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

                                 ITEM 12
            SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          Name & Address of                           Amount & Nature of
Title of Class            Beneficial Owner                           Beneficial Ownership       % of Class
--------------            -----------------                          --------------------       ----------
<S>                       <C>                                        <C>                        <C>
                                                  ITEM 403(a)
                                                  -----------
Class B                   Hussey Investments LP                            880,881                50.2%
Common Stock              PO Box 35
                          Goshen IN 46527 (1) (2)

                                                  ITEM 403(b)
                                                  -----------
Class A                   Edward J. Hussey                               1,253,219                48.5%
Common Stock              PO Box 35
                          Goshen IN 46527 (1)

Class A                   Edward Joseph Hussey                              23,400                  .9%
Common Stock              PO Box 35
Class B                   Goshen IN 46527 (2)
Common Stock                                                               945,653                53.9%

Class A                   Michael F. Hussey                                 22,835                  .9%
Common Stock              PO Box 35
Class B                   Goshen IN 46527 (2)
Common Stock                                                               945,088                53.8%

Class A                   Ralph D. Ray                                       1,000            less than
Common Stock              PO Box 35                                                                  1%
                          Goshen IN 46527

Class A                   All Directors and                              1,300,454                50.3%
Common Stock              Officers as a Group
Class B                                                                  1,009,860                57.5%
Common Stock

</TABLE>

(1) Edward J. Hussey is a limited partner in Hussey Investments LP and 
accordingly has a pecuniary interest in the shares of Class B Common Stock 
owned by Hussey Investments LP but Edward J. Hussey has no voting or 
investment power over such shares and accordingly disclaims beneficial 
ownership of such shares.  

(2) Edward Joseph Hussey, Michael F. Hussey, John P. Hussey and Nancy A. 
Parrish are the general partners of Hussey Investments LP and accordingly 
share voting and investment control over the 880,881 shares of Class B Common 
Stock owned by that limited partnership.  Total shares listed for individuals 
include this beneficial ownership.

                                      39
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **OF**
 **PRINCIPAL
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND**
 **PRINCIPAL
        FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I,
        Albert
        H. Pleus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
        knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for
        the
        quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
        contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of a21,
        Inc.
 
 I,
        Thomas
        V. Butta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,
        the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended March
        31,
        2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
        Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.
 
 Pursuant
        to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
        certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.
  By:
                  /s/ ALBERT H. PLEUS
                
                Albert
                  H. Pleus
                Chairman
                  and Chief Executive Officer
                (*Principal
                  Executive Officer*)
                
                
                By:
                  /s/ THOMAS V. BUTTA
                
                Thomas
                  V. Butta
                Vice
                  Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer
                (*Principal
                  Financial Officer*)
                
                Dated:
                  September 16, 2005
§ 4901.34 Waiver or reduction of charges. ( a ) The Disclosure Officer may waive or reduce fees otherwise applicable under this subpart when disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. A fee waiver or reduction request must set forth full and complete information upon which the request is based.
( b ) If the Disclosure Officer determines that the request for fee waiver or reduction will be denied, the requester will be so advised in writing with a brief statement of the reasons for the denial. The writing will include the name and title or position of the person(s) responsible for the denial, outline the appeal procedure available, and notify the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from a PBGC FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.
[61 FR 34123, July 1, 1996, as amended at 87 FR 43999, July 25, 2022]
§ 452.37 Types of qualifications. Ordinarily the following types of requirements may be considered reasonable, depending on the circumstances in which they are applied and the effect of their application: ( a ) *Period of prior membership.* It would ordinarily be reasonable for a local union to require a candidate to have been a member of the organization for a reasonable period of time, not exceeding two years, before the election. However, if a member is involuntarily compelled to transfer from one local to another, such a requirement would not be reasonable if he is not given credit for his prior period of membership.
( b ) *Continuity of good standing.* A requirement of continuous good standing based on punctual payment of dues will be considered a reasonable qualification only if ( 1 ) it provides a reasonable grace period during which members may make up missed payments without loss of eligibility for office,[24] and
( 2 ) the period of time involved is reasonable. What are reasonable periods of time for these purposes will depend upon the circumstances. Section 401(e) of the Act provides that a member whose dues have been withheld by the employer for payment to the labor organization pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a collective bargaining agreement may not be declared ineligible to vote or be a candidate for office by reason of alleged delay or default in the payment of dues. If during the period allowed for payment of dues in order to remain in good standing, a member on a dues checkoff system has no earnings from which dues can be withheld, section 401(e) does not relieve the member of the responsibility of paying his dues in order to remain in good standing.
Footnotes -
452.37
[24] In *Goldberg* v. *Amarillo General Drivers, Teamsters Local 577,* 214 F. Supp. 74 (N.D. Tex. 1963), the disqualification of five nominees for union office for failure to satisfy a constitutional provision requiring candidates for office to have maintained continuous good standing for two years by paying their dues on or before the first business day of the current month, in advance, was held to be unreasonable. See also *Wirtz* v. *Local Unions No. 9, 9-A and 9-B, International Union of Operating Engineers,* 254 F. Supp. 980 (D. Colo. 1965), aff'd. 366 F. 2d 911 (CA 10 1966), vacated as moot 387 U.S. 96 (1967).
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Population and Prevelance /
              - 1.1 Resident Population—States: 2009 to 2012

## Table 1.1: Resident Population—States: 2009 to 2012

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
#### § 452.5 Effect of violation on outcome.

Since the remedy under section 402 is contingent upon a finding by the court, among other things, that the violation “may have affected the outcome of an election”[5] the Secretary as a matter of policy will not file suit to enforce the election provisions unless the violations found are such that the outcome may have been affected.[6]

[38 FR 18324, July 9, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 31310, Aug. 1, 1985; 63 FR 33780, June 19, 1998]

###### Footnotes -
  452.5

[5] Act, sec. 402(b) (29 U.S.C. 482).

[6] *Dunlop* v. *Bachowski,* 421 U.S. 560, 570 (1975), citing *Wirtz* v. *Glass Bottle Blowers,* 389 U.S. 463, 472 (1968) and *Schonfeld* v. *Wirtz,* 285 F. Supp. 705, 707-708 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40639 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON RIVERA-TORRES, also known as Artemio Cardenas, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-115-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Rivera-Torres on direct appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Rivera-Torres has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7964

TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. HUBERS, Sergeant, Central Prison; ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer, Central Prison; DONNIE R. RAYNOR, Lieutenant, Central Prison; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Central Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-599-5-BO) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Terrance Lamount James appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See James v. Hubers , No. CA-04-599-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4.25

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT
 TO THE
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN FOSTER WHEELER NORTH AMERICA CORP.
 AND
 GARY T. NEDELKA

 

This FOURTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement between FOSTER WHEELER NORTH AMERICA CORP., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and GARY T. NEDELKA (the “Executive”), dated as of January 6, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”), is made and entered into effective as of January 1, 2013 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a (i) First Amendment to the Employment Agreement, effective December 21, 2009, (ii) Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement, dated August 30, 2010, and (iii) Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement, effective April 12, 2011 (the Employment Agreement, as so amended, the “Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to eliminate the gross-up it provides for taxable income on certain perquisites under the Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.7 of the Agreement, an amendment to the Agreement may be made pursuant to the written consent of the Company and the Executive.

 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the Agreement is amended as follows:

 

1.                                      Agreement Section 3.6 is hereby revised to read in its entirety as follows:

 

“3.6                         Perquisites.  During the Term, the Executive shall be provided by the Company with the following perquisites:

 

3.6.1  an annual physical examination;

 

3.6.2  an annual automobile allowance based upon the current Company policy; and

 

3.6.3  home office equipment and associated services for business use in Executive’s homes not to exceed $5,000 per year.”

 

As of the Amendment Effective Date, Executive shall not be eligible to receive a gross-up for taxable income on the perquisites provided under this Section 3.6.  For the avoidance of doubt, the elimination of the gross-up for taxable income in this Section 3.6 shall not affect the Executive’s gross-up on taxable income to the extent the Executive is eligible for a gross-up under another section of the Agreement.

 

2.                                      Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute one (1) and the same instrument.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
FOSTER   WHEELER NORTH AMERICA CORP.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Richard G. Lively
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Richard   G. Lively
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Senior   Vice President, Human Resources
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Gary T. Nedelka
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
GARY   T. NEDELKA
    


 

2
----

----

I Communications

Commission

----

Taux de change de l'euro (1)

20 septembre 2004

(2004/C 234/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: taux de change de référence publié par la Banque centrale européenne.

----

----

Non-opposition à une concentration notifiée

(Affaire COMP/M.3509 — KBC/RABOBANK/JV)

(2004/C 234/02)

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

Le 14 septembre 2004, la Commission a décidé de ne pas s'opposer à la concentration notifiée susmentionnée et de la déclarer compatible avec le marché commun. Cette décision est basée sur l'article 6, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil. Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible seulement en anglais et sera rendu public après suppression des secrets d'affaires qu'il puisse contenir. Il sera disponible:

----

----

Non-opposition à une concentration notifiée

(Affaire COMP/M.3538 — UNIQUA/CLARIS VITA)

(2004/C 234/03)

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

Le 13 septembre 2004, la Commission a décidé de ne pas s'opposer à la concentration notifiée susmentionnée et de la déclarer compatible avec le marché commun. Cette décision est basée sur l'article 6, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil. Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible seulement en italien et sera rendu public après suppression des secrets d'affaires qu'il puisse contenir. Il sera disponible:

----

----

Non-opposition à une concentration notifiée

(Affaire COMP/M.3551 — CD & R FUND VI/CULLIGAN)

(2004/C 234/04)

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

Le 15 septembre 2004, la Commission a décidé de ne pas s'opposer à la concentration notifiée susmentionnée et de la déclarer compatible avec le marché commun. Cette décision est basée sur l'article 6, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil. Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible seulement en anglais et sera rendu public après suppression des secrets d'affaires qu'il puisse contenir. Il sera disponible:

----
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0379 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0379

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 379/1999 of 19 February 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis **

*
Official Journal L 046 , 20/02/1999 P. 0015 - 0015 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 379/1999 of 19 February 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (2), and in particular Article 35a thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2248/98 (4), defined the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and the relevant methods of analysis;

Whereas, in order to harmonise the conditions for preparing samples of olive oil for analysis as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91, that Regulation should require the international standard EN ISO 5555 to be used in addition to standard EN ISO 661, which already applies;

Whereas in order to allow a period of adjustment to the new standards and to give time for introducing the means of applying them, the applicability of this Regulation should be deferred;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 is replaced by the following:

'3. Samples for determining the characteristics of oil as provided for in Annex I shall be taken in accordance with international standards EN ISO 661 on the preparation of test samples and EN ISO 5555 on sampling.`

Article 2

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

It shall apply from the first day of the fourth month following its entry into force.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.

(2) OJ L 210, 28. 7. 1998, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 248, 5. 9. 1991, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 282, 20. 10. 1998, p. 55.
(77 South. 1003)

#### HOWELL v. ROLL.

(6 Div. 191.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 29, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Thompson & Thompson, of Birmingham, for appellant. James A. Mitchell and W. T. Hill, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.