alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

                                     [LOGO]

                                 March 1, 2004


Stan Tusman


Dear Stan:

     The full year 2003 results ended with a pre-tax profit of $5,769,150. This
allows the company to pay the 50% bonus level which was the $5,500,000 pre-tax
level. Enclosed is a check representing your bonus for 2003. We are thrilled to
be able to share the success of the company's recent performance with you in
this way.

     The bonus plan for 2004 has been adjusted to reflect the goals for the
company now that we have raised additional capital and become a public entity.
Your bonus will be based on the profit after-tax using a standard corporate tax
rate.

<Table>
<S><C>
  10% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $1,066,000
  20% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $1,566,000
  30% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $2,066,000
  40% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $2,566,000
  50% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $3,066,000
66.7% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $3,766,000
83.3% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $4,666,000
 100% of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of   $5,666,000
</Table>

     The bonus period will be the fiscal months of January 2004 through December
2004. You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time
bonuses are paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.

     We are excited about the challenges and prospects in the coming year. We
hope it's profitable for all of us and our shareholders.


                                                  Sincerely,



                                                  /s/ Peter Edison
                                                  Peter Edison



ss

               2815 SCOTT AVENUE - SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63103 -
                      (314) 621-0699 - FAX (314) 621-0708
Editorial Note on Part 396
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 396 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 396.12 Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept reports required by § 390.42(b) of this chapter. ( a ) *System for reports.* Each intermodal equipment provider must establish a system for motor carriers and drivers to report to it any damage, defects, or deficiencies of intermodal equipment discovered by, or reported to, the motor carrier or driver which would— ( 1 ) Affect the safety of operation of the intermodal equipment, or
( 2 ) Result in its mechanical breakdown while transported on public roads.
( b ) *Report content.* The system required by paragraph (a) of this section must include documentation of all of the following: ( 1 ) Name of the motor carrier responsible for the operation of the intermodal equipment at the time the damage, defects, or deficiencies were discovered by, or reported to, the driver.
( 2 ) Motor carrier's USDOT number; intermodal equipment provider's USDOT number, and a unique identifying number for the item of intermodal equipment.
( 3 ) Date and time the report was submitted.
( 4 ) All damage, defects, or deficiencies of the intermodal equipment must be reported to the equipment provider by the motor carrier or its driver. If no defect or deficiency in the intermodal equipment is discovered by or reported to the driver, no written report is required.
( 5 ) The signature of the driver who prepared the report.
( c ) *Corrective action.* ( 1 ) Prior to allowing or permitting a motor carrier to transport a piece of intermodal equipment for which a motor carrier or driver has submitted a report about damage, defects or deficiencies, each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must repair the reported damage, defects, or deficiencies that are likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
( 2 ) Each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must certify on the original driver's report which lists any damage, defects, or deficiencies of the intermodal equipment that the reported damage, defects, or deficiencies have been repaired, or that repair is unnecessary, before the vehicle is operated again.
( d ) *Retention period for reports.* Each intermodal equipment provider must maintain all documentation required by this section, including the driver report and the certification of repairs on all intermodal equipment, for a period of three months from the date that a motor carrier or its driver submits the report to the intermodal equipment provider or its agent.
[73 FR 76824, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 68709, Dec. 29, 2009; 77 FR 34852, June 12, 2012; 83 FR 16227, Apr. 16, 2018]
1210-AB32-2-1440.html[7/26/2015 5:04:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwd-3vng

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1936

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: richard wabbersen

General Comment

I don't need your help concerning my retire plan
#### § 236.552 Insulation resistance; requirement.

When periodic test prescribed in § 236.588 is performed, insulation resistance between wiring and ground of continuous inductive automatic cab signal system, automatic train control system, or automatic train stop system shall be not less than one megohm, and that of an intermittent inductive automatic train stop system, not less than 250,000 ohms. Insulation resistance values between periodic tests shall be not less than 250,000 ohms for a continuous inductive automatic cab signal system, automatic train control system, or automatic train stop system, and 20,000 ohms for an intermittent inductive automatic train stop system.

[49 FR 3387, Jan. 26, 1984]
From: jackcrawford@aol.com [mailto:jackcrawford@aol.com] 

Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Address: e-ORI@dol.gov., 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

Content: I don't want the government to force me to buy anything for my IRA or 401(K). 

Just leave me the hell alone. 

Regards, 

Jack Crawford 

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask 

another man to live for mine. 

- John Galt, in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.85 Lumbar spine flexure. ( a ) When subjected to continuously applied force in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount that permits the thoracic spine to rotate from its initial position in accordance with Figure No. 18 of § 572.21 (49 CFR part 572) by 40 degrees at a force level of not less than 18 pounds and not more than 22 pounds, and straighten upon removal of the force to within 5 degrees of its initial position.
( b ) *Test procedure.* ( 1 ) The lumbar spine flexure test is conducted on a dummy assembly as shown in drawing LP 1049/A, but with the arms (which consist of parts identified as items 17 through 30) and all head-neck parts (identified as items 1 through 13 and 59 through 63), removed.
( 2 ) With the torso assembled in an upright position, adjust the lumbar cable by tightening the adjustment nut for the lumbar vertebrae until the spring is compressed to 2 ⁄ 3 of its unloaded length.
( 3 ) Position the dummy in an upright seated position on a seat as indicated in Figure No. 18 of § 572.21 (lower legs do not need to be removed, but must be clamped firmly to the seating surface), ensuring that all dummy component surfaces are clean, dry and untreated unless otherwise specified.
( 4 ) Firmly affix the dummy to the seating surface through the pelvis at the hip joints by suitable clamps that also prevent any relative motion with respect to the upper legs during the test in § 572.65(c)(3) of this part. Install a pull attachment at the neck to torso juncture as shown in Figure 18 of § 572.21.
( 5 ) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then rearward as necessary to return it to its initial position.
( 6 ) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagittal plane at the top of the neck adapter so that at 40 degrees of the lumbar spine flexion the applied force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box. Apply the force at any torso deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40 degrees of flexion but no further; maintain 40 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the highest applied force during that time. Release all force as rapidly as possible and measure the return angle three minutes after release.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.283 How does a certification organization obtain recognition for its members as SAPs? ( a ) If you represent a certification organization that wants DOT to authorize its certified drug and alcohol counselors to be added to § 40.281(a)(6), you may submit a written petition to DOT requesting a review of your petition for inclusion.
( b ) You must obtain the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation before DOT will act on your petition.
( c ) You must also meet the minimum requirements of appendix G to this part before DOT will act on your petition.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 49384, Aug. 23, 2006; 88 FR 27650, May 2, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 801
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 801 appear at 86 FR 54641, Oct. 4, 2021.

§ 801.23 Extension. ( a ) In unusual circumstances as specified in this section, the time limits prescribed in either § 801.21 or § 801.22 may be extended by no more than 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sunday, and legal public holidays) by providing written notice to the requester setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.
( b ) If the request cannot be processed within the extended time limit specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the requester will be: ( 1 ) Notified in writing;
( 2 ) Given an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within that time limit, or an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request; and
( 3 ) Advised of the requester's right to seek assistance from the NTSB's FOIA Public Liaison and seek dispute resolution services from OGIS.
( c ) As used in this paragraph (c), “unusual circumstances,” as they relate to any delay that is reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request, means: ( 1 ) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
( 2 ) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine and process a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are the subject of a single request; or
( 3 ) The need to consult with another agency that has a substantial interest in the disposition of the request or with two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

#### § 40.143 [Reserved]
#### § 383.110 General requirement.

All drivers of CMVs must have the knowledge and skills necessary to operate a CMV safely as contained in this subpart. The specific types of items that a State must include in the knowledge and skills tests that it administers to CDL applicants are included in this subpart.

[76 FR 26888, May 9, 2011]
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-87445, 333-09435, 333-136478 and 333-136479) of
CompuDyne  Corporation  of our  report  dated  April  6,  2007  relating  to the
financial  statements and financial  statement  schedule,  which appears in this
Form 10-K.

ARONSON & COMPANY

Rockville, Maryland
April 10, 2007








                                       74
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11204

Summary Calendar

 

FRANCIS SHARPE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS; CHARLES V. GRAHMANN, Reverend,

His Predecessors and Successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic

Diocese of Dallas; WINDLE TURLEY; RANDAL MATHIS; MONTE FITE,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-522-G

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francis Sharpe appeals the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for lack of

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 Sharpe argues

that his federal action does not amount to an attack on the prior
2 See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995)

(“When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably

intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being

called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

3 Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986).

2

state court judgment because his federal claims are not

inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court suit.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “[w]hen issues raised in a

federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment

and the court is in essence being called upon to review the statecourt decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

conduct such a review.”2 Although Sharpe argues that his federal

suit differs from his state case because his federal complaint

claims that the defendants violated his civil rights, “litigants

may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints

about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of

civil rights suits.”3 

Sharpe’s pleadings belie his argument that the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine is inapplicable: His complaint specifically requests a

declaratory judgment that certain discarded church documents belong

to him and should be returned to him. The state court had

previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on Sharpe’s

claims requesting return of the documents. Sharpe’s federal action

is clearly inextricably intertwined with the judgment in his prior
3

state court case. Therefore, the district court’s judgment of

dismissal is AFFIRMED.

The motions to dismiss filed by defendants Turley and Fite are

DENIED AS MOOT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk October 28 , 2020

16 1985 ( 1 9 )

DEREK ZINK,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

and

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL

HOSPITAL, LLC, MEDICAL

REHABILITATION PHYSICIANS,

PLC, doing business as MICHIGAN

SPINE AND PAIN, PLLC, and THERAPY

UNLIMITED, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

SC: 161985

v COA: 353408

Oakland CC: 2018

- 166537

- NI

XUEHAN K ONG,

Defendant,

and

FC A US, LLC, and ZURICH AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time for

filing h i s answer to the applicati on for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The answer

submitted on Octo ber 22 , 2020 , is accepted as timely filed

.
From: ronsrag@aol.com [mailto:ronsrag@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:05 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Please stop treating us all like children. As Ronald Reagan indicated, the scariest phrase is, "I'm from the 

government, and I'm here to help you" Please do not further restrict our ability to make our own 

investment decisions. Without the many government regulations that we already have, we would all be 

better off. At a minimum, no new regulation should be allowed without deleting at least one current one.

Ronald Sarson

703 620 3968
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2538

___________

Dianne K. Mooney, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Larry Massanari, Acting * of Nebraska.

Commissioner, Social Security *

Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2001

Filed: May 24, 2001 

___________

Before LOKEN, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dianne K. Mooney sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, claiming neurofibromatosis disabled her.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits, holding Mooney's 1987

employment constituted substantial gainful activity precluding her from meeting the

disability requirements rather than an unsuccessful work attempt as Mooney alleged.
*The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Mooney sought judicial review, and the district court* concluded substantial evidence

supported the ALJ's decision. On appeal, Mooney argues her 1987 employment was

an unsuccessful work attempt rather than substantial gainful activity and the district

court committed error in disallowing evidence of her disability. Having carefully

reviewed the record, we agree with the district court's analysis. The district court

observed that Mooney worked continually from January 1987 to October 1987 at a

nursing home, and until November 1987 as a flag person for a highway construction

contractor. Although Mooney had difficulty performing her work because of her

medical condition, work lasting more than six months cannot be considered an

unsuccessful work attempt. See King v. Chater, 72 F.3d 85, 87 (8th Cir. 1995);

Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 822-23 (8th Cir. 1992). Because substantial

evidence supported the ALJ's decision, we affirm on the basis of the district court's

memorandum and order.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
PUBLIC LAW 109–66—SEPT. 21, 2005 119 STAT. 1999

Public Law 109–66

109th Congress

An Act

To provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for students who

are eligible for Pell Grants who are adversely affected by a natural disaster.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pell Grant Hurricane and Disaster

Relief Act’’.

SEC. 2. WAIVERS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT REPAYMENT BY STUDENTS

AFFECTED BY DISASTERS.

Section 484B(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20

U.S.C. 1091b(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following

new subparagraph:

‘‘(D) WAIVERS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT REPAYMENT BY

STUDENTS AFFECTED BY DISASTERS.—The Secretary may

waive the amounts that students are required to return

under this section with respect to Federal Pell Grants

if the withdrawals on which the returns are based are

withdrawals by students—

‘‘(i) who were residing in, employed in, or attending

an institution of higher education that is located in

an area in which the President has declared that a

major disaster exists, in accordance with section 401

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170);

‘‘(ii) whose attendance was interrupted because of

the impact of the disaster on the student or the institution; and

20 USC 1001

note.

Pell Grant

Hurricane and

Disaster Relief

Act.

Sept. 21, 2005

[H.R. 3169]

119 STAT. 2000 PUBLIC LAW 109–66—SEPT. 21, 2005

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3169:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Sept. 7, considered and passed House.

Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

‘‘(iii) whose withdrawal ended within the academic

year during which the designation occurred or during

the next succeeding academic year.’’.

Approved September 21, 2005.
#### § 588.1 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of child restraint systems to maintain lists of the names and addresses of child restraint owners.
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:   March      2, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K.      Collawn                              |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   | Patricia      K. Collawn                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                                      |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                      |   | Texas-New      Mexico Power Company                                                                                                                                                                             |

----