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


                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.91


                              FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                   LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND
           LG&E ENERGY CORP. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                                FOR R.W. HALE

1. Section 3.2 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:

"Section 3.2  FORMS OF PAYMENT

The normal form of benefit payment (to which the formula in Section 3.1
applies) shall be a straight life annuity. Prior to the Employees benefit
commencement date, he may elect to receive his benefit in the form of an
actuarially equivalent (based on the factors set forth in Section 3.1)
joint and survivor annuity, which shall provide a reduced monthly benefit
payable for the life of the Employee and continued thereafter in an amount
of one of the following: fifty percent (50%), sixty-six and two-thirds
percent (66 2/3%), seventy-five percent (75%), or one hundred percent
(100%) to a beneficiary designated in writing by the Employee."

2. Article 3 shall be further amended by adding a new Section 3.5 to the
end thereof to read as follows:

"Section 3.5 PRE-RETIREMENT DEATH BENEFIT

A. Eligibility: If the Employee dies after September 2, 1998 but prior to
commencing benefits under Section 3.1, Section 3.3 or Section 3.4 herein,
then the Employee's Beneficiary shall be entitled to a pre-retirement
death benefit, pursuant to this Section.

B. Amount of Benefit: The Pre-retirement Death Benefit shall equal fifty
percent (50%) of the Employee's accrued benefit calculated in accordance
with Section 3.1 at the time of the Employee's death.

C. Form of Distribution. The Pre-retirement Death Benefit shall be payable
as a monthly annuity over the life expectancy of the Beneficiary, except
in the case of a non-spouse Beneficiary whose life expectancy is greater
than five (5) years, in which case the benefit shall be payable in sixty
(60) equal monthly payments."; and

The amendments described herein shall be effective as of September 2,
1998.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. GRONER, Petitioner

v.

DAVID E. KASMOCH AND EDNA MAE KASMOCH, RONALD E. DOWNS, LOIS E. DOWNS A/K/A LOIS E. REPMAN AND CHAD E. DOWNS, Respondents

v.

INDEPENDENT MOUNTAIN MEN OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., AND ROSS J. GIACCHINO, MARK GIACCHINO, BLAISE A. GIACCHINO, AND MICHAEL GIACCHINO, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 443 WAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
#### § 1905.16 Consolidation of proceedings.

The Assistant Secretary on his own motion or that of any party may consolidate or contemporaneously consider two or more proceedings which involve the same or closely related issues.
Exhibit 32



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 amended Quarterly Report of Elgrande International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: January 31, 2006
Heneghan Employment Agreement



Exhibit 10.01 
 
 
SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE 
DANIEL J. HENEGHAN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 
* * * * * 
 
THIS SECOND
AMENDMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of March 20, 2003, is made by and between Intersil Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Mr. Daniel J. Heneghan (the “Executive”). 
 
WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company have entered into an
Employment Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2001 (the “Employment Agreement”), as amended by the First Amendment thereto dated as of August 15, 2001; and 
 
WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to further amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects
that are mutually beneficial to both parties hereto; and 
 
WHEREAS, the Company’s Compensation Committee has specifically approved such amendment, and the terms and provisions of this SECOND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby. 
 
NOW THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:

1.  Effective as of the date first written above, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in
the following respects: 
 
A.  The last paragraph of Section 1 is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 
“Unless he consents in writing, Executive will not be required to relocate to a place of employment that is more
than twenty (20) miles from Irvine, California provided, however, that notwithstanding any provision herein that may be to the contrary, Executive agrees that the relocation by the Company of its principal corporate offices from
Irvine, California to Milpitas, California (and any commutation by the Executive, as agreed upon by the Executive and the Company, between Irvine and Milpitas) shall not constitute a violation of this Section 1 or result in a termination Without
Cause (as defined in Section 7(a)).” 
 
B.  The last sentence of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 
“Any expiration or termination of the Employment Term or any Extended Employment Term, by virtue of either
party’s having given notice of non-renewal pursuant to Section 2, shall constitute termination of the Executive Without Cause under Section 7(a).” 
 
C.  Section 7(f) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety. 
 
2.  Except as set forth above, all
other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement, as in effect immediately prior to the effective date hereof, remain unchanged and applicable to the Company and the Executive. 







3.  This SECOND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 
 

	 INTERSIL CORPORATION

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/    RICHARD M.
BEYER        


	 	 	 Richard M. Beyer

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	 	 	 
	
	 	 	 /s/    DANIEL J.
HENEGHAN        


	 	 	 Daniel J. Heneghan
§ 1905.7 Form of documents; subscription; copies. ( a ) No particular form is prescribed for applications and other papers which may be filed in proceedings under this part. However, any applications and other papers shall be clearly legible. An original and six copies of any application or other papers shall be filed. The original shall be typewritten. Clear carbon copies, or printed or processed copies are acceptable copies.
( b ) Each application or other paper which is filed in proceedings under this part shall be subscribed by the person filing the same or by his attorney or other authorized representative.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30449-30450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Carolina Power & Light Company

[Docket No. 50-261]


Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility 
Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee), to 
withdraw its March 26, 1999, application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Darlington County, South 
Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would have modified the facility technical 
specifications pertaining to the required action and completion time 
for the ultimate heat sink in the event that the

[[Page 30450]]

service water temperature exceeded 95 deg.F.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on July 28, 
1999 (64 FR 40905). However, by letter dated April 25, 2000, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 26, 1999, and the licensee's 
letter dated April 25, 2000, which withdrew the application for license 
amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ram Subbaratnam,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-11801 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY *v.*Charles W. LIGHT, Judge of Craighead County Circuit Court

5-5726

475 S.W. 2d 513

Opinion delivered January 24, 1972

*William J. Smith*and *Joe D. Bell,*for petitioner.

*Frierson, Walker, Snellgrove ir Laser,*for respondent.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Petitioner, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, seeks a writ of prohibition, contending that jurisdiction does not lie with the Craighead County Circuit Court to try the case of *Gerald E. Lamb and Wheeler Brick Company*v. *Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company.*Petitioner contends that Pulaski County Circuit Court has jurisdiction because petitioner first filed a suit in that county arising out of the same accident.

*810There was a collision between petitioner’s train and Wheeler’s truck driven by Lamb. That incident occurred at one of petitioner’s crossings in Lawrence County. Petitioner railroad filed an action in Pulaski County for damages to its equipment. Shortly thereafter, Lamb and Wheeler Brick filed an action in the Craighead Circuit Court. Lamb is a resident of that county and Wheeler Brick is a domestic corporation with its principal office in the same county. Missouri Pacific filed a motion to dismiss the suit in Craighead County, contending that jurisdiction was in the Pulaski Circuit Court. Petitioner contends that under the provisions of the venue statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-611 (Repl. 1962), it is a resident of Pulaski County and therefore is entitled to maintain the suit in that county. Petitioner is a Missouri corporation authorized and qualified to do business in Arkansas. Its immediate headquarters for Arkansas operations is in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The cited section authorizes an action for damages to personal property by negligence to be brought in the county where the accident occurred or in the county where the owner of the property resided at the time.

The identical question was before us in the recent case of *Missouri Pacific R. Rd. Co.*v. Fox, 251 Ark. 247, 472 S. W. 2d 726 (1971). There we held that a foreign corporation does not acquire residence for venue purposes under the cited statute.

Petition denied.
DEPT OFTRANSPORIfflON 

1 'onKH s 

•. i 

OST-2010-0046 

Secretary of the DOT 

Dear Sir: 

Mountain Time is our heritage and our Uves this is no simple switch. Let us 

keep our way of life. Keep Mountain Time. 

Rural Mercer County Resident
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F E RNA ND O H UE R T A R I C O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 06- 50700 D. C . No . C R - 0 6 - 0 0 5 8 3 - R GK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G a ryK l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ernand o H uert a R i co appeal s f rom the 84 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 50700 2 R i c o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byappl y i ng adrug tr a f f i c ki ng e nha nc e m e ntpur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) be c aus e tw o pr i orf e l ony c o n v ic tio n s a lle g e d lyo c c u rr e dw h e n R ic o w a s aju v e n ile . T h is c o n te n tio n f a ils b e c au s e R ic o a d m itte dto h a v in g b e e n c o n v ic te df o rth e o f f e n s e s a s a n a d u lt. See U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , c m t. n . 1 ( A ) ( iv ) ; se e al so U ni ted States v. Flores , 172 F . 3d 695, 7 0 0

– 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( d e f e n d a n t w a iv e dc h a lle n g e b ye x p r e s s lya g r e e in g to en h an cem en t ). E v en i f i tw as tru e th atth e o ffen ses o ccu rred w h en h e w as a ju v e n ile , it is u n d is p u te dth a t h e a g r e e dth a t h e w a s p r o s e c u te da s a n a d u lt. R i c o a l s o c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe r e w a s no pr oc e dur a l e rr ora nd tha t , i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e s e n te n c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le . Se e U

n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en b a n c ) . AF F I RME D.
§ 1691.9 EEOC reasonable cause determinations and conciliation efforts. ( a ) If EEOC, after investigation of a joint complaint, determines that reasonable cause exists to believe that title VII has been violated, EEOC shall advise the referring agency, the complainant and the recipient of that determination and attempt to resolve the complaint by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion. If EEOC would like the referring agency to participate in conciliation negotiations, EEOC shall so notify the agency and the agency shall participate. EEOC shall provide advance notice of any conciliation negotiations to referring agencies that request such notice, whether or not EEOC requests their participation in the negotiations.
( b ) If EEOC's efforts to resolve the complaint by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion fail, EEOC shall: ( 1 ) Issue a notice of failure of conciliation to the recipient in accordance with 29 CFR 1601.25;
( 2 ) Transmit to the referring agency a copy of EEOC's investigative file, including its Letter of Determination and notice of failure of conciliation;
( 3 ) If the recipient is not a government, governmental entity or political subdivision, determine whether EEOC will bring suit under title VII and, in accordance with 29 CFR 1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue under title VII;
( 4 ) If the recipient is a government, governmental entity or political subdivision, refer the matter to the Attorney General in accordance with 29 CFR 1601.29. The Attorney General, or his or her delegate, will determine whether the Department of Justice will bring suit under title VII and, in accordance with 29 CFR 1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue under title VII.
Imidacloprid Pollinator Field Testing Tier II & III Meeting

November 18, 2013

Agenda

1. Bayer presents the preliminary findings from the field feeding study (45 min)

2. Questions and discussion about preliminary findings (15 min)

3. EPA presents the hypothesis and study design elements for the Tier II tunnel study (30 min)

4. Questions and discussion (30 min)

5. CDPR and PMRA present the hypothesis and study design elements for the Tier III full field study 

(30 min)

6. Questions and discussion (30 min)
5:

Exhibit 32.1

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman of
American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following ammended quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended March 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above ammended quarterly report
fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International
Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.

Date: February 14, 2006
Daniel Dror
CEO and Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations. ( a ) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
( b ) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-2, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964; Amdt. 65-26, 45 FR 46737, July 10, 1980]
§ 1472.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the Governmentwide rule 29 CFR part 1470 that implements OMB Circular A-102 (for availability, see 5 CFR 1310.3) and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.,* any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0782 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0782

**2000/782/EC: Commission Decision of 8 December 2000 amending Decision 2000/609/EC laying down animal and public health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of farmed ratite meat and amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat (notified under document number C(2000) 3700) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 309 , 09/12/2000 P. 0037 - 0037 *

Commission Decision

of 8 December 2000

amending Decision 2000/609/EC laying down animal and public health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of farmed ratite meat and amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat

(notified under document number C(2000) 3700)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/782/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat(1), as last amended by Directive 1999/89/EC(2), and in particular Articles 11(1), and 12, thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(1), to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(3), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(4), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/609/EC(5) laid down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of farmed ratite meat.

(2) The date of entry into force of Decision 2000/609/EC is 1 October 2000.

(3) Some third countries need more time to implement the requirements laid down in the certification of Decision 2000/609/EC.

(4) The six months surveillance period required in point 2.6 of the model B certificate laid down in Decision 2000/609/EC shall be delayed for six months in order to give time to the countries concerned to fully implement the surveillance requirements.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In point 2.6 of the certificate model B in Annex II to Decision 2000/609/EC the following footnote is included at the end of the sentence:"The six months period shall not come into effect until 1 May 2001."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 December 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(4) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.

(5) OJ L 258, 12.10.2000, p. 49.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Gonzalez, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 145]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered February 27, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The court’s supplemental charge, in which it instructed the jury that second-degree manslaughter did not have an intent element, was a correct statement of the law *(People v Trappier,*87 NY2d 55; *People v Gallagher,*69 NY2d 525) that could not have been misunderstood by the jury as directing a verdict of first-degree manslaughter. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.