alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 11, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ELAINE CHILDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KANSAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 457, Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-3380 (D.C. No. 04-CV-1168-JTM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BALDOCK , andEBEL , Circuit Judges. Elaine Childers appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Kansas Unified School District No. 457 , on her claim that, after the school district found out she is an insulin-depende nt diabetic, it terminated her employment as a school bus driver and denied her a transfer to another position,-2-

in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). On appeal, Ms. Miller contends that [w]hen an ADA plaintiff has alleged a defendant ter minated her for a health-connected reason such as becoming insulin-de pendent [then] the employer ha[s] a duty to commence the ADA’s int eractive process to assist the employee in seeking ways the impairment can be accommodated by reassignment to fill available posi tions for which the plaintiff’s skills and work experience show she is qualified. Aplt. Br. at 1. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, applyin g the same standard as that court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the app licable law pursuant to the above-mentioned standard, we hold that Ms. Chil ders has not identified any reversible error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons stated in its order dated June 30, 2005, Aplt. App. at 91.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
§ 553.3 Coverage—general. ( a ) ( 1 ) In 1966, Congress amended the FLSA to extend coverage to State and local government employees engaged in the operation of hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and mass transit systems.
( 2 ) In 1972, the Education Amendments further extended coverage to employees of public preschools.
( 3 ) In 1974, the FLSA Amendments extended coverage to virtually all of the remaining State and local government employees who were not covered as a result of the 1966 and 1972 legislation.
( b ) Certain definitions already in the Act were modified by the 1974 Amendments. The definition of the term “employer” was changed to include public agencies and that of “employee” was amended to include individuals employed by public agencies. The definition of “enterprise” contained in section 3(r) of the Act was modified to provide that activities of a public agency are performed for a “business purpose.” The term “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” defined in section 3(s) of the Act was expanded to include public agencies.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

              /s/ Cheryl D. Davis
---------------------------------------------------
Cheryl D. Davis
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Corporate
Taxes, and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)
March 16, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20670]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 9, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. FNB United Corp., Asheboro, North Carolina; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Bank of Granite Corporation, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Granite, both in 
Granite Falls, North Carolina.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 10, 
2011.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-20670 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
**Docket Number F AA** **- 2014**  **- 0626** 



### . **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date 

### Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  1/24/14 **Regional Airline Association** 1 /24/14 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  1/24/14 **Airlines for America Robert Ireland**  1/24/14
Argued and submitted May 13,

affirmed December 23, 1992

#### Robert CARLOCK, D.C., *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, *Respondent.*

(CA A71846)

843 P2d 1024

Brian R. Barnes, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Horton & Koenig, Eugene.

John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Noren v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners,*117 Or App 337, 843 P2d 1021 (1992).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 31 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 31

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                 relating to United States citizenship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 9, 2008

 Mr. Vitter introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                 relating to United States citizenship.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification by 
the Congress:

                              ``Article --

    ``A person born in the United States shall not be a citizen of the 
United States unless--
            ``(1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the United 
        States;
            ``(2) one parent of the person is an alien lawfully 
        admitted for permanent residence in the United States who 
        resides in the United States;
            ``(3) one parent of the person is an alien performing 
        active service in the Armed Forces of the United States; or
            ``(4) the person is naturalized in accordance with the laws 
        of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit (21)


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE MEAD CORPORATION*



                                        State or Jurisdiction
Name                                      of Incorporation
----                                    ---------------------

AT-A-GLANCE, INC.                            New York
Escanaba Paper Company                       Michigan
Forest Kraft Company                         Delaware
MB Pulp Company                              Delaware
MCB Woodlands and Services, Inc.             Alabama
Mead Coated Board, Inc.                      Delaware
Mead Emballage, S.A.                         Paris, France
Mead Foreign Holdings, Inc.                  Ohio
Mead International Ireland                   Dublin, Ireland
Mead Oxford Corporation                      Delaware
Mead Packaging International, Inc.           Ohio
Mead Panelboard, Inc.                        Ohio



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

*    The names of additional subsidiaries have been omitted because the unnamed
     subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
     constitute a significant subsidiary. Subsidiaries which are consolidated
     into the above-listed subsidiaries are also omitted.
#### § 784.13 “Production.”

To understand the meaning of “production” of goods for commerce as used in the Act it is necessary to refer to the definition in section 3(j) of the term “produced.” A detailed discussion of the application of the term as defined is contained in part 776 of this chapter, dealing with the general coverage of the Act. Section 3(j) provides that “produced” as used in the Act “means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on in any State; and for the purposes of this Act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any closely related process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof, in any State.” (For the definition of “State” see § 784.15.)
#### HAZELTON v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10592.

Decided Feb 10, 1930

William F. Waldeisen, Cleveland, for Hazelton.

Ray T. Miller, Pros. Atty, Cleveland, for State.

LEVINE, J.

The prosecuting attorney apparently was under the impression that error proceedings were prosecuted direct from the Justice of the Peace court to this court. If that were the case his motion would be well taken but such was not the case. The matter comes into this court seeking a reversal of the order of the common pleas court affirming the conviction, and is in our opinion a regular proceeding sanctioned by law and for that reason the motion of the prosecuting attorney for a dismissal of the error proceedings will be overruled.

The charge upon which Mrs. Hazelton was convicted was that of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The bill of exceptions which contains a record of the testimony offered before the Justice of the Peace discloses that two pint bottles were found in Mrs. Hazelton’s automobile; that said pint bottles contained liquor. No one testified as to what the liquor was. No chemical analysis was made or attempted in this case. It is incumbent upon the state to prove the allegations of the affidavit that the liquor found in her possession was intoxicating liquor. As there is a total absence of such evidence the conviction was, in our opinion, improper.

The judgment of the common pleas court affirming the conviction is therefore reversed and the plaintiff in error is ordered discharged.

Vickery, PJ., concurs. Sullivan, J., not participating.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 11
Statement re: computation of earnings per share


LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

                                               Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    2001            2000
                                                ------------   -------------
                                                        (unaudited)

Net loss from continuing operations             $   (12,175)   $    (22,283)
                                                ============   =============
Net loss                                        $   (12,175)   $    (25,168)
                                                ============   =============
Weighted average shares of common stock
outstanding used in computing basic and
diluted net loss per share                           29,705          29,630
                                                ============   =============

Basic and diluted net loss per share            $     (0.41)   $      (0.85)
                                                ============   =============
ex10-9.htm


Exhibit 10.9



ALLONGE TO MORTGAGE NOTE










 


As of June 1, 2012







THIS ALLONGE TO MORTGAGE NOTE (THE “ALLONGE”) IS TO BE ATTACHED PERMANENTLY TO THE MORTGAGE NOTE DATED AS OF MAY 27, 2009 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 TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($2,640,000.00) (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
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-055] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announce a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory Committee. 

# DATES:

Thursday, June 8, 2000, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Friday, June 9, 2000, 9 a.m. to 12 noon. 

# ADDRESSES:

NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, MIC-5, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ralph C. Thomas III, Code K, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Room 9K70, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-2088. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: 

—Best Practices on Teaming Agreements Report 

—Small Disadvantaged Business Participation in Major NASA Contracts 

—Report on ISO 9000 Status 

—Action Items 

—NASA Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program Update 

—Report of Chair 

—Public Comment 

—Report on New MBRAC Panels 

—Report on NASA FY 2000 Small Business Office Priorities 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register. 

Dated: May 17, 2000. 

Matthew M. Crouch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-13351 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 64926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25509]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

 Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 21 November 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street 
NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks, and memorials. Draft agendas and additional 
information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: 
www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit 
written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, 
Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by 
emailing CFAStaff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-2000. Individuals 
requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should 
contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: October 22, 2013, in Washington DC.
Thomas Luebke,
AIA, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-25509 Filed 10-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6331-01-M
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-1123 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-037-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date