alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 193.15-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all new installations contracted for on or after March 1, 1968.
( b ) Installations contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, shall meet the requirements of § 193.15-90.
( c ) The requirements of this subpart are based on a “high pressure system,” *i.e.*, one in which the carbon dioxide is stored in liquid form at atmospheric temperature. Details for “low pressure systems,” *i.e.*, those in which the carbon dioxide is stored in liquid form at a continuously controlled low temperature, may be specifically approved by the Commandant where it is demonstrated that a comparable degree of safety and fire extinguishing ability is achieved.
EXHIBIT
4.14


 


Retention
award – Mr Graeme D Willis (as Acting Executive General Manager, Risk
Management)


 





















 


May 2004


 


Graeme Willis


Acting EGM
Credit Risk Management


Level 35, 500
Bourke Street


MELBOURNE VIC
3000


 


Dear


 


First of all,
I would like to thank you for all your help and support over the last few
months.  Now that the dust has settled, I
have been able to turn my mind towards ensuring that you are properly rewarded
for the extra responsibilities that you have taken on.  I am pleased to advise you of the following
remuneration arrangements.


 


Share Award


 


Subject to the
criteria outlined below, you will be entitled to a National share award of 60%
of your current TEC.  This equates to
$270,000.


 


•                  20% of this award
will be used to purchase shares with immediate effect.


 


•                  30% of this award
will be used to purchase shares upon the appointment of an incumbent to the
position you are acting in.  This would
also apply if you were the successful candidate.


 


•                  50% of this award
will be used to purchase shares six months after a permanent appointment has
been made.  This amount will be subject
to your co-operation in the handover process. 
If you are appointed to the role you will still be entitled to the
shares under this tranche.


 


The shares
will be purchased on a pre-tax basis at a price equal to the average of the
closing prices for the five days immediately following the date of this letter.


 


You will be
entitled to receive any dividends that are paid by the National while the
shares remain in trust.


 


The earliest
you can apply to have the shares released is six months after a permanent
appointment has been made to the position. 
The shares may remain in trust on a tax-deferred basis for up to ten
years from the date of issue(1).


 


Current Year Incentive Opportunity
(FY’04)


 


For the
current incentive year, you will have your opportunity increased on a pro-rated
basis to that of the previous incumbent, ie a target percentage of $250,000 for
the second half of this year.  Any
payment of the incentive would continue to remain subject to your achieving the
performance objectives of your previous position and the new position over the
year.


 


All other
terms and conditions of your current employment agreement remain the same.


 


I look forward
to your ongoing support and diligence during this challenging period for the
National Group and would thank you once again for your support to date.


 


Regards


 










(1)           While the shares remain in trust they
will be subject to forfeiture on serious misconduct only.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Forest Resources Management Corp. (“Forest”) because of questions raised regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, Forest's assets and Forest's announced contracts and agreements. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

*Therefore, it is ordered,*                     pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, January 17, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on January 30, 2007.                 

By the Commission. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-229 Filed 1-17-07; 11:52 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, February 16, 2007.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-227 Filed 1-17-07; 11:27 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# C_2013359EN.01000801.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Commission v Moschonaki

(Case T-476/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of application - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials - Action for damages)

2013/C 359/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and I. Ní Riagáin Düro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

AS

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it declares the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to be admissible, in so far as it annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 whereby the European Commission rejected Ms Chrysanthe Moschonaki’s application on the basis of that plea in law, and in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay Ms Moschonaki the sum of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it declares the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to be admissible, in so far as it annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 whereby the European Commission rejected Ms Chrysanthe Moschonaki’s application on the basis of that plea in law, and in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay Ms Moschonaki the sum of EUR 3 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of DAVID

STOJCEVSKI, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-11019

Hon. Linda V. Parker

Mag. Judge David R. Grand

Robert D. Ihrie (P26451)

Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24055 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2000

St. Clair Shores, MI 48080

(586) 778-7778

ihrieobrien@aol.com

hperakis@ihrieobrienlaw.com

MACOMB COUNTY

CORPORATION COUNSEL

John A. Schapka (P36731)

Robert S. Gazall (P41350)

Attorneys for Macomb County

Defendants

One S. Main Street, 8th Floor

Mount Clemens, MI 48043

(586) 469-6346

john.schapka@macombgov.org

robert.gazall@macombgov.org

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A.,

LL.M. (P37603)

Jonathan C. Lanesky (P59740)

Attorneys for Correct Care Solutions

Defendants

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

jlanesky@chapmanlawgroup.com

GORDON REES SCULLLY

MANSUKHANI, LLP

John T. Eads, III (P43815)

Cara M. Swindlehurst (P79953)

Co-Counsel for Macomb County

Defendants

400 Renaissance Center, Ste. 2600

(313) 426-9816

johneads@grsm.com

cswindlehurst@grsm.com

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO CORRECT CARE

SOLUTIONS, LLC

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 270, PageID.11310 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 3
2

NOW COMES Defendant CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, by and

through its counsel, together with Plaintiff DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of DAVID STOJCEVSKI, deceased, by and through

her counsel, hereby stipulates to the dismissal of this action against Defendant

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC with prejudice and without costs, fees or

attorney fees to any of the parties.

The Court, having reviewed the above stipulation, and being otherwise

familiar in the premises:

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this lawsuit is

DISMISSED against Defendant CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC with

prejudice and without 42 U.S.C. § 1988 costs, fees or attorney fees to any party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Agreed to and Stipulated By:

/s/ Harold A. Perakis (with permission)

Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorney for Plaintiff

24055 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2000

St. Clair Shores, MI 48080

(586) 778-7778

s/ Linda V. Parker

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 19, 2022

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 270, PageID.11311 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 3
3

hperakis@ihrieobrienlaw.com

/s/ Ronald W. Chapman Sr.

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., LL.M. (P37603)

Attorney for Correct Care Solutions Defendants

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 270, PageID.11312 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Sipex Corporation


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No.s 333-61650 and 333-73880) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No.
333-61562) on Form S-3 of Sipex Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sipex Corporation as of December
31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation.


                                              /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 1, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23



March 27, 1997




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Heartland Bancshares, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of Heartland Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 1997
relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of Heartland
Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 1996, included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Heartland Bancshares, Inc.


/s/ Gray Hunter Stenn
Gray Hunter Stenn
Certified Public Accountants
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Henry Pennie, *Appellant, v.*The Commissioners of the Department of Fire and Buildings of the City of Brooklyn, *Respondents*.

Order dismissing writ of *certiorari*reversed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.076-33 Manufacturer records. ( a ) Each manufacturer of inflatable PFDs shall keep the records of production inspections and tests as required by § 159.007-13 of this chapter, except that they must be retained for at least 120 months after the month in which the inspection or test was conducted.
( b ) In addition to the information required by § 159.007-13 of this chapter, the manufacturer's records must also include the following information: ( 1 ) For each test, the serial number of the test instrument used if more than one test instrument was available.
( 2 ) For each test and inspection, the identification of the samples used, the lot number, the approval number, and the number of PFDs in the lot.
( 3 ) For each lot rejected, the cause for rejection, any corrective action taken, and the final disposition of the lot.
( 4 ) For all materials used in production the— ( i ) Name and address of the supplier;
( ii ) Date of purchase and receipt;
( iii ) Lot number; and
( iv ) Where required by § 164.019-5 of this chapter, the certification received with standard components.
( 5 ) A copy of this subpart.
( 6 ) Each document incorporated by reference in § 160.076-11.
( 7 ) A copy of the approved plans and specifications.
( 8 ) The approval certificate obtained in accordance with § 2.75-1 and 2.75-5 of this chapter.
( 9 ) Certificates evidencing calibration of test equipment, including the identity of the agency performing the calibration, date of calibration, and results.
( c ) A description or photographs of procedures and equipment used in testing required by § 159.007-13(a)(4) of this chapter, is not required if the manufacturer's procedures and equipment meet the requirements of this subpart.
( d ) The records required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section must be kept for at least 120 months after preparation. All other records required by paragraph (b) of this section must be kept for at least 60 months after the PFD approval expires or is terminated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CRESTLINE CAPITAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AS OF THE TWELVE WEEK PERIOD ENDED MARCH 26, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                          60,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         707,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        306,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   953,779
<SALES>                                        962,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               962,348
<CGS>                                          940,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  940,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of UGC Europe, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene W. Schneider, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

Date:
November 13, 2003

| |  |  | /s/GENE W. SCHNEIDERGene W. Schneider Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7740

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TODD WALLACE KLEIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CR-91-425-A, CA-95-654-AM)

Submitted: February 29, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Wallace Klein, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Klein, Nos. CR-91-425-A; CA-95-654-AM (E.D. Va.

Oct. 3, 1995). We find that Klein did not clearly waive his right

to challenge his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the plea agreement. However, as the district court noted, the motion fails on the

merits. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: C.L.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: D.P., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 55 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: G.F.P.

PETITION OF: D.P., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 56 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Edward Dent agt. James O. Watkins.

*June,*1875.

*A decision in practice upon an order of arrest.*

Under the rule that requires an indorsement on an order of arrest, it is not sufficient that the indorsement he made on the original order only — it must he also made upon the copy served upon the defendant.

*Before*Speir, *J., at Chambers,*

*Edward S. Lawson,*for plaintiff.

*George W. Gibbons,*for defendant.

An order of arrest was granted in above action on the 3d day of May, 1875, against defendant for fraudulently obtaining money from the plaintiff, and defendant was held to bail. He was arrested by the sheriff on the tenth day of June, instant, and gave the usual undertaking, to which plaintiff’s attorney duly excepted. Defendant then served notice of justification of sureties, and they were examined as to their sufficiency on the twenty-second instant. Since that time a motion has been pending tó set the sureties aside as insufficient, the parties appearing daily in court for the purposes of the motion. Yesterday an order to show cause was granted^ by judge Speir why the order of arrest should not be vacated by reason of the failure to comply with rule six, requiring the indorsement of the rule upon the order of arrest. In the argument of the motion it appeared that the rule was indorsed upon the original order delivered to the sheriff, but not upon *276the copy served upon defendant. Attorney for the plaintiff insisted that the rule had been complied with, and that being simply directory to the sheriff, did not go to the merits of the arrest, even if it had been omitted from the original. The court thought otherwise, and vacated the order of. arrest, holding that the rule should be indorsed upon the copy order as well as original. TSTo other point came up for argument on the motion.