alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sonya Richardson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 488]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered February 4, 1993, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 2 - 1052 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 14 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING CASE - C05-1746-RSL-MJB 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN WASHINGTON OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DARRYL WILLIAM YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROB MCKENNA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1746RSL-MJB

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

CASE

The application by plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete or defective

as set forth in the memorandum from the clerk to plaintiff on 10/18/2005. The clerk advised plaintiff

that failure to correct the deficiency or pay the filing fee on or before 11/17/2005 could result in

dismissal of the case. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor adequately supplemented the

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) The application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED;

(2) The case is DISMISSED;

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Magistrate Judge

Monica J. Benton.

Case 2:05-cv-01746-RSL Document 4 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING CASE - C05-1746-RSL-MJB 2

Dated this 28th day of November, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Recommended for entry this

 28th day of November 2005.

s/ Monica J. Benton 

MONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01746-RSL Document 4 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 1 

8000.1\...\wells\pldgs\GAL prop'd order 

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 

Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961 

Hon. Karen L. Strombom 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 

TERRY WELLS and DANA WELLS, 

individually and as Natural Guardians and 

Next Friends of E.A. WELLS, their minor 

child, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 

CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP 

ELEVATOR MANUFACTURING, INC., 

HARBORSIDE INN, DON D. ROBERTS, 

GALE STUDER, SCOTT STUDER, LYNN 

STUDER, L. GEHRKE, and P. GEHRKE, 

 Defendants. 

No. C05-5725 KLS 

ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN 

AD LITEM

 By stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered that JoHanna Read, a member of the Bar 

of this Court who has previously been appointed settlement guardian ad litem in this case, be 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-05725-KLS Document 48 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 2 

8000.1\...\wells\pldgs\GAL prop'd order 

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 

Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961 

appointed guardian ad litem and given power to make trial decisions on behalf of the minor 

E.A. Wells. 

 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 9th day of October, 2007. 

AKaren L. Strombom 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Presented by: 

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 

By__________________________________ 

 Timothy K. Ford, WSBN 5986 

 Jay S. Brown, WSBN 19835 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Approved for entry: 

FALLON & McKINLEY 

By___________________________________ 

 Nancy McKinley, WSBN 7992 

 Dirk Muse, WSBN 28911 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:05-cv-05725-KLS Document 48 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Financialmanagement support in joint operations**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.12:1-06/2012
Item Number:0315-C (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000952970
 
July 16, 2018
Case 3:05-cr-05838-RBL Document 24 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05838-RBL Document 24 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.(k)


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
(the “Second Amendment”) is made effective as of the 27th day of March, 2018, between REX RADIO AND
TELEVISION, INC., an Ohio corporation (the “Corporation”) and STUART A. ROSE (the “Employee”)
under the following circumstances:


 


Recitals


 


A. The Corporation and
the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated June 2, 2015, as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated as of April 11, 2017 (the “Agreement”).


 


B. The Corporation and
the Employee desire to amend Section 4.2 (a) of the Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the undersigned hereby amend the Agreement by deleting Section 4.2(a) and replacing it in its entirety by the following provisions:


 


4.2(a).
Bonus.


 


(a) Bonus. In
addition to Employee’s salary as provided in Section 3.1, Employee shall be entitled to an annual cash and/or incentive plan
bonus computed based upon the earnings of REX American Resources Corporation (“REX”) (the “Bonus”).


 


Effective as of February
1, 2018 (“Effective Date”), for each fiscal year of REX during the Employment Period or any period of renewal, the
Employee’s Bonus shall be equal to 2.2% of the amount equal to:


 


(i) 133% of “Net
Income Attributable to REX Common Shareholders” (after tax); plus


(ii) add back of incentive
and stock compensation expense; less


(iii) a onetime cumulative
adjustment subsequent to the Effective Date of $22,000,000.


 


The Bonus shall be paid two-thirds in cash
when determined and one-third in an award of restricted stock based on the then closing price of REX common stock as of June 15
of such year vesting in one-third installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant. In the event the adjustment provided
in this Section 4(a)(iii) is not fully satisfied in Fiscal Year 2018, the balance shall be carried forward until satisfaction.
The adjustment set forth in this Section 4.2 (a)(iii) shall not be effective for Section 6.3 or 6.7 hereof.



    	 



    	



    

Except as modified by
this Second Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	 	REX
    RADIO AND TELEVISION, INC. an Ohio corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	EDWARD M. KRESS
	 	 	Edward M. Kress, Secretary
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	STUART A. ROSE
	 	Stuart A. Rose
No. 67124.

protests 61/11286, etc. (Norfolk).

#### Ernest Greenwood Co. et al. *v.*United States

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Taj Mohammed v. D. 1050 W. Rankin, Inc.

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00977

- CV

Trial court case number : 1034730

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Jane Bland

_

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Date: March 26, 2015
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment Trust
II, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
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.





/s/ Donna BrandinDonna
      BrandinChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)March
      31, 2010
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - June 2012

**Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 6/4/12 6/11/12 6/18/12 6/25/12 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units**  **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 1.15 2.82 4.57 1.39

ug/L = micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) ND = not detected (shown as <LOD) NQ = not quantifiable (shown as <LOQ) ND<LOD<NQ<LOQ LOD = limit of detection = 0.0400 ug/L LOQ = limit of quantification = 0.100 ug/L

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 6/18/12. Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample collected on 6/18/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results.

The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 09000064810e6d84.xls:Sheet1 8/21/2012 2:11 PM
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post

- consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 8/27/13

The Honorable Robert M. Summers Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On August 14, 2013 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) pertaining to the applicable infrastructure elements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide national a mbient air quality standard (NAAQS) specified in section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, o n August 14, 2013 EPA received a SIP revision pertain ing to the requirements of section 128 (State Boards) for all poll utants. EP A has determined that these submittal s are administratively and technically complete

.

EPA will be reviewing the revisions an d will prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN)

action for the State Boards revision and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPR) action for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS revision

. If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them

to Ms. Ruth Knapp

, Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814

- 2191. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Since rely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration Diana Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning Program
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/
Robert C.
Sepucha
 - 26 -
No. 62262.

#### J. M. Rodgers Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 317384-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: dottaylor@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:59:41 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,

Dorothy Taylor

Exton, PA 19341
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF VIROGROUP,  INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED  FEBRUARY 28,
1997,  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,153
<PP&E>                                           2,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,175
<SALES>                                          4,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,171
<CGS>                                            3,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,119)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.41)

        

</TABLE>
No. 60533.

#### Aloha Factors et al. United States,

protests 239789-K, etc. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sazae similar in all material respects to the commodity involved in *Pacific Mutual Sales Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 100, C. D. 1758), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.