alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 24

                           THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.


                          DIRECTORS' POWER OF ATTORNEY


         Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson
& Sessions Co., an Ohio corporation, which anticipates filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., an annual report of the
Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2001 ("2001 Form
10-K") under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, does
hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly and
severally, with full power and substitution and re-substitution, as attorney(s)
to sign for him and in his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 2001
Form 10-K, including any amendments and exhibits thereto, with full power and
authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever necessary and
required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to all intents and
purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving
the acts of said attorney(s) and any substitutes(s) therefor in connection with
such signing:


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of
the 20th day of February 2002.


/s/ JAMES T. BARTLETT                             /s/ JOHN C. DANNEMILLER
------------------------------                    ------------------------------
James T. Bartlett                                 John C. Dannemiller
Director                                          Director


/s/ FRANCIS H. BEAM, JR.                          /s/ GEORGE R. HILL
------------------------------                    ------------------------------
Francis H. Beam, Jr.                              George R. Hill
Director                                          Director


/s/ MARTIN J. CLEARY                              /s/ A. MALACHI MIXON, III
------------------------------                    ------------------------------
Martin J. Cleary                                  A. Malachi Mixon, III
Director                                          Director


/s/ WILLIAM H. COQUILLETTE                        /s/ JOHN C. MORLEY
------------------------------                    ------------------------------
William H. Coquillette                            John C. Morley
Director                                          Director



                         /s/ D. VAN SKILLING
                         ------------------------------
                         D. Van Skilling
                         Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,726
<SECURITIES>                                    47,323
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,936
<INVENTORY>                                     55,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,217
<PP&E>                                         349,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,567
<BONDS>                                         78,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,081
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,926
<SALES>                                        323,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               333,776
<CGS>                                          217,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,376
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,762
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.62
        

</TABLE>
OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

62) 11-1-41 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 11:47:27 AM Sheet 62 of 68 

P.1 
P.2 

Lydall, Inc. had 1987 earning! of $4.7 million on sales 

of $134 million. 

RMA rubber report through December 

(flguros expressed in metric tons) 

1917 

Porybutadene 

Production 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

Ethylene-propylene 

Production 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

Butyl, porychloroprene, 

polylsoprene, silicone 

and other synthetic elas* 

371,349 

91,984 

60,616 

394,449 

264,062 

7,136 

47,226 

208,888 

Production 637,801 

Imports 94,033 

Exports 160,462 

Apparent consumption 676,281 

1986 

Total new rubber 

New rubber available 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

Total natural rubber 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

% total new rubber 

Total synthetic rubber 

Production 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

Total SBR 

Production 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

Total nltrile 

Production 

Imports 

Exports 

Apparent consumption 

3.27S.828 

1.093.411 

491.008 

2.793.281 

810,624 

36,998 

776,624 

27.77 

2,182,117 

282,587 

454,009 

2,017,456 

72.22 

650,385 

83.277 

172.114 

770,813 

68,541 

16.178 

13,389 

66,060 

3,037,419 

1.024.645 

391,891 

2,638.793 

769.345 

36,473 

743,583 

26.17 

2,012.774 

285,300 

355,418 

1.895.229 

71.82 

791,501 

98843 

111.713 

771,190 

69,309 

12,311 

11,918 

61,501 

% 

ehang* 

7.64 

6.71 

25.29 

8.68 

6.39 

1.43 

4.34 

0.41 

10.6* 

27.74 

6.48 

336,364 

60,417 

23,708 

666.614 

229,629 

4,460 

48,107 

186,463 

695,971 

62,269 

162,975 

609,261 

16.67 

81.39 

12.20 

10.68 

10.40 

7.53 

10.64 

60.04 

4.70 

12.02 

7.02 

14.30 

•1.63 

12.96 

APRIL 1980 .pjlCO1 

h 

QrX \ P> O '^"" 

u - *• 

It 

A-90-19 

H-l-41 

We have the equlpme 

CRYOJET Rotor, built 

by MG Industries, a w 

supplier o! industrial 

and gas technology 

The CRYOJET Rotor is th* mc 

economical deflaahlng system 

anywhere.' It haa high operaiir 

both large and small batch** c 

rubber and consolidate* coars< 

deflashing in on* operation. 

O n* CRYOJET Rotor can gene 

two belt or tumble machines in 

and efficiency. 

The CRYOJET Rotor: 

• Utilizes both steel and plastic 

changeover 

• Operates with small shot qua 

culatlon Inside th* unit (80 lb: 

40 lbs plastic shot) 

• Has shot separation taking pi 

dry environment which •Itmin 

plugging up and assures goo 

shot and flash 

• Deflashes small parts down tc 

dard drum and even smaller > 

drum insert without losing par 

having to us* a basket 

• Has a very low liquid nitrogen 

Average 05 lbs LNj/lb produc 

rubber parts 

• Has a compact and rugged cc 

built to handl* years of steel s 

• Rscunt eemumptton comparison* 

o/ 50*i' or mors with throughput met 

100%o. Fw s copy ot tht Rstuttt « « 

ftcf MQ Inauttrtsf Applied Tschnoic 

' CRvOJlT ,t • reoitivsd t>Mfia» 

MO industries. 2460 Boulevard < 

Valley Forge. PA 19482 (215) 63< 

[USQlnclue 

GasProdu 

Circle 8 on card
Opinion issued April 1, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-01017-CV

———————————

GEORGE NATHANIEL WYCHE, Appellant

V.

GLADIS GORDON RIDEAUX, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2012-13112

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, George Nathaniel Wyche, has failed to timely file a brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of 

appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 

dismissal, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing 
2

involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a 

brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland and Brown.
§ 22.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the ARB, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the ARB in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.,* the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including forseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the ARB from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
[52 FR 48492, Dec. 22, 1987, as amended at 86 FR 1781, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### § 4206.10 Special rule for 70-percent decline partial withdrawals.

For the purposes of applying the rules in §§ 4206.4 through 4206.9 in any case in which either the prior or subsequent partial withdrawal resulted from a 70-percent contribution decline (or a 35-percent decline in the case of certain retail food industry plans), the first year of the 3-year testing period shall be deemed to be the plan year in which the partial withdrawal occurred.
(79 South. 878)

#### DAVIDSON v. ROBERTS.

(6 Div. 145.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1918.)

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Johu H. Miller, Judge.

Erie Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellant. Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

Affirmed on certificate.
To whom it may concern, 

I am writing to express my opinion about the proposed power plant in Latitude 36.088394° N and 

Longitude 120.061141° W. I personally believe that no power plant is clean, therefore they pollute the surrounding areas 

where they are located. I was raised in Avenal, CA and now live in Fresno,CA attending Fresno State University. As much of 

my limited knowledge my short career has brought me as an Environmental Scientist, I strongly believe that such proposal to 

build a power plant without any type of research concerning the consequences of such project will bring upon the surrounding 

ecosystem and the people is irresponsible and irrational. The valley already has too many reports involving asthma and other 

diseases due to pollution, the last thing we want is a power plant adding to our already polluted air. 

Once again as an honest american and citizen of the area, I strongly disagree with the proposed power plant.

~Leonel Campos 

No Power Plant 

Leonel Campos 

to: 

R9AirPermits 

04/12/2011 09:14 PM 

Hide Details 

From: Leonel Campos

To: R9AirPermits@EPA 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Page 1 of 1

... 4/14/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PVD PLAST MOULD INDUSTRIES, 

LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

POLYMER GROUP, INCORPORATED;

BONLAM S.A. DE C.V.,

Defendants-Appellees,  No. 01-1414

and

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP; W. SHAWN

SMITH; TONY CALLANDER; S.R.

BATLIBOI & COMPANY; BHF BANK,

a/k/a Berliner Handels; UND

FRANKFURTER BANK,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-98-2929-2-23)

Argued: January 24, 2002

Decided: February 15, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Michael S. Seekings, MULLEN, WYLIE & SEEKINGS,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Michael Collins,

BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, P.A., Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

PVD Plast Mould Industries, Ltd. commenced this action against

Polymer Group, Inc., Bonlam S.A. de C.V., and others for breach of

contract, unfair competition, related torts, and violations of the antitrust laws, all relating to a failed joint venture between plaintiff and

some of the defendants. 

Over an almost two-year period during which discovery was taking

place, PVD’s failure to comply with discovery requests of Polymer

Group and Bonlam S.A. and with three separate discovery orders was

nothing short of contumacious. This long process involving alternative excuses, changed positions, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and

outright refusals, which are well documented by both the magistrate

judge and the district judge, prompted the district court to dismiss the

action and award Polymer Group and Bonlam S.A. attorneys fees of

$42,722.18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. PVD

appealed the district court’s decision, arguing principally that the

sanctions were too severe and that lesser sanctions would have been

adequate. 

The district court found that PVD’s bad faith, even after receiving

clear warnings about its conduct, caused the defendants prejudice.

The court expressly explored less severe sanctions but concluded that

2 PVD PLAST MOULD INDUS. v. POLYMER GROUP
the sanctions already imposed by the magistrate judge had been "ineffective." As the district court concluded:

These lesser sanctions did nothing to motivate compliance

by PVD. Even clear warnings of dismissal and the motion

for sanctions have not motivated PVD to bring itself into

compliance. Therefore, this court is convinced that any

lesser sanction would fail to cure PVD’s determined obdurateness. 

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered PVD’s arguments. For the reasons ably and fully given by the district court in

ordering dismissal and attorneys fees, see PVD Plast Mould Industries, Ltd. v. Polymer Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:98-2929-23

(D.S.C. February 1, 2001), we affirm.

AFFIRMED

PVD PLAST MOULD INDUS. v. POLYMER GROUP 3
Exhibit 10.1.1Apr2015






Amendment to the
Line of Credit, Dated May 1, 2014


The parties agree that the $2,000,000 Line of Credit (the “Line of Credit”) by and between Minerco Resources Inc. (the “Maker”) and Post Oak, LLC (the “Lender”) is hereby amended as follows:
1. Line of Credit. The total of Advances allowed outstanding at any given time shall increase from Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00).
2. Security.  The requirement under this section has been removed.  


ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LINE OF CREDIT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated April 1, 2015 by signing below:


MINERCO RESOURCES, INC.        POST OAK, LLC






By:__/s/ V. Scott Vanis___________        By:__/s/ Heidi McFarland_______
V. Scott Vanis                    H. McFarland
Chief Executive Officer            Managing Director
Dated:_April 1, 2015______            Dated:_April 1, 2015______
§ 503.19 Violations. ( a ) *Types of violations.* Pursuant to the statutory provisions governing enforcement of the H-2B program, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14), a violation exists under this part where the Administrator, WHD determines that there has been a: ( 1 ) Willful misrepresentation of a material fact on the *H-2B Registration, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination,* *Application for Temporary Employment Certification,* or *H-2B Petition;*
( 2 ) Substantial failure to meet any of the terms and conditions of the *H-2B Registration, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination,* *Application for Temporary Employment Certification,* or *H-2B Petition.* A substantial failure is a willful failure to comply that constitutes a significant deviation from the terms and conditions of such documents; or
( 3 ) Willful misrepresentation of a material fact to the Department of State during the H-2B nonimmigrant visa application process.
( b ) *Determining whether a violation is willful.* A willful misrepresentation of a material fact or a willful failure to meet the required terms and conditions occurs when the employer, attorney, or agent knows its statement is false or that its conduct is in violation, or shows reckless disregard for the truthfulness of its representation or for whether its conduct satisfies the required conditions.
( c ) *Determining whether a violation is significant.* In determining whether a violation is a significant deviation from the terms and conditions of the *H-2B Registration, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination,* *Application for Temporary Employment Certification,* or *H-2B Petition,* the factors that the Administrator, WHD may consider include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Previous history of violation(s) under the H-2B program;
( 2 ) The number of H-2B workers, workers in corresponding employment, or U.S. workers who were and/or are affected by the violation(s);
( 3 ) The gravity of the violation(s);
( 4 ) The extent to which the violator achieved a financial gain due to the violation(s), or the potential financial loss or potential injury to the worker(s); and
( 5 ) Whether U.S. workers have been harmed by the violation.
( d ) *Employer acceptance of obligations.* The provisions of this part become applicable upon the date that the employer's *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* is accepted. The employer's submission of the approved *H-2B Registration, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination,* the employer's survey attestation (Form ETA-9165), Appendix B of the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification,* and *H-2B Petition* constitute the employer's representation that the statements on the forms are accurate and that it knows and accepts the obligations of the program.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13287]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Title, Form Number, and OMB Number: Pentagon Reservation Parking 
Permit Application; DD Form 1199; OMB Number 0704-0395.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 10,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 833.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
for the administration and management of the Pentagon's parking control 
program, which is designed to meet the government mandated car pool 
program. Respondents are Department of Defense and non-DoD personnel 
who utilize designated parking areas on the Pentagon Reservation. The 
Pentagon Reservation Parking Permit Application, DD Form 1199, is a 
machine read form that includes information, such as name, rank or 
grade, Social Security Number (SSN), and vehicle license plate number, 
required for the issuance and control of the parking permit. The DD 
Form 1199 is scanned into a computerized database designed for the 
administration of the Pentagon's parking control program. Each member 
of a Pentagon Reservation authorized car pool or individual parking 
permit holder is required to complete and submit the DD Form 1199 upon 
initial application and annually thereafter.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion; Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to

[[Page 34153]]

Mr. Springer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for 
DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: May 22, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-13287 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
(75 South. 1005)

#### CAHOON v. STATE.

(6 Div. 317.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Proseh & Prosch, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.