alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 577

# Navigation Data and Maps

----

#### Home | Acronyms | Figures | Navigation | Equipment and Processing | Images | Logs | Metadata | Download

----

### Trackline Maps

Differential navigation was acquired using the OmniSTAR Global Positioning System  (GPS) and captured using the CodaOctopus Octopus F190 Precision Attitude and Positioning System. Ship navigation was displayed and recorded using hydrographic survey software, HYPACK version 9.0.  The swath bathymetry and side scan sonar data were collected simultaneously using SEA Swath Processor  version 3.06 and SonarPro version 11.3, respectively. The ship trackline navigation map (fig. 2) covered more than 594 km. This map differs slightly in coverage and length from the processed swath and side scan trackline maps, which produced 591 km and 592 km of tracklines, respectively (fig. 3 and fig. 4). These differences resulted from technical issues such as data loss due to equipment problems, filtering of poor quality data, and inconsistencies in starting and ending respective lines during turns and data partitioning.  The navigational trackline maps were created with exported HYPACK positions, while swath and side scan sonar trackline coverages are GeoTIFF files brought into ESRI ArcGIS 10 from CARIS HIPS and SIPS version 7.0.2. 

----

 

----

 

----

#### Home | Acronyms | Figures | Navigation | Equipment and Processing | Images | Logs | Metadata | Download

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey				URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/577/html/nav.htmlPage Contact Information: William R. PfeifferPage Last Modified: Monday, 18-Apr-2011 12:44:06 EDT
From: djsmith@qg.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Don Smith

West Bend, WI 53090
Before the First Division,

November 23, 1965

No. 69620.

#### Bailey-Mora Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/4233, etc. (El Paso).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of finger joined molding similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Best Moulding Corporation*v. *United States (Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc., Party in Interest)*(51 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 829), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed June 3, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01069-CR

DALEON DEMOND POTTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1340949

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Daleon Demond Potts appeals his conviction for aggravated 

robbery with a deadly weapon. On original submission, appellant argued that there 

was insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $234

reflected in the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to 

delete the specific amount of costs assessed. Potts v. State, No. 14-12-01069-CR; 

2013 WL 6045898 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 14, 2013) vacated and 
2

remanded, No. PD-1625-13; 2014 WL 1512962 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). 

The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its 

opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The judgment includes an assessment of $234 in court costs. A supplemental 

clerk’s record was filed, which contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $234

in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if 

there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence 

offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d at 390. Traditional 

sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record supports the assessment of costs in this case 

because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed 

by a representative of the district clerk, who is entitled to receive payment of the 

costs, and is certified. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. 

The trial court assessed $234 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the cost bill is $234. There being no challenge to any specific cost 

or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs 

assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared 

until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill 

of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not 

be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after 

a criminal trial.”).
3

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 10.21 - First Amendment TMD






FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


This First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 19, 2012, between Shiloh Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) and Thomas M. Dugan (the “Executive”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are party to that certain Change in Control Agreement, dated as of August 25, 2011 (the “Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein in order to cause the Agreement to comply with Code Section 409A; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1.    Section 2(c) of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(c)  Severance Payment. For all purposes under this Agreement, upon the Executive becoming eligible for the Severance Payment as provided above, the Company shall pay to the Executive a lump sum in cash equal to the sum of (i) 1.5 times the Executive's annual base salary at the time of (A) the Change in Control or (B) separation from service, whichever is higher, plus (ii) 1.5 times the Executive's target bonus for the fiscal year in which the Change in Control or separation from service occurs, whichever is higher, on the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Executive's separation from service (the “Payment Date”).”
 
2.    Section 2(h) of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(h)    Conditions. All payments and benefits provided under this Section 2 are conditioned on the Executive's continuing compliance with this Agreement (including, but not limited to Section 4 hereof) and any other agreement between the Company and the Executive, and the Executive's execution (and effectiveness) of a release of claims and covenant not to sue substantially in the form provided in Exhibit A upon termination of employment (the “Release”).  If the Company does not receive an executed Release and the revocation period for such Release has not expired prior to the Payment Date, the Company shall have no obligation to make payments and pro rate benefits under Section 2(a)-(c) and Section 2(f).”
3.    This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  


4.    Other than this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered as of the date first set forth above.
SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.




By:                    
Name: Ramzi Hermiz
Title: President and CEO






______________________________
Thomas M. Dugan
No. 62720.

#### Linread Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 324387-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Tutch latches the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Linread Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 262, C.D. 1939), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 588, Misc.

#### Bolin *v.*Goodman, Warden, et al.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Daniel R. McLeod;*Attorney General of South Carolina, and *Clarence T. Goolsby, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1413 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1413

  To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to permit 
   borrowers and grantees to use certain rural development loans and 
         grants for other purposes under certain circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2001

 Mr. Lugar (for himself and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to permit 
   borrowers and grantees to use certain rural development loans and 
         grants for other purposes under certain circumstances.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS FOR OTHER 
              PURPOSES.

    Subtitle A of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 310F. USE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS FOR OTHER 
              PURPOSES.

    ``If, after making a loan or a grant described in section 381E(d), 
the Secretary determines that the circumstances under which the loan or 
grant was made have sufficiently changed to make the project or 
activity for which the loan or grant was made available no longer 
appropriate, the Secretary may allow the loan borrower or grant 
recipient to use property (real and personal) purchased with the loan 
or grant funds, or proceeds from the sale of property (real and 
personal) purchased with such funds, for another project or activity 
that (as determined by the Secretary)--
            ``(1) will be carried out in the same area as the original 
        project or activity;
            ``(2) meets the criteria for a loan or a grant described in 
        section 381E(d); and
            ``(3) satisfies such additional requirements as are 
        established by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 62192.

#### B. Shackman & Co. and S. Stern Henry & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 278633-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of paperweights in chief value of polystyrene similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Shackman & Company et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 30, C. D. 1839), the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as nonenumerated manufactured articles was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to be the same as the merchandise involved in C. D. 1839, *supra,*were held dutiable at 10 percent under said paragraph 1558, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52827).
No. 68374.

protest 63/17690 (San Juan).

#### Rover, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The official papers disclosing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514).
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 [Nos. 333-02567, 333-44119 and 333-86616] pertaining to the 1995
Employee Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Stock Option Plan for Independent
Directors, all as amended, and in the related Prospectus of Cover-All
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiary of our report dated February 27, 2004, with
respect to the 2003, 2002 and 2001 consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Cover-All Technologies, Inc. and subsidiary included in its Annual
Report [Form 10-K] for the year ended December 31, 2003.






                                            MOORE STEPHENS, P. C.
                                            Certified Public Accountants.


New York, New York
March 29, 2004
|   | (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 11, 2017 | /s/ Toni M. Perazzo                                                |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | Toni M. Perazzo                                                         |
|               | Sr. Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
|               |                                                                    |
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector     Date: November 9,2005

----
| RATES EFFECTIVE for Variable Denomination Floating Rate Demand Notesas of  March 26, 2012: |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Retail Investors    |   |         |   |     |
|---------------------|--------|--------------|--------|----------|
| Amount Invested     |   | Rate         |   | Yield    |
| $0 - $4,999.99      |   | 0.800%       |   | 0.80320% |
| $5,000 - $49,999.99 |   | 0.850%       |   | 0.85361% |
| $50,000 and Above*  |   | 0.900%  |   | 0.90405% |
|                |   |         |   |     |
| Corporate Investors |   | 0.600%       |   | 0.61800% |
Exhibit 10.2

 

	

    	
Worldwide   Headquarters
    
	
20 Trafalgar Square
    
	
Nashua, NH 03063
    
	
 
    
	
Phone:   +1   603.883.5200
    
	
Fax:   +1   603.595.6993
    
	
www.gtat.com
    


 

December 31, 2012

 

Tom Gutierrez

43 Powers Road

Hollis, NH 03049

 

Dear Tom:

 

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved a payment of your costs of establishing a secondary residence in Raleigh, North Carolina, subject to the terms set forth below.  It is understood that you will maintain your primary residence in New Hampshire.

 

1.              The Company will pay the following amounts:

 

	
(a) Real   Estate Fees
    	
 
    	
$
    	
140,000
    	
 
    
	
(b) Moving   Costs
    	
 
    	
$
    	
40,000
    	
 
    
	
(c) Temporary   Living, Travel and Miscellaneous
    	
 
    	
$
    	
50,000
    	
 
    
	
(d) Partial   Gross-up of Non-deductible portion
    	
 
    	
$
    	
70,000
    	
 
    
	
Total
    	
 
    	
$
    	
300,000
    	
 
    


 

2.              The total amount set forth in section 1 above shall be paid in one lump sum on the date of this letter, less any applicable withholding taxes.

 

3.              You will repay to the Company a portion of the amount paid to you pursuant to this letter in the event that you voluntarily terminate your employment with the Company on or before December 31, 2015, such amount to be calculated by multiplying the number of days from the date of such termination until December 31, 2015 by $274.

 











 

Kindly indicate your agreement with the terms of this letter by signing in the space provided below.

 

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GT ADVANCED   TECHNOLOGIES INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
BY:
    	
/s/   Hoil Kim
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Hoil Kim,
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Administrative Officer and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
General Counsel
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
ACKNOWLEDGED AND   AGREED:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Tom Gutierrez
    	
 
    
	
Tom Gutierrez
    	
 
    


 


	
GT Advanced Technologies

20 Trafalgar Square

Nashua, NH 03063
    	
 
    	
Phone:    +1   603.883.5200

Fax:        +1   603.595.6993
    	
 
    	
www.gtat.com
WCJCJD -RCJDGE:R::S 

June 14, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption No. 15319 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-6187 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Wood Rodgers, Inc. (Wood Rodgers) is requesting an amendment to their existing Section 333 

exemption as described below. The purpose for the amendment is to be able to offer the services 

as listed in the existing Section 333 exemption. 

Additional Aircraft 

Wood Rodgers would like to add additional unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to the existing 

exemption. At this time, the model aircraft is unknown, but will be one of the 1, 120 models of 

U AS in the List of Approved U AS approved by the Secretary of Transportation under Section 

333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act as of March 4, 2016 at regulatory docket 

FAA-2007-3330. Any additional aircraft would be used for the same purpose, utilizing the same 

safety procedures, conditions and limitiations set forth in the original exemption. 

Please contact me at 916.326.5294 if you require additional information or clarification. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Kors, P .E. 

Vice President 

Wood Rodgers, Inc. 

Corporate Office: 3301 C Street, Bldg. 100-B • Sacramento, CA 95816 .. Tel: 916.341.7760 • Fax: 916.341.7767 

Off1ces located in Californta and Nevada 

www.woodrodgers.com
EXHIBIT 32
               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of UCI
Medical Affiliates, Inc. ("UCI"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of
UCI on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of UCI. This written
statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided
to UCI and will be retained by UCI and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


December 12, 2005                             /s/ D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                                     President and Chief
                                                     Executive Officer

                                            /s/ Jerry F. Wells, Jr., CPA
                                            Jerry F. Wells, Jr., CPA
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
No. 60130.

protests 206579-K, etc. (New York).

#### Trapac Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those *297the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42. C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### John Hudson, Appellant, v. Ocean Steamship Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Brady, J.