alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Columbia Futures Fund and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,532,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,669<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,947,943<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,947,943<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,616<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (66,404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (66,404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (66,404)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $30,669.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $385,047.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $226,785, accrued
management fee of $32,839 and administrative expenses payable of
$63,254.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $170,922,
net change in unrealized of $(114,057) and interest income of $88,751.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 30.10-3 Approved—TB/ALL.

The term *approved* means approved by the Commandant unless otherwise stated.
**MEMORANDUM**

**SUBJECT:** 3 - 2 2 - 1 2 Meeting with In dustry Coalition on December 2011 NHSM Proposal **FROM:** Tab Tesnau

O ffice of Resource Conservation and Recovery **TO:** Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329

On March 2 2 , 201 2 , EPA met with various members of an industry coalition (including the forest product industry) to discuss their issues and concerns with proposed revisions to the Non Hazardous Secondary

Materials (NHSM), published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2011 ( 76 FR 80452 ) . During that meeting, industry members expressed concerns with the overall structure of the NHSM rule , as well as provided information as to why various NHSMs should be listed as categorical non - waste fuels, including resinated wood , tire - derived fuel, w astewater tre atment residuals (i.e., pulp and paper sludges) , p aper recycling residuals/OCC rejects , p rocessed construction and demolition ( C&D ) wood , and non - hazardous treated wood . EPA asked clarifying questions. Both the agenda for the meeting as well as a list of attendees are attached. Attachments**Industry Coalition**  **meeting with EPA**  **on NHSM** March 22 from 1 to 2:30 Logistics: o **Location** : ORCR, Two Potomac Yard (North Building); 2733 Crystal Drive; Arlington/ Crystal City , VA ; Room 6100 o Attending: Tim Hunt (AF&PA/A WC ), Paul Noe (AF&PA) , Jeff Shumaker (IP), Mike Curtis (GP), Corey Brandt (RockTenn), Steve W oock (We yerhaeuser), Rob Kaufmann (Koch) , Vipin Varma (NCASI) , Susan Bodine, Tracey Norberg (RMA), Sarah Amick (RMA) , Bill Turley (CRMA), Gary Melow (BPA) **Draft A genda**  Introductions Legal issues (5 minutes) Program Structure (35 minute s )  C ontained gas  Contaminant comparisons  Definitions  Petition process  Homogeneous material  Comfort letters Non -waste fuel listing (45 minutes)  R esinated wood  TDF  W astewat er Treatment Residuals  Paper recycling residuals/OCC rejects  Process ed C&D  N on - hazardous treated wood  Other materials Wrap Up (5 minutes ):  Summarize key outstanding questions  Other issues – rule schedule
Exhibit 31.1

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Garry A. Prime, the principal executive officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofEvercel, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 18, 2003

/s/Garry A. Prime               Garry A. PrimeChief Executive Officer
# C_2012098EN.01001301.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin and Joëlle Hodin v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-20/12)

2012/C 98/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin and Joëlle Hodin

Applicants:

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of the Community principle of equal treatment set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (1) do the considerations relating to education policy and budgetary policy put forward by the State of Luxembourg, namely seeking to encourage an increase in the proportion of people with a higher education degree, which is currently inadequate compared with other countries as far as the resident population of Luxembourg is concerned, considerations which would be seriously threatened if the State of Luxembourg had to give financial aid for higher education studies to every student, without any connection with the society of the Grand Duchy, to carry out their higher education studies in any country in the world, which would lead to an unreasonable burden on the budget of the State of Luxembourg, constitute considerations, in terms of the Community case-law cited above, which are capable of justifying the difference in treatment resulting from the residence requirement imposed both on Luxembourg nationals and on nationals of other Member States in order to obtain aid for higher education studies?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending April 21, 2007

|Filer               | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|AMERICASBANK        | * Branch       | AmericasBank, Towson, Maryland, proposes to establish a branch at 1419 Forest Drive, Suite 10, Annapolis, Maryland.   | Newspaper:05/04/2007Federal Register:Not applicable    
|Newspaper:          | 05/04/2007    
|Federal Register:   | Not applicable
|NBRS FINANCIAL BANK | Premises       | NBRS Financial Bank, Rising Sun, Maryland, to increase its investment in bank premises in the amount of $1.5 million. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:          | Not applicable
|Federal Register:   | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT MAZUR, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11634 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

TOTAL FINANCE USA et al.

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 16, 2015, Plaintiff Robert Mazur (“Mazur”) filed this action against 

Defendants Total Finance USA, Life Insurance Company of North America, and 

Paulstra CRC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”). (See ECF #1.) It does not 

appear that Defendants have ever been served with the Complaint. If Defendants 

have been served, they have not filed any responsive pleadings, and Mazur has not 

moved for a default. 

Given the lack of progress in this case, the Court issued an Order to Show 

Cause on September 16, 2015 (the “Show Cause Order”). (See ECF #5.) In the 

Show Cause Order, the Court ordered Mazur to show cause, in writing, by no later 

than September 30, 2015, why his action “should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute.” (Id. at 1, Pg. ID 12.) The Court warned Mazur that his “[f]ailure to 

respond [to the Show Cause Order] may result in dismissal of the case.” (Id.) 

2:15-cv-11634-MFL-APP Doc # 6 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 13
2

Mazur never responded to the Show Cause Order as the Court required, nor 

has he provided any basis for the Court to conclude that he is prosecuting his case 

against Defendants. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 41.21

, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Mazur’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 8, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on October 8, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

                                                            

1

 The relevant provision of Local Rule 41.2 is as follows: “[W]hen it appears that 

... the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, the court may, on its own 

motion after reasonable notice or on application of a party, enter an order 

dismissing or remanding the case unless good cause is shown.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 

41.2. 

2:15-cv-11634-MFL-APP Doc # 6 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 14
Exhibit 10.2



 






Exhibit 10.2




RESTATED AMENDMENT

TO THE KEYCORP

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




     WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), a
nonqualified plan of deferred compensation for a certain select group of KeyCorp employees, and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation Committee to permit
amendments to the Plan, and



     WHEREAS, in conjunction with the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp determined it desirable to preserve
those earned and vested Plan benefits of December 31, 2004 in accordance with the law in effect
prior to the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and accordingly, has authorized
the freezing of the Plan to preserve such benefits as of December 31, 2004, and



     WHEREAS, to effectuate a simplified administration of those December 31, 2004 vested and
frozen Plan benefits in accordance with the laws in effect prior to the enactment of the Act, as
well as to comply with the requirements of the Act with regard to those participant Plan benefits
that have not vested as of December 31, 2004, the Compensation Committee has accordingly directed
the establishment of the KeyCorp Second Deferred Compensation Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation Committee, the Amendment to the
Plan is hereby restated to clarify that in conjunction with the freezing of the Plan, all not
vested participant Plan benefits as of December 31, 2004 shall be transferred to the KeyCorp Second
Deferred Compensation Plan effective January 1, 2005, as follows:



	 	 	 
	          1.

	 	A new Article XII has been added to the Plan to provide the following:
	 
	

	 	“ARTICLE XII

AMENDMENT TO FREEZE
	 
	

	 	12.1 No New Deferrals or Contributions to the Plan. As of January 1,
2005 the Plan shall be frozen with regard to all new accruals, deferrals, and
contributions to the Plan after December 31, 2004 and all Participants’ Plan
benefits that are earned and vested as of December 31, 2004 shall be
administered in accordance with the terms of the Plan as frozen and with the
requirements of the law in effect prior to the enactment of Section 409A of
the Code. In conjunction with the foregoing, all not vested participant Plan
benefits as of December 31, 2004 shall be transferred to the KeyCorp Second
Deferred Compensation Plan effective January 1, 2005 and shall be administered
in accordance with the requirements of the KeyCorp Second Deferred
Compensation Plan.”
	 
	          2.

	 	The amendment set forth in Paragraphs 1 shall be effective as of December 31, 2004.
	 
	          3.

	 	Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.






     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Restated Amendment to the Plan to be executed by
its duly authorized officer on January 20, 2005, to be effective as of December 28, 2004.



	 	 	 
	

	 	KEYCORP
	 
	

	 	By: /s/ Thomas E. Helfrich
	

	 	 
	 
	

	 	Title: Executive Vice President
# C_2015046EN.01004401.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

(Case T-643/11) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Review - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Rights of defence - Error of fact - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 046/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn and D. Gerardin, lawyers)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2011 L 268, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay four fifths of those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay four fifths of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3) | Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs;

| 4) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
§ 28.845 General requirements for electrical systems. ( a ) Electrical equipment exposed to the weather or in a location exposed to seas must be waterproof or watertight, or enclosed in a watertight housing.
( b ) Aluminum must not be used for current carrying parts of electrical equipment or wiring.
( c ) As far as practicable, electrical equipment must not be installed in lockers used to store paint, oil, turpentine, or other flammable or combustible liquids. If electrical equipment, such as lighting, is necessary in these spaces, it must be explosion-proof or intrinsically safe.
( d ) Explosion-proof and intrinsically safe equipment must meet the requirements of § 111.105 of this chapter.
( e ) Metallic enclosures and frames of electrical equipment must be grounded.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25781-25782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 17 new 
standards have

[[Page 25782]]

been initiated and 8 existing standards are being revised. More detail 
regarding these changes can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/02-27-07.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 9, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 77061).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2226 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 327.51 Statute of limitations not tolled by administrative consideration of claims.

The statute of limitations for filing a civil action under 46 U.S.C. 30101(b) is not tolled by the Maritime Administration's administrative consideration of a claim.
#### George W. Nichols and another, *Respondent, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Dwight, J., not sitting.