ) Alternative means of access when undue burden is imposed.—When development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and information technology that meets the standards published by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board at 36 CFR part 1194 would impose an undue burden, the Commission shall provide individuals with disabilities covered by this section with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.
[73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008]
§ 15.211 How is a claim under this subpart processed? ( a ) The Counsel for Claims and Compensation, the Regional Solicitors, and the Associate Regional Solicitors are authorized to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise and settle claims filed under this subpart that arise within their respective jurisdictions, except that any claim for an amount in excess of $25,000 shall fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Counsel for Claims and Compensation.
( b ) Any writing received by the Office of the Solicitor within the time limits set forth in § 15.203 will be accepted and considered a claim under the MPCECA if it constitutes a demand for compensation from the Department. A sample claim, located on the Department's Office of the Solicitor, Federal Employees' and Energy Workers' Compensation Division Web site at *www.dol.gov ,* is provided for convenience of filing. The SF-95 form used to file a claim under the FTCA is not an appropriate form for a claim under the MPCECA claim.
( c ) A demand is not required to be for a specific sum of money.
( d ) The determination upon the claim shall be provided to the claimant in writing by the deciding official.
§ 18.82 Exhibits. ( a ) *Identification.* All exhibits offered in evidence must be marked with a designation identifying the party offering the exhibit and must be numbered and paginated as the judge orders.
( b ) *Electronic data.* By order the judge may prescribe the format for the submission of data that is in electronic form.
( c ) *Exchange of exhibits.* When written exhibits are offered in evidence, one copy must be furnished to the judge and to each of the parties at the hearing, unless copies were previously furnished with the list of proposed exhibits or the judge directs otherwise. If the judge does not fix a date for the exchange of exhibits, the parties must exchange copies of exhibits at the earliest practicable time before the hearing begins.
( d ) *Authenticity.* The authenticity of a document identified in a pre-hearing exhibit list is admitted unless a party files a written objection to authenticity at least 7 days before the hearing. The judge may permit a party to challenge a document's authenticity if the party establishes good cause for its failure to file a timely written objection.
( e ) *Substitution of copies for original exhibits.* The judge may permit a party to withdraw original documents offered in evidence and substitute accurate copies of the originals.
( f ) *Designation of parts of documents.* When only a portion of a document contains relevant matter, the offering party must exclude the irrelevant parts to the greatest extent practicable.
( g ) *Records in other proceedings.* Portions of the record of other administrative proceedings, civil actions or criminal prosecutions may be received in evidence, when the offering party shows the copies are accurate.
#### In the Matter of Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company. John N. Harman, as Clerk of the County of Kings, Appellant; Mortgage Commission of the State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*599
      *Hector McG. Curren*for appellant.

*Frieda B. Hennoclc, Louis Timberg*and *Maurice Finkelstein*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cbane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Bbien, Hubbs, Loughban, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Pursuant to the provision of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. § 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (“Board”) meeting described below.

# TIME AND DATE OF MEETING:

9:00 a.m., May 31, 2000.

# PLACE:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 352, Washington, DC 20004.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will convene the thirteenth quarterly briefing regarding the status of progress of the activities associated with the Department of Energy's Implementation Plan for the Board's Recommendation 95-2, Safety Management. Specific matters will include recent and planned site verification reviews, actions needed to achieve full implementation by September 2000, and progress on developing and refining performance indicators. Presentations on site implementation status will be made by DOE Field Office representatives, and implementation status DOE headquarters offices will be discussed by DOE line managers. DOE will also present the status of implementing Recommendation 98-1, Integrated Safety Management and the Department of Energy (DOE) Facilities.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Richard A. Azzaro, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of this meeting, to recess, reconvene, postpone or adjourn the meeting, and otherwise exercise its authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

Dated: May 11, 2000.

John T. Conway,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 00-12338  Filed 5-11-00; 5:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
Exhibit 10.15


 


ASSURED
GUARANTY LTD.


 


DESCRIPTION
OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH COMPENSATION


 


FOR 2009


 


Set forth below are the 2009 annual salary of the Chief Executive
Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and each of the three other most highly
compensated Executive Officers.


 


Dominic J. Frederico


 


President and Chief Executive
Officer, Assured Guaranty Ltd.


 


	
  Salary*

  	
   

  
	
  $

  	
  900,000

  	
   

  
			



 


Robert B. Mills


 


Chief Financial Officer, Assured
Guaranty Ltd.


 


	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  $

  	
   520,000

  	
   

  
			



 


Michael J. Schozer


 


President, Assured Guaranty Corp.


 


	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  $

  	
   400,000

  	
   

  
			



 


James M. Michener


 


General Counsel, Assured Guaranty
Ltd.


 


	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  $

  	
   390,000

  	
   

  
			



 


Robert A. Bailenson


 


Chief Accounting Officer, Assured
Guaranty Ltd.


 


	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  $

  	
   350,000

  	
   

  
			



 


In addition to salary, the named executive officers will be eligible to
be considered to receive cash bonuses for 2009 performance.  In 2009, the named executive officers will
receive perquisites and other annual compensation including, employer
contributions to retirement plans, tax preparation services, financial planning
services, club fees, business related spousal travel, and executive health
benefits.  In 2009, Mr. Frederico and Mr.
Michener will receive Bermuda housing allowances, Bermuda housing tax
gross-ups, FICA reimbursement, Bermuda car allowances and Bermuda family
travel.


 






*                 From January 1, 2009 to July 31, 2009, Mr. Frederico
received salary based on a rate of $750,000 per year.  Effective August 1, 2009, Mr. Frederico’s
annual salary rate increased to $900,000.
#### Dudley Allen GULLETT *v.*Dorothy Diane GULLETT

5-5658

473 S.W. 2d 180

Opinion delivered November 29, 1971

*Branscum, Schmidt hr Mazzanti,*for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellee Dorothy Diane Gullett was awarded a divorce, custody of the one child born to the marriage, and $125 a month for support of the child. Appellant here argues insufficiency of corroboration to sustain the divorce, condonation of the acts complained of, excessiveness of the support award, and visitation rights which appellant classifies as unreasonable.

Appellee testified as to divers acts of indignities committed to her by appellant. Those consisted of cursing her, beating her, and excessive and habitual drinking which was obnoxious to her. Appellee’s brother testified that he had seen appellant strike appellee and had on numerous occasions heard appellant curse appellee. Still another witness testified that the couple did not. get along very well. Appellant offered no testimony in oppo*498sition, although he was present in person and by counsel. The corroborating testimony was weak but we have held that when a divorce action is not a collusive contest the required corroboration can be comparatively slight and yet be sufficient. *Breazeale*v. *Breazeale,*248 Ark. 437, 451 S. W. 2d 865 (1970). We think the corroborating evidence in the case at bar meets the “comparatively slight” test.

The chancellor fixed child support at $125 per month. The testimony showed that appellant was grossing approximately $625 per month but was having to pay for travel and lodging away from home. In view of the recited expenses, along with federal and state deductions, we think the amount fixed by the court was somewhat excessive. Also, the mother testified that á minimum of $50 per month would be required for child support. We think $75 a month would be more within reason to cover the ordinary expenses for the child, who was five years old at the time of the trial.

The chancellor fixed appellant’s visitation rights with the child at every other Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The undisputed testimony is that the child is devoted to her father. If appellant is a fit person to have the child in his care every other Saturday then we see no good reason why he should not have visitation rights every Saturday during the same hours fixed by the chancellor. The trial court directed that the little girl not be removed from the eighth chancery district and no reason is advanced urging us to change that rule. There is also no appeal from the attorney’s fee awarded in the lower court.

The cause is remanded to the chancery court for the purpose of entering an order consistent with our findings and to reinvest jurisdiction for the modification of support money and visitation rights if future developments justify a change.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1665 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1665

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1665/1999 of 28 July 1999 fixing the maximum moisture content of cereals offered for intervention in certain Member States during the 1999/2000 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 197 , 29/07/1999 P. 0030 - 0031 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1665/1999

of 28 July 1999

fixing the maximum moisture content of cereals offered for intervention in certain Member States during the 1999/2000 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1253/1999(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

(1) Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2731/75 of 29 October 1975 fixing standard qualities for common wheat, rye, barley, maize, sorghum and durum wheat(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1253/1999, in particular fixes a maximum moisture content of 14 % for cereals other than durum wheat; whereas, under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking over of cereals by intervention agencies(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1664/1999(5), a maximum moisture content of 14,5 % was fixed; whereas Article 2(4) of that Regulation also provides that the Member States may be authorised at their request and under certain conditions to apply a moisture content of 15 % for cereals offered for intervention, with the exception of durum wheat, maize and sorghum;

(2) Whereas certain Member States have submitted requests to that end;

(3) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Member States listed in the Annex hereto are hereby authorised to fix a maximum moisture content of 15 % for cereals listed therein and offered for intervention during the 1999/2000 marketing year.

Article 2

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 18.

(3) OJ L 281, 1.11.1975, p. 22.

(4) OJ L 79, 20.3.1992, p. 18.

(5) See page 28 of this Official Journal.

ANNEX

Maximum moisture content of cereals offered for intervention during the 1999/2000 marketing year

>TABLE>
#### STEIN v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 88-740-AC (County Court Case No. 21906-87)

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County

August 7, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

David D. Ege, Whited & Johnson, for appellant.

Christopher B. Herrick, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before McNEAL, PETERSON, TOMBRINK, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The state admitted that defendant’s vehicle was inoperable by failing to traverse a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), *Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.*Although this defense may have been successful at trial, the fact of inoperability did not conclusively establish defendant’s innocence as a matter of law. Because the state is not required to prove that a vehicle is operable to establish a prima facie case of driving under the influence, the court properly denied the Motion to Dismiss. *Jones v State,*510 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED. McNEAL, R., PETERSON, E., TOMBRINK, R., concur.
§ 91.533 Flight attendant requirements. ( a ) No person may operate an airplane unless at least the following number of flight attendants are on board the airplane: ( 1 ) For airplanes having more than 19 but less than 51 passengers on board, one flight attendant.
( 2 ) For airplanes having more than 50 but less than 101 passengers on board, two flight attendants.
( 3 ) For airplanes having more than 100 passengers on board, two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passengers above 100.
( b ) No person may serve as a flight attendant on an airplane when required by paragraph (a) of this section unless that person has demonstrated to the pilot in command familiarity with the necessary functions to be performed in an emergency or a situation requiring emergency evacuation and is capable of using the emergency equipment installed on that airplane.
#### Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company, Appelant, *v.*Rodney S. Hatch et al., Respondents.

Argued January 5, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

*508
      *C. Vincent Wiser*and *John G. Shaw*for appellant.

*James M. O’Reilly*and *Raymond Bentley*for respondents.

Orders reversed, with costs in all courts, and motion granted to the extent of strildng out the defenses pleaded to the separate causes of action for interest and taxes only on the authority of *Johnson*v. *Meyer*(242 App. Div. 798; affd., 268 N. Y. 701). Question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion. (See 273 N. Y. 581.)

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and Finch, JJ.
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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of UC Hub Group, Inc. for the Quarter ending October31, 2009, I, Larry Wilcox, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



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.



/s/ Larry D. WilcoxLarry D. WilcoxPrincipal Executive Officer & Principal Financial OfficerDecember 12, 2009
§ 1626.20 Procedure for requesting an opinion letter. ( a ) A request for an opinion letter should be submitted in writing to the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington DC 20507, and shall contain: ( 1 ) A concise statement of the issues on which an opinion is requested;
( 2 ) As full a statement as possible of relevant facts and law; and
( 3 ) The names and addresses of the person making the request and other interested persons.
( b ) Issuance of an opinion letter by the Commission is discretionary.
( c ) *Informal advice.* When the Commission, at its discretion, determines that it will not issue an opinion letter as defined in § 1626.21, the Commission may provide informal advice or guidance to the requestor. An informal letter of advice does not represent the formal position of the Commission and does not commit the Commission to the views expressed therein. Any letter other than those defined in § 1626.21(a)(1) will be considered a letter of advice and may not be relied upon by any employer within the meaning of section 10 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, incorporated into the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 through section 7(e)(1) of the Act.
[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 32063, Aug. 4, 1989. Redesignated at 68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009 ; 85 FR 65220, Oct. 15, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31318-31319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12489]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

[[Page 31319]]


Time and Date: 11 a.m., Monday, May 22, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:   
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12489 Filed 5-12-00; 5:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### In the Matter of Public Service Commission, Respondent, against New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Kenneth Créble*for appellant.

*Gay H. Brown, Sherman C. Ward, Sidney Kabalhin*and *Laurence J. Olmsted*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughan, Finch and Rippey, JJ.