alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(dd)





                               February   , 1997





Mr. Alfred R. Kahn
205 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019

Dear Mr. Kahn:

         This is to confirm our agreement that, effective as of the date hereof,
the Employment Agreement between us dated as of March 12, 1991 (the "Agreement")
is amended as follows:

        1.  The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted
in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:

                  Company employs Executive and Executive accepts employment
         with Company, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from
         the date hereof to March 31, 1999 (the "Termination Date").

2.  Section 2(b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.

3.  Section 3(b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
following substituted therefor:

                  (b) Bonuses. In addition to his Fixed Salary, Executive shall
         receive, with respect to each full fiscal year during the term hereof,
         commencing with the year ending December 31, 1997 an annual bonus (the
         "Profit Bonus") equal to ten percent (10% of the Company's annual
         "Income Before Income Tax Provision" as stated in the Company's
         financial statements in its Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Profit
         Bonus shall be payable within 120 days after the end of the Company's
         fiscal year.

4.  The first sentence of Section 3(c) is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
following substituted therefor:

                  Executive shall be entitled to receive the sum of One Thousand
         Dollars ($1,000) per month as an automobile allowance provided at the
         expense of the Company during the term of this Agreement.



<PAGE>



        5. In all other respects, the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect in accordance with its original terms.

         If the foregoing sets forth a correct statement of our agreement,
please sign the duplicate hereof in the place indicated and return it to us.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            4KIDS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.



                                            By
                                                    Joseph P. Garrity
                                                Executive Vice President



ACCEPTED AND AGREED:




       Alfred R. Kahn



<PAGE>
#### § 2704.100 Purpose of these rules.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504, provides for the award of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and entities who are parties to certain administrative proceedings (called “adversary adjudications”) before this Commission. An eligible party may receive an award when it prevails over the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), unless the Secretary of Labor's position in the proceeding was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. In addition to the foregoing ground of recovery, a non-prevailing eligible party may receive an award if the demand of the Secretary is substantially in excess of the decision of the Commission and unreasonable, unless the applicant party has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or special circumstances make an award unjust. The rules in this part describe the parties eligible for each type of award. They also explain how to apply for awards, and the procedures and standards that this Commission will use to make the awards. In addition to the rules in this part, the Commission's general rules of procedure, part 2700 of this chapter, apply where appropriate.

[71 FR 44209, Aug. 4, 2006]
#### Jacqueline P. BLAND, Executrix of the Estate of Homer Isaac Bland, deceased, Appellant, v. The HOPEWELL YACHT CLUB, INCORPORATED, United States of America, American Power Boat Association, William A. Ritner, Sr., and Calvert Skeeter Johnson, Appellees.

No. 11236.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 31, 1967.

Decided June 5, 1967.

Harry P. Anderson, Jr., Richmond, Va. (D. R. Taylor, Williamsburg, Va., and Satterfield, Haw, Anderson, Parkerson & Beazley, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Harvey M. Katz, Attorney, Department of Justice (Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John C. Eldridge, Attorney, Department of Justice, and Claude V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee United States of America.

Edward E. Lane, Richmond, Va. (Robert L. Taylor, Richmond, Va., and William A. Smith, Staten Island, N. Y., on brief), for other appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This suit grows out of a collision between two hydroplanes, racing boats in the “266-cubic-inch class,” at a race meet in which one of the drivers was killed. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the death of the deceased driver.

The District Court found that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the deceased and entered judgment for the defendants. We find ample support in the record for the findings, conclusions and judgment below.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that this
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                        By: /s/ James C. McGill
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  James C. McGill
                                            Title: President and Chief Executive
                                            Officer


                                        By: /s/ A. Christine Baker
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  A. Christine Baker
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer,
                                            Secretary and Treasurer

Date: February 11, 2005
Order entered January 16, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00802-CV

HOSSEIN S. NAMDARKHAN AND BARDIA NAMDARKHAN, Appellants

V.

GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C., MARK C. ENOCH, 

MARK C. ENOCH, PC, AND MATTHEW ENOCH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-00853

ORDER

Before the Court is the January 14, 2019 joint motion of appellants for an extension of 

time to file a joint brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
(80 South. 153)

#### THOMAS v. COOPER.

(5 Div. 255.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 19, 1918.)

Trial • <&wkey;171 — Instructions — Amirmative Charge.

Where evidence was conflicting, it was error for court to give affirmative charge, where there was no written request therefor; such charge being upon the effect of evidence, which Code 1907, § 5362, requires to be given only on request.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action by J. D. Cooper against W. E. Thomas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Middleton & Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellant.

Curry & Walker, of Clanton, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

This was, an action by plaintiff to recover damages of the defendant for an alleged assault and battery. It affirmatively appears from the recitals in the record that after the conclusion of the testimony, which was in conflict, the court ex-mero mota in its oral charge gave the affirmative charge for the plaintiff, the court in this connection stating:

> “Gentlemen, I give you in this case, for the plaintiff, what we call the affirmative charge in this case. I tell you that it is your duty to find for the plaintiff in this case for whatever damages the plaintiff has sustained.”

To this action of the court the defendant reserved an exception. The exception is well taken, as this charge was not requested in writing, and was clearly a charge upon the effect of the evidence, in violation of section 5362 of the Code of 1907. The court is not'permitted, under this statute, to charge *580upon the effect of the evidence, unless required to do so by one of the parties to the cause. No citation of authorities on this question is necessary, for the hooks are full of them. This error necessitates that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and the cause remanded, and renders it unnecessary to deal with other questions presented on this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.
(76 South. 471)

#### RICHEY v. STATE.

(7 Div. 450.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 1917.)

Criminal Law <&wkey; 1090(14) — Appeal and Error-Bill of Exceptions — Necessity—Instructions.

Where time for signing and filing bill of exceptions in criminal ease has expired, and there appears no bill of exceptions in the record, the Court of Appeals will not review charges given and refused.

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thos. W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

Ed Richey was convicted of the crime of seduction, and appeals.

Affirmed.

, P. F. Wharton and. Harvey A. Emerson, both of Anniston, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted for seduction. The indictment changes that Ed Richey, alias, etc., a man, did, by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery, or promise of marriage, seduce Margarte Tidwell, an unmarried woman, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama. The defendant was convicted on October 16, 1916. The appeal was taken on October 18, 1916. The time for signing and filing:' of the bill of exceptions having expired, arid there appearing no bill of exceptions in the record,' this court will not review the given and refused charges. Mitchell v. State, 15 Ala. App. 109, 72 South. 507; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 South. 36.

The record is without error, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed'.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 42 

Relating to the approval of the proposed agreement for nuclear cooperation 

between the United States and the Russian Federation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24 (legislative day, JUNE 23), 2008 

Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. LUGAR) (by request) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Relations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2159, for not to exceed 45 calendar days 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the approval of the proposed agreement for nuclear cooperation between the United States and the 

Russian Federation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress does favor the proposed agreement for 

4 cooperation transmitted to the Congress by the President 

5 on May 13, 2008. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
§ 500.146 Continuation of matters involving violations of FLCRA. ( a ) Any matter involving the revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew a Certification of Registration issued under FLCRA and any matter involving the refusal to issue a certificate authorized under FLCRA shall continue through final administrative determination in accordance with the provisions of FLCRA and the regulations issued thereunder.
( b ) Any matter involving the assessment of a civil money penalty for a violation of FLCRA will continue through final administrative determination in accordance with the provisions of FLCRA and the regulations issued thereunder.
( c ) The rules of practice for implementation of administrative enforcement for violations of FLCRA referred to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge on or after April 14, 1983, shall be the rules of practice provided in §§ 500.220 through 500.262 and the official record shall be maintained in accordance with §§ 500.270 and 500.271 of these regulations.
( d ) The rules of practice for implementation of administrative enforcement for violations of FLCRA referred to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge prior to April 14, 1983 shall be the rules of practice provided in 29 CFR 40.201 through 40.262.
#### § 1915.1048 Formaldehyde.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1048 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1048).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP97-14-006]

Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing certain Negotiated Rate Arrangements. Midwestern requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangements effective November 1, 2000.

Midwestern states that the filed Negotiated Rate Arrangements reflect negotiated rates between Midwestern and Nicor Gas (Nicor) for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A beginning November 1, 2000.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will  be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13112  Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
çc0ST.

I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 4L

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

Mr. Richard Corey

Executive Officer

CaliforniaAirResources Board JUL 1 0 2014

1001 “I” Street

Sacramento, California 95812

Re: Comp1et,ness determination for the portion of the March 6, 2014 submittal addressing the 2010

Nc2iS

Deaey:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Air Resources Board (ARB) on March 6. 2014 (2014 Submittal).

The SIP revision was submitted to address the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 11 0(a)( 1)

and 1 10(a)(2) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS), often referred to as “infrastructure” SIP requirements.

ARB previously submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 N02 NAAQS on December 12,

2012 that addressed all section 110(a)(2) requirements, except section 110(a)(2)(A). which pertains to

emission limits and other general control measures. That submittal became complete by operation of law

on June 12, 2013. ARBs 2014 Submittal, which in part “provides additional information and

clarification” on previous infrastnicture SIP submittals, addresses the outstanding submittal requirement

for section 1 10(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 N02 NAAQS.

We have determined that the portion of the 2014 Submittal addressing section 1 10(a)(2)(A) for the 2010

NO2NAAQS is complete. Given that the 2014 Submittal also includes foil submittals for four separate

NAAQS, as well as supplemental information for other previous submittals, we have not yet made a

formal completeness determination for the other portions ofthe 2014 Submittal. If we do not conclude

our completeness review for the remaining portions of the 2014 Submittal, those portions will be

deemed complete by operation of law on September 6, 2014.

If you have any questions please contact me (415-947-8715) orMatt Lakin (415-972-3851).

Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

cc: Ravi Ramalingam, ARB

Gayle Sweigert, ARB

Printed nit Recyled Paper
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-275-007]

      ( print page 34159)    
Take notice that on May 16, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 405. Tennessee requests an effective date of June 16, 2000.

Tennessee states that this filing is in compliance with the Commission's April 13, 2000 Order on Remand in the above-referenced docket (Remand Order). Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 91 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2000). Tennessee further states that the filing eliminates the 20-year term-matching cap from Tennessee's net present value firm capacity allocation method.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13225 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
- 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 > Employment in Service and Trade Industries in Maine

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Sutherland, Arthur T. (Arthur Theodore). 						*Employment in Service and Trade Industries in Maine : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 180*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1940,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5453,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 501.40 Consent findings and order. ( a ) *General.* At any time after the commencement of a proceeding under this part, but prior to the reception of evidence in any such proceeding, a party may move to defer the receipt of any evidence for a reasonable time to permit negotiation of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the whole or any part of the proceeding. The allowance of such deferment and the duration thereof shall be at the discretion of the ALJ, after consideration of the nature of the proceeding, the requirements of the public interest, the representations of the parties, and the probability of an agreement being reached which will result in a just disposition of the issues involved.
( b ) *Content.* Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of a proceeding or any part thereof shall also provide: ( 1 ) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
( 2 ) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the notice of administrative determination (or amended notice, if one is filed), and the agreement;
( 3 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the ALJ; and
( 4 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement.
( c ) *Submission.* On or before the expiration of the time granted for negotiations, the parties or their authorized representatives or their counsel may: ( 1 ) Submit the proposed agreement for consideration by the ALJ; or
( 2 ) Inform the ALJ that agreement cannot be reached.
( d ) *Disposition.* In the event an agreement containing consent findings and an order is submitted within the time allowed therefor, the ALJ, within 30 calendar days thereafter, shall, if satisfied with its form and substance, accept such agreement by issuing a decision based upon the agreed findings.