alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending November 11, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
# C_2012165EN.01001202.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/12

---

Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-143/12)

2012/C 165/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8, to reconsider and, if appropriate, to update the existing permits and to ensure that all the existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and 9b) and 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8, to reconsider and, if appropriate, to update the existing permits and to ensure that all the existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and 9b) and 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) (1);

1

| — | order French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007.

On 3 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter before action, taking the view that the defendant permitted the operation of a large number of existing installations (1647 installations) which did not have a permit complying with the requirements of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive. At the time the reasoned opinion was sent, 784 existing installations were still without a permit in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.

Although the situation has since improved, at the time the present application was lodged, four installations continue to be operated in the French Republic without a permit in accordance with the directive.

Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the French Republic has not yet put an end to the infringement of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.78

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made by and
between Proxim Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Kevin J.
Duffy ("Executive"). The Company and Executive are parties to an Employment
Agreement of December 5, 2002 (the "Agreement"), and they now wish to amend the
Agreement in certain respects. Accordingly, the Company and Executive now agree
as set forth below.

      1. The first sentence of Section 2a of the Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following: "While employed hereunder, Executive
shall serve as the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer."

      2. Executive's "Base Salary", as set forth in Section 3 of the Agreement,
shall be increased to $425,000 per annum.

      3. Executive's "Target Bonus", as set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement,
shall not be less than 100% of his Base Salary.

Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the date(s) set forth below.

Dated: January 11, 2005                        /s/ KEVIN J. DUFFY
                                               --------------------------------
                                               KEVIN J. DUFFY

Dated: January 11, 2005                        PROXIM CORPORATION

                                               By: /s/ Richard J. Tallman
                                                 ------------------------------
                                               Its: S.V.P. & General Counsel
2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM   Doc # 53   Filed 08/18/16   Pg 1 of 5    Pg ID 1642

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM   Doc # 53   Filed 08/18/16   Pg 2 of 5    Pg ID 1643

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM   Doc # 53   Filed 08/18/16   Pg 3 of 5    Pg ID 1644

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM   Doc # 53   Filed 08/18/16   Pg 4 of 5    Pg ID 1645

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM   Doc # 53   Filed 08/18/16   Pg 5 of 5    Pg ID 1646
§ 502.147 Requests for admission. ( a ) *Scope and procedure.* ( 1 ) *Scope.* A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for the purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any nonprivileged relevant matters relating to facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents.
( 2 ) *Form; copies of documents.* Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.
( 3 ) *Time to respond; effect of failure to respond.* A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to as provided in § 502.141(l) of this subpart or be ordered by the presiding officer.
( 4 ) *Answer.* If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
( 5 ) *Objections.* The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party may not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for adjudication.
( 6 ) *Motion regarding the sufficiency of an answer or objection.* The requesting party may move for a determination of the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the presiding officer finds an objection justified, the presiding officer must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the presiding officer may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The presiding officer may defer a decision until a prehearing conference or a specified time prior to hearing.
( b ) *Effect of admission; withdrawal or amendment of admission.* A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the presiding officer, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. The presiding officer may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the presiding officer is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding. [Rule 207.]
[77 FR 61529, Oct. 10, 2012. Redesignated at 81 FR 93836, Dec. 22, 2016; 81 FR 93837, Dec. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000700721
<NAME>                        AMERICAN MEDICAL ALERT CORP.
       
<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               1,276,860
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,128,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                            60,000
<INVENTORY>                                          1,493,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     5,151,993
<PP&E>                                               4,932,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      10,394,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  559,996
<BONDS>                                                216,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                64,218
<OTHER-SE>                                           9,265,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        10,394,130
<SALES>                                                 81,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,196,058
<CGS>                                                   78,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,767,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       5,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        428,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                           188,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           240,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .04
        

</TABLE>
#### George R. Adams, *Respondent, v.*William Gokey, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
---

---

# Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 
FINANCIAL OFFICER

# 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 Annual Report
of Cimatron Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Dan Haran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ilan
Erez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 29, 2006

| |  | By: /s/ Dan Haran
Dan HaranPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Ilan Erez
Ilan ErezChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131327 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131327 COA: 269091 Jackson CC: 04-005865-FH JONATHON PAUL RANUM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 19, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
# C_2014102EN.01000502.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/5

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV v European Commission

(Case C-581/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Setting of the gross price of road pavement bitumen - Setting of a rebate for road builders - 2002 Leniency Notice - Last paragraph of point 23(b) - Partial immunity - Evidence relating to facts previously unknown to the European Commission - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 102/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-370/06 Kuwait Petroleum and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) concerning agreements on the fixing of the gross price of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands and on the fixing of a uniform minimum rebate for road-builders participating in the cartel and a smaller maximum rebate for other road builders — Reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants.

Kuwait Petroleum and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
#### § 272.4 Effective date.

The provisions of this part apply to voyages of every Eligible Vessel which terminate on or after September 26, 1990.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 104 (Thursday, May 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30383-30384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agreed to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis,

[[Page 30384]]

scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members 
of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not 
serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked 
to participate in particular review meetings which require their type 
of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for ``Ambulatory Safety and Quality 
Program: Improving Quality through Clinician Use of Health IT (R18),'' 
are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. These discussions are 
likely to reveal personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications. This information is exempt from mandatory 
disclosure under the above-cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: Ambulatory Safety and Quality Program: Improving 
Quality through Clinician Use of Health IT (R18).
    Date: July 10-12, 2007 (Open on July 11 from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. 
and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priority 
dictate.

    Dated: May 22, 2007.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 07-2688 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THE DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER 

HEALTH CARE BENEFITS PLAN, 

A Self-Funded ERISA Health and 

Welfare Benefit Plan 

 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:15-cv-10185-RHC-APP 

 Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

v 

EDWARD LOKOSIS, 

 Defendant. 

 

MILLER & TISCHLER, P.C. 

BY: MAUREEN H. KINSELLA (P56172) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

28470 W. 13 Mile Rd., Ste. 300 

Farmington Hills, MI 48334-5401 

(248) 945-1040 / (248) 536-5042 fax 

mkinsella@msapc.net 

 

ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court held in the United States 

District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 

ON May 29, 2015 

PRESENT: HON__ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 THIS MATTER having been resolved and agreed by the parties involved, and the Court 

being fully apprised of the premises: 

2:15-cv-10185-RHC-APP Doc # 4 Filed 05/29/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 52
2 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter be dismissed without 

prejudice and without costs to both parties. 

 This is a final order and disposes of this matter. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Approved as to Form and Substance: 

/s/ Maureen H. Kinsella 

Maureen H. Kinsella (P56172) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

2:15-cv-10185-RHC-APP Doc # 4 Filed 05/29/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 53
#### § 42.01-1 Authority for regulations.

The statutory authority to prescribe rules and regulations requiring certain vessels to have and display load line marks indicating the maximum amidship draft to which such vessels may be safely loaded and certification thereof by the assigning authority is in 46 U.S.C. 5101-5116.

[CGD 80-120, 47 FR 5721, Feb. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51043, Sept. 30, 1997]
§ 380.12 Application requirements. ( a ) *Submission.* An application for designation of one or more vessels as an American Great Lakes vessel shall be filed with the Secretary, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW., Room 7300, Washington, DC 20590, at least 60 days prior to the date when the owner wishes to commence operation of one or more vessels with such designation. The application shall state with specificity that the vessel complies with the requirements of § 380.11.
( b ) *Fee.* Each application shall be accompanied by a fee of $50 per vessel. Payment shall be made by cashier's check, certified check, or money order, payable to “Maritime Administration.”
( c ) *Unavailability of suitable vessels.* Where the owner requests that the Secretary make a determination that would allow the designation of one or more vessels that would be over 6 years of age, but less than 11 years of age, on the effective date of designation, the owner shall include with the application all relevant and material information from which the Secretary may determine that suitable vessels will not be available for the type of service in which the vessel(s) will be used after designation.