alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.13c

              THIRD AMENDMENT TO LACLEDE GAS COMPANY
           TRUST AGREEMENT DATED AS OF DECEMBER 7, 1989


     WHEREAS, Laclede Gas Company ("Company"), and Boatmen's Trust Company
("Trustee") previously entered into a Trust Agreement made as of the 7th day
of December, 1989, known as the "Laclede Gas Company Trust Agreement," which
Trust Agreement has been previously amended by a First Amendment to said
Trust Agreement dated September 4, 1990 and a Second Amendment dated
September 29, 1993 and effective as of September 23, 1993 (said Trust
Agreement, as thus amended, being hereafter called the "Subject Trust
Agreement"); and
     WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee desire to amend the Subject Trust
Agreement further as hereinafter provided, with such further amendments to
be effective August 28, 1997;
     NOW, THEREFORE, the Subject Trust Agreement is hereby amended effective
August 28, 1997, by adding the Laclede Gas Company Deferred Income Plan II
for Directors and Selected Executives (which Deferred Income Plan II was
adopted by the Company's Board of Directors on September 22, 1993) to the
incentive and deferred compensation and retirement plans listed on Exhibit A
to the Subject Trust Agreement, so that said Exhibit A shall hereafter read
in the manner set forth in Appendix No. 1 attached hereto and hereby made a
part hereof.
     Except as expressly amended above, the Subject Trust Agreement is
hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment was executed this 15th day
of September, 1997, effective August 28, 1997.
                              LACLEDE GAS COMPANY


                              By: s/Gerald T. McNeive, Jr.


                              BOATMEN'S TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE


                              By: s/James R. Clement




















                                    71<PAGE>
<PAGE>


                          Appendix No. 1
            To Third Amendment to Laclede Gas Company
           Trust Agreement Dated as of December 7, 1989


                             EXHIBIT A


                        LACLEDE GAS COMPANY
                          TRUST AGREEMENT


Laclede Gas Company Incentive Compensation Plan

Laclede Gas Company Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors

Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors of Laclede Gas Company

Laclede Gas Company Deferred Income Plan for Directors and Selected
Executives

Deferred Compensation Agreement Between Laclede Gas Company and L. M.
Liberman

Laclede Gas Company Deferred Income Plan II for Directors and Selected
Executives































                                    72
§ 1620.1 Basic applicability of the Equal Pay Act. ( a ) Since the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d) (hereinafter referred to as the EPA), is a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, *et seq.* (hereinafter referred to as the FLSA), it has the same basic coverage as the FLSA with two principal exceptions: ( 1 ) The EPA applies to executive, administrative, and professional employees who are normally exempted from the FLSA for most purposes by section 13(a)(1) of that statute, and
( 2 ) The EPA covers all State and local government employees unless they are specifically exempted under section 3(e)(2)(C) of the FLSA.
( b ) The EPA does not apply where the employer has no employees who are engaged in commerce or in the handling of goods that have moved in commerce and the employer is not an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.
( c ) Men are protected under the Act equally with women. While the EPA was motivated by concern for the weaker bargaining position of women, the Act by its express terms applies to both sexes.
( d ) Most employees of the United States Government, as described in section 3(e)(2) (A) and (B) of the FLSA, are covered by the EPA. Accordingly, these interpretations and principles may generally be applied to Federal sector employment.
Searched for **http://www.fca.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.fca.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 1991.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints. ( a ) If the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy.
( b ) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1991.109.
( c ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
#### Walter McCALL, Appellant, v. STATES MARINE LINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 23863.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 1, 1967.

Robert L. McLaughlin, Orlando G. Bendana, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Benjamin W. Yancey, Francis Emmett, Christopher Tompkins, New Orleans, La., for appellee, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles and Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Before GEWIN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant complains of an adverse jury verdict and judgment thereon in his suit against the owner of the vessel SS BLUEGRASS STATE. At the time of his injury plaintiff was employed as a longshoreman by the stevedore and was working on the vessel. In the course of his activities one of his legs went through a hatch cover while he was walking across the hatch. The appellant contended that the ship was unseaworthy and that the shipowner was negligent in that one of the hatch boards was too short so that it tilted when he stepped on it. The United States had hired the stevedore pursuant to an agreement between the vessel owner and the stevedore. The vessel owner impleaded the United States and the stevedore alleging a breach of warranty of workmanlike performance of the stevedoring duties. The stevedore assumed the defense of the United States.

The trial court concluded that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the ship and refused to submit that issue to the jury. In answer to special interrogatories the jury found that the vessel was not unseaworthy; and further found that the stevedore had breached its warranty of workmanlike . performance and that such breach was the proximate cause of appellant’s injuries.

The appellant contends that the trial court committed error in entering judgment on the special verdict of the jury and in denying his motion for a new trial. It is contended that the answers of the jury to the special interrogatories were inconsistent with each other when considered in light of the weight of the evidence. It is further contended that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the shipowner to require the submission of that issue to the jury for its determination. We are unable to agree with the appellant’s contentions and conclude that no error was committed. See Guarracino v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 333 F.2d 646 (2 Cir. 1964); Strachan Shipping Co. v. Koninklyke Neder. S.M.N.V., 324 F.2d 746 (5 Cir. 1963), cert. den., 376 U.S. 954, 84 S. Ct. 969, 11 L.Ed.2d 972.

The judgment is affirmed.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970

              														Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970, December 31, 1970.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1127,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

November 26, 2014 

Mr. Marc Rotenburg 

EPIC Executive Director 

EPIC 

1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20009 

Ms. Amie Stepanovich 

EPIC National Security Counsel 

EPIC 

1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20009 

Dear Mr. Rotenburg and Ms. Stepanovich: 

This is in response to your March 8, 2012 letter sent to the public docket (Docket No. 

FAA-2012-0306) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to address the threat of privacy and civil liberties that will result from the 

deployment of aerial drones within the United States. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request, we have determined that the issue you have raised is not an 

immediate safety concern. Moreover, the FAA has begun a rulemaking addressing civil 

operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system. We will 

consider your comments and arguments as part of that project. 
2

When the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to 

find out and track it through one of the two following websites: 

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi-annual 

regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website 

(http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Lirio Liu 

Director, Office of Rulemaking
#### In the Matter of Thomas Henderson, Appellant, against City of Glen Cove, Respondent.

(Argued May 17, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.)

*576
      *Michael A. Petroccia*for appellant.

*John P. Carson*and *William A. Earl*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10Q QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                      70,706,206
<SECURITIES>                                17,729,760
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,702,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                   590,022
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           102,273,916
<PP&E>                                       4,009,466
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,053,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             127,381,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,636,493
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,368
<OTHER-SE>                                 103,156,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               127,381,627
<SALES>                                     16,457,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,982,361
<CGS>                                        1,425,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,135,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,741,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,167,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,574,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,574,372
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

12-15-00043-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

3/20/2015 2:16:27 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/20/2015 2:16:27 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 88 

To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure 

requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying 

disclosure requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COM4 PLY WITH LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REQUIRE5 MENTS. 

6 Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 

7 U.S.C. 1606) is amended by striking ‘‘$50,000’’ and in8 serting ‘‘$200,000’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### § 1990.102 Purpose.

The Act provides, among other things, that

the Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this section, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his or her working life. Development of standards under this section shall be based upon research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the field, the feasibility of the standards, and experience gained under this and other health and safety laws. Whenever practicable, the standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired (section 6(b)(5)).

It is the purpose of the regulations of this part to carry out the intent of the Act with respect to the identification, classification, and regulation of potential occupational carcinogens.
§ 1991.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets forth procedures for, and interpretations of section 2 of the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (CAARA), Public Law 116-257, 134 Stat. 1147 (December 23, 2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7a-3). CAARA provides for protection from retaliation because the covered individual has engaged in protected activity pertaining to any violation of, or any act or omission which the covered individual reasonably believes constitutes a violation of, section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act; or any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act or in conjunction with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a potential violation of section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act.
( b ) This part establishes procedures under CAARA for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by covered individuals, or by persons acting on their behalf. These rules, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures under CAARA for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges (ALJs), post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements. In addition, these rules provide the Secretary's interpretations of certain statutory provisions.
#### § 1695.0 Applicability.

This part prescribes general procedures that apply to guidance documents of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) under all statutes enforced by the Commission.
1 AMENDED HLD

- 001 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 1

- 3880

___________

IN RE: ANTHONY LIONETTI

, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 10

- cv

- 4720 )

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 3, 2011

Before: Chief Judge MCKEE, ALDISERT and GARTH

, Circuit Judges

(Opi nion filed : January 27, 2012 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On October 26, 2011, Anthony Lionetti filed a petition fo r a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the District Court to act on his motion filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. On November 18, 2 011, the Di strict Court denied Lionetti’s § 2255

motion. Thus , his request for an order directing the District Court to act on his motion is

now moot.2 Lionetti also requests the recusal of the District Court Judge. While mandamus is

available to review a District Court ’ s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 1

For the above reasons, the m andamus petition will be denied see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. , 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993), Lionetti did

not move for recusal in the District Court. Thus, he is not entitled to mandamus relief on

that g round.

1 Sectio n 455(a) provides that a judge “ shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Exhibit 99.1

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

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lifen, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


Date: May 5, 2003                By:  /s/ James D. Durham
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                          James D. Durham
                                          Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secretes or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: May 24, 2000.
    Time: 8 am to 4 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: One Washington Circle, 1 Washington Circle NW, 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12538 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M