alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

Calendar No. 345 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 292 

Designating the week beginning September 9, 2007, as ‘‘National Assisted 

Living Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mr. CRAPO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning September 9, 2007, as 

‘‘National Assisted Living Week’’. 

Whereas the number of elderly and disabled citizens of the 

United States is increasing dramatically; 

Whereas assisted living is a long-term care service that fosters choice, dignity, independence, and autonomy in the 

elderly and disabled across the United States; 

Whereas the National Center for Assisted Living created National Assisted Living Week; 

Whereas the theme of National Assisted Living Week 2007 

is ‘‘Legacies of Love’’; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SRES 292 RS 

Whereas this theme highlights the privilege, value, and responsibility of passing the legacies of the lives of the elderly and disabled of the United States down through the 

generations that care for and love them: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week beginning September 9, 

3 2007, as ‘‘National Assisted Living Week’’; and 

4 (2) urges all people of the United States— 

5 (A) to visit friends and loved ones who re6 side at assisted living facilities; and 

7 (B) to learn more about assisted living 

8 services, including how assisted living services 

9 benefit communities in the United States. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 345 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 292 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning September 9, 

2007, as ‘‘National Assisted Living Week’’. 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7446

ROBERT W. GAYNOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDSEL TAYLOR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief 

District Judge. (0:10-cv-02724-MBS)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso 

Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert W. Gaynor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Gaynor has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
### NUMBER 13

- 1 9

- 00 261

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF S.T ., A JUVENILE

On a ppeal from the County Court

of Victoria County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the

appellate record. Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellan t has

been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant and

his mother ha ve the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before October

1 5 , 2019 , and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date

upon which the appellate record was made available to appellant and his mother

. See2

Kelly v. State , 436 S.W. 3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant and his mother shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate

record was first made available to file a pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have

twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

27th day of September , 20 1 9

.
§ 553.212 Twenty percent limitation on nonexempt work. ( a ) Employees engaged in law enforcement activities as described in § 553.211 may also engage in some nonexempt work which is not performed as an incident to or in conjunction with their law enforcement activities. The performance of such nonexempt work will not defeat either the section 13(b)(20) or 7(k) exemptions unless it exceeds 20 percent of the total hours worked by that employee during the workweek or applicable work period. A person who spends more than 20 percent of his/her working time in nonexempt activities is not considered to be an employee engaged in law enforcement activities for purposes of this part.
( b ) Public agency fire protection and law enforcement personnel may, at their own option, undertake employment for the same employer on an occasional or sporadic and part-time basis in a different capacity from their regular employment. (See § 553.30.) The performance of such work does not affect the application of the section 13(b)(20) or 7(k) exemptions with respect to the regular employment. In addition, the hours of work in the different capacity need not be counted as hours worked for overtime purposes on the regular job, nor are such hours counted in determining the 20 percent tolerance for nonexempt work for law enforcement personnel discussed in paragraph (a) of this section.
[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 76 FR 18856, Apr. 5, 2011]
On respondent’s motion for reconsideration filed April 2,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (113 Or App 750, 832 P2d 52 (1992)) withdrawn; conviction affirmed and remanded for resentencing June 2, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RUSSELL L. WHITE, *Appellant.*

(9011-36814; CA A68807)

852 P2d 283

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for motion.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Motion for reconsideration allowed; opinion withdrawn; conviction affirmed and remanded for resentencing. *State v. Ferrell,*315 Or 213, 843 P2d 939 (1992).
PROMISSORY NOTE



$28,000.00                                                         May 14, 1998


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of twenty-eight thousand
and 00/100 DOLLARS ($28,000.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal
balance at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire principal
balance plus accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:       4/9/99
     ----------------------

Signature:    /S/
          -----------------
EXHIBIT 21


                                   LUKENS INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                December 27, 1997


Lukens Inc. has 14 direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries:

                                                              State or Other
                                                              Jurisdiction of
                                                               Incorporation

Brandywine Valley Railroad Company                              Delaware
Encoat-North Arlington, Inc.                                    Delaware
Energy Coatings Company                                         Delaware
LI Acquisition Corporation                                      Delaware
LI Service Company                                            Pennsylvania
Lukens Development Corporation                                  Delaware
Lukens Foreign Sales Corporation                                Barbados
Lukens Management Corporation                                 Pennsylvania
Lukens Steel Company                                          Pennsylvania
Pennock Corp.                                                   Delaware
Sponsor's Plan Asset Management, Inc.                           Delaware
Washington Specialty Metals Corporation                         Illinois
Washington Specialty Metals Inc.                                 Canada
Washington Steel Corporationa                                   Delaware
#### § 458.62 Hearing procedures.

The proceedings following issuance of the notice of hearing shall be as provided in §§ 458.69 through 458.92 of this part.
§ 4204.22 PBGC action on requests. ( a ) *General.* The PBGC shall approve a request for a variance or exemption if PBGC determines that approval of the request is warranted, in that it— ( 1 ) Would more effectively or equitably carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA; and
( 2 ) Would not significantly increase the risk of financial loss to the plan.
( b ) *Notice of pendency of request.* As soon as practicable after receiving a variance or exemption request containing all the information specified in § 4204.21, the PBGC shall publish a notice of the pendency of the request in the Federal Register. The notice shall provide that any interested person may, within the period of time specified therein, submit written comments to the PBGC concerning the request. The notice will usually provide for a comment period of 45 days.
( c ) *PBGC decision on request.* The PBGC shall issue a decision on a variance or exemption request as soon as practicable after the close of the comment period described in paragraph (b) of this section. PBGC's decision shall be in writing, and if the PBGC disapproves the request, the decision shall state the reasons therefor. Notice of the decision shall be published in the Federal Register.
ex10-8.htm


Exhibit 10.8



 


ALLONGE TO THIRD TERM NOTE




As of June 1, 2012







THIS ALLONGE TO THIRD TERM NOTE (THE “ALLONGE”) IS TO BE ATTACHED PERMANENTLY TO THE THIRD TERM NOTE DATED JULY 27, 2011 AND MADE BY EDAC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, GROS-ITE INDUSTRIES, INC., AND APEX MACHINE TOOL COMPANY, INC. (collectively, the “BORROWER”) TO THE ORDER OF TD BANK, N.A. IN THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($5,131,000.00) (THE “NOTE”).







All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Allonge shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Note.







Except as set forth in this Allonge, the Note remains in full force and effect and has not been modified or amended in any respect.







This Allonge and the Note shall be read, construed and interpreted as one and the same instrument.







The Note is hereby amended so that any and all references to “Borrower” or “Maker” shall hereinafter mean and include EDAC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, GROS-ITE INDUSTRIES, INC., APEX MACHINE TOOL COMPANY, INC., and EBTEC CORPORATION, jointly and severally.












[remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]


 




  





  











  






 


To the extent necessary to assure the liability of the Borrower to the holder of the Note, the signature of the entities constituting the Borrower appearing below shall be construed as both an endorsement and a reissue of the Note.


 




	 	 	EDAC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/Glenn L. Purple 	 
	 	 	Name: Glenn L. Purple	 
	 	 	Its Chief Financial Officer	 
	 	 	Duly Authorized	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	GROS-ITE INDUSTRIES, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/Glenn L. Purple 	 
	 	 	Name: Glenn L. Purple	 
	 	 	Its Secretary	 
	 	 	Duly Authorized	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	APEX MACHINE TOOL COMPANY, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/Glenn L. Purple 	 
	 	 	Name: Glenn L. Purple	 
	 	 	Its Secretary	 
	 	 	Duly Authorized	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EBTEC CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/Glenn L. Purple 	 
	 	 	Name: Glenn L. Purple	 
	 	 	Its Treasurer	 
	 	 	Duly Authorized
JilDp
 Maryland Department ofPlanning Martin Richard Eberhart Hall 0 Mallry Secretary Governor 

Anthony G. Brown Matthew J. Power 

LJ. Governor D¢uty Secretary 

February 17,2009 

Ms. Deborah Rabin 

Regulations Coordinator, Air & Radiation Management Administration 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Suite 730 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS 

State Application Identifier: MD20090213-0127 

Project Description: Proposed Amendments to Regulations of State Implementation Plan involving: Wood Boilers and 

Adhesives and Sealants: Public Hearing on March 18, 2009 

Project Location: Maryland 

Clearinghouse Contact: Bob Rosenbush 

Dear Ms. Rabin: 

Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Participation in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and 

Coordination (MIRe) process helps ensure project consistency with plans, programs, and objectives of State agencies and local 

governments. 

Notice of your application is being provided to State and local public officials through the Intergovernmental Monitor, which is a 

weekly Internet publication identifying projects received by the State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance. This 

document may be viewed at http://www.mdp.state.md.us/CLHOUSE/monitorfy04.htm. The project has been assigned a unique 

State Application Identifier that should be used on all documents and correspondence. 

One form is enclosed with this letter. The "Project Status Form" should be completed and returned after you receive notice that 

your project was approved or disapproved. 

All MIRC requirements have been met in accordance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 14.24.04) and this concludes 

the review process for the above referenced project. If you need assistance or have questions, contact the State Clearinghouse staff 

person noted above at 4 I0-767-4490 or through e-mail atbrosenbush@mdp.state.md.us. Thank you for your cooperation with 

the MIRe process. 

Sincerely, 

'Wt0 C. /~l}v1V1/ Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary 

for Clearinghouse and Communications 

LCJ:BR 

Enclosures 

cc: Kathleen Blinebury - EPA 

09-0/27_NMNEWdoc 

301 WestPreston Street - Suite 1101 - Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2305
 

Telephone: 410.767.4500 - Fax: 410.767.4480 - Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272 - Tl'Y Users: Maryland Rtl,!!
 

Internet: www.MDP.state.md.us
§ 4211.13 Modifications to the direct attribution method. ( a ) *Error in direct attribution method.* The unfunded vested benefits allocated to a withdrawing employer under the direct attribution method are the sum of the employer's attributable liability, determined under section 4211(c)(4)(A)(i) and (B) of ERISA, and the employer's share of the plan's unattributable liability, determined under section 4211(c)(4)(E) and allocated to the employer under section 4211(c)(4)(F). Plan sponsors should allocate unattributable liabilities on the basis of the employer's share of the attributable liabilities. However, section 4211(c)(4)(F) of ERISA, which describes the allocation of unattributable liabilities, contains a typographical error. Therefore, plans adopting the direct attribution method must modify the phrase “as the amount determined under subparagraph (C) for the employer bears to the sum of the amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all employers under the plan” in section 4211(c)(4)(F) by substituting “subparagraph (B)” for “subparagraph (C)” in both places it appears.
( b ) *Allocating unattributable liability based on contributions in period before withdrawal.* A plan that is amended to adopt the direct attribution method may provide that instead of allocating the unattributable liability in accordance with section 4211(c)(4)(F) of ERISA, the employer's share of the plan's unattributable liability is determined by multiplying the plan's unattributable liability determined under section 4211(c)(4)(E) by a fraction— ( 1 ) The numerator of which is the total amount of contributions required to be made by the withdrawing employer over a period of consecutive plan years (not fewer than five) ending before the withdrawal; and
( 2 ) The denominator of which is the total amount contributed under the plan by all employers for the same period of years used in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, decreased by any amount contributed by an employer that withdrew from the plan during those plan years.
[61 FR 34097, July 1, 1996, as amended at 86 FR 1273, Jan. 8, 2021]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
registrant's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1878919
<SECURITIES>                                    300000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3120252
<ALLOWANCES>                                    346900
<INVENTORY>                                     601157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5698006
<PP&E>                                         1491201
<DEPRECIATION>                                  752285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6646852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1029392
<BONDS>                                         600000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0000
<PREFERRED>                                       0000
<COMMON>                                        268139
<OTHER-SE>                                     4644821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6646852
<SALES>                                       12748100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12748100
<CGS>                                          7192907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7192907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3574817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               64989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1982808
<INCOME-TAX>                                    706961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1275847
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0000
<CHANGES>                                         0000
<NET-INCOME>                                   1275847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)


                   LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                         Name under which
                                       Jurisdiction       such subsidiary
       Name of subsidiary            of Incorporation      does business
-------------------------------      ----------------     ----------------

Lufkin Industries Canada, Ltd.     Province of Alberta,         Same
                                     Canada

P. T. Lufkin Indonesia             Republic of Indonesia        Same


Lufkin Industries FSC, Inc.        Barbados                     Same


Lufkin Industries Europe, Bv.      The Netherlands              Same


Lufkin Japan, L. L. C.             Japan                        Same


Lufkin France                      France                       Same
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2008



|I. | Parent Company
|-- | --------------

Lydall, Inc.



|II. | First tier
|--- | ----------

Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc.

Lydall Filtration/Separation, Inc.

Lydall International, Inc.

Lydall France S.A.S.

Lydall Deutschland Holding GmbH

Lydall Netherlands B.V.



|III. | Second tier
|---- | -----------

Charter Medical, Ltd.

Lydall Asia Limited

Lydall
Thermal/Acoustical Sales, LLC

Lydall Industrial Thermal Solutions, Inc.

Trident II, Inc.

Lydall
Filtration/Separation S.A.S.

Lydall Thermique/Acoustique S.A.S.

Lydall Gerhardi GmbH & Co. KG

Lydall Solutech B.V.



|IV. | Third tier
|--- | ----------

Lydall Industrial Thermal
Sales/Service, LLC

Lydall Gerhardi Verwaltungs GmbH



|V. | Fourth tier
|-- | -----------

Affinity Industries Asia, LLC
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 No. 03-1196

___________

James S. Carriere, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the

John E. Potter, Postmaster General of * District of North Dakota.

the United States; National Association *

of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees, *

*

___________

 No. 03-1198

___________

Randy J. Devitt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

John E. Potter, Postmaster General of *

the United States; National Association *

of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, *

*

Appellees. *
1

The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota. 

-2-

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2003

Filed: December 10, 2003

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, postal workers James S. Carriere and Randy J.

Devitt appeal the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in their

employment-related actions against the postmaster general and their union. Having

carefully reviewed the record, see Jensen v. Henderson, 315 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir.

2002) (standard of review), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, see

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________