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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

vs.

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ October 7, 2005 request for a thirty-day enlargement of time is

granted; and

2. The time for filing Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus is extended to November 14, 2005.

DATED: October 20, 2005.

/avar1044.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 29 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.1

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                   CHILES OFFSHORE INC. 2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN

                  AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of November 13, 2000 (this
"Amendment"), to the Chiles Offshore Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

                               W I T N E S S E T H
                               -------------------

                  WHEREAS, the Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Company (the "Board") and approved by the stockholders of Chiles Offshore Inc.
(the "Company") as of June 22, 2000 and became effective on September 22, 2000;
and

                  WHEREAS, Section XX of the Plan authorizes the Board to amend
the Plan and the Board has agreed to amend the Plan as set forth herein;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Board has agreed as follows:

                  1. Section VI of the Plan was amended by adding the following
new subsection "F.":

                           "F. OTHER OPTIONS. In connection with an acquisition
                           of any business by the Company or any of its
                           affiliates or with the assumption and/or substitution
                           of options existing under the Company's 1998 Equity
                           Option Plan (the "1998 Plan"), and notwithstanding
                           the provisions of Section VI.A. above, any
                           outstanding grants, awards or sales of options, stock
                           or other similar rights pertaining to such business
                           and of any options granted under the 1998 Plan, may
                           be assumed, substituted or replaced by Stock Options
                           or other Benefits under the Plan upon such terms and
                           conditions as the Board of Directors or the Committee
                           determines. The date of any such grant, award or sale
                           shall relate back to the date of the initial grant,
                           award or sale being assumed, substituted or replaced
                           and service with the acquired business or the Company
                           under the 1998 Plan, as applicable, shall constitute
                           service with the Company and its affiliates under the
                           Plan for purposes of such grant, award or sale. Any
                           shares underlying any grant, award or sale pursuant
                           to any acquisition of a business shall be disregarded
                           for purposes of applying, and shall not reduce the
                           number of shares of Common Stock available under the
                           Plan pursuant to Section V above."

                  2. Except as amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force
and effect in accordance with its terms.


                                       21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLARA MELLONI, FELIX MELLONI : CIVIL ACTION

 vs. : NO. 02-4490

CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM, ET AL :

O R D E R

BEFORE THE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER

AND NOW, this day of March, 2004, 

A review of the docket discloses that service of the

Complaint in the above-captioned matter has not been made, it is

therefore

O R D E R E D

that the matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant

to Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as to the

following defendants: Central Parking System, Allright Parking 

Garage, Allright Parking Corporation, Allright Parking, Inc.,

Allright Parking, Central Parking System of Pennsylvania, Inc.,

Allright Parking Management, Inc.

If, within ten (10) days, good cause can be shown why

service was not made within one hundred and twenty (120) days of

the date of the filing of the Complaint, the dismissal will be

vacated.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04490-JCJ Document 2 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 1 of 1
(Part 2SUPPLEMENT) (Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection III) (U.S. Standard General LedgerAccount Transaction Postings)

 (R = The USSGL transaction mentions ‘Reverse’ in the Comment. AP = The USSGL transaction mentions ‘Also Post’ in the Comment.) (Bulletin No. 2018-04) (III AP - 10) (March 2018)
# sec6_rsnc_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**608 CA 15-01829**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN WILSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILSON TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC, BUFFALO (TRACIE L. LOPARDI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

RICHARD E. CASAGRANDE, LATHAM (ANTHONY J. BROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Mark Montour, J.), entered March 20, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order denied the petition to stay arbitration and granted the cross petition to compel arbitration.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying its petition pursuant to CPLR article 75 seeking a permanent stay of arbitration and granting respondent’s cross petition for an order compelling arbitration. Respondent demanded arbitration concerning the transfer of a physical education teacher from the high school to the elementary school. The sole issue on appeal is whether the parties “have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ( Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.] , 99 NY2d 273, 278; see Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. Superior Officers Assn. , 71 AD3d 1389, 1390, lv denied 14 NY3d 712). “Our review of that question is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom” ( Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. , 71 AD3d at 1390). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Supreme Court properly determined that, because the CBA contains a broad arbitration clause, and there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, i.e., the transfer of a teacher to another position, and the general subject matter of the CBA, “ ‘it is for the arbitrator to determine whether the subject matter of the**-2- 608 CA 15-01829** 
dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provisions of the [CBA]’ ” ( Matter of County of Herkimer v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO , 124 AD3d 1370, 1371; see generally Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City Sch. Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.] , 93 NY2d 132, 143).

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      23,170
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               90,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,134)
<INVENTORY>                                 28,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           153,271
<PP&E>                                     321,195
<DEPRECIATION>                            (135,490)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             399,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       74,264
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 298,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               399,649
<SALES>                                    259,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           259,326
<CGS>                                      174,592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              174,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,030
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             31,489
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         21,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                21,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.31







</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                       335
<INVENTORY>                                    183,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,074
<PP&E>                                         154,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,383
<BONDS>                                        295,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,867
<SALES>                                        915,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               915,811
<CGS>                                          649,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  649,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,493
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000537 09-AUG-2019 08:52 AM
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (dollars in thousands)



                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                        APRIL 1, 2005                      MARCH 26, 2004
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 15,949           $ 18,636        $ 15,949           $ 18,597
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    15,470             15,949          15,470             15,949
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 15,470           $ 15,949        $ 15,470           $ 15,949
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
No. P68/287.

protests 63/6721, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Unitron Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of wooden doors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 460, C.D. 3020) and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of folding doers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gitkin Co.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 383, C.D. 2997), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
21.02
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




I,
Rhowena Blank, certify that:




1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Man-AHL Diversified I L.P.
(“registrant”);




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(s) 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;




(c)
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; and




(d)
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 officers 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 the 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; and




(b) 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.




By:  /s/
Rhowena Blank




__________________________________


Rhowena
Blank


Vice
President and Head of Accounting and Operations


August
14, 2008
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3862 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Part 2, Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits

One of the goals the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has envisioned for GTAS is to improve

the consistency in agency trial balance reporting. This will be accomplished through validations and edits.

The validations ensure that the attributes reported in agencies’ GTAS trial balance submissions are valid for

the USSGL account. The validations encompass both USSGL level attributes per the USSGL Attribute

Table and Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) level attributes found in the Super Master Account (SMAF).

Simple validations are those involving one attribute while special validations involve more than one attribute.

All validations are fatal.

The edits compare the agency trial balances with USSGL rules and with data from authoritative sources

such as the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS), Fiscal Service and the Federal Financing Bank.

The edits may be either fatal or proposed. Fiscal Service will use the proposed edits only for analytical

purposes. Fiscal Service disclaims any role or responsibility with the agency auditor relationship concerning

the GTAS fatal and proposed analytical edits.

The following are the validation and edit reports included in this section:

Section VII Page Number

GTAS Validation Summary Report (VSR) VII VSR - 1

GTAS Validation Detail Report (VDR) VII VDR - 1

GTAS Edits Summary Report (ESR) VII ESR - 1

GTAS Edits Detail Report (EDR) VII EDR - 1

GTAS Closing Edits Report (CER) VII CER - 1

Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

July 1, 2014 

# Order

Clerk July 1, 2014

14922 9 ( 42 )

WILLIAM LUCKETT, IV, a Minor, by his

Next Friends

, BEVERLY LUCKETT and

WILLIAM LUCKETT

, Plaintiff s

- Appellee s

, SC: 14 922 9

v COA: 313280

Macomb CC: 2010

- 004265

- NI

RICK KITTELL,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL AUTHORITY,

a/k/a SOUTH MACOMB SANITARY DISTRICT,

SOUTHEAST MACOMB SANITARY DISTRICT,

a/k/a SOUTH MACOMB SANITARY DISTRICT,

and PATRICK O’CONNELL,

Defendants

- Appell ee s

.

__________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Municipal League, the

Michigan Townships Association, and the Public Corporation Law Section of the State

Bar of Michigan to participate as amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief

submitted on June 2 6 , 2014, in support of the application for leave to appeal is accepted

for filing.
**Exhibit 21.1**

INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of the significantsubsidiaries of the Registrant and the jurisdiction under which each isorganized.  The Company owns 100 percentof the voting securities of each such subsidiary.
| ** **                                              | ** ** | **Jurisdiction** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------|------------|
| ** **                                              | ** ** | **Of**           | ** ** |
| **Name Of Subsidiary**                        | ** ** | **Organization** | ** ** |
|                                                    |       |             |       |
| International Window  Corporation                       |       | California       |       |
| General Window  Corporation*                            |       | California       |       |
| International  Window-Arizona, Inc.                     |       | California       |       |
| United States Aluminum  Corporation                     |       | California       |       |
| United States Aluminum  Corporation-Illinois            |       | California       |       |
| United States Aluminum  Corporation-Texas               |       | Texas            |       |
| United States Aluminum  Corporation-Carolina            |       | California       |       |
| United States Aluminum  Of Canada-British Columbia Ltd. |       | Canada           |       |
| United States Aluminum  Of Canada-Ontario Ltd.          |       | Canada           |       |
| Raco Interior Products,  Inc.                           |       | Texas            |       |
| International Extrusion  Corporation                    |       | California       |       |
| International Extrusion Corporation-Texas               |       | California       |       |

 

----

* dba International Window-Northern California

1

----
No. 58934.

protests 234545-K and 234590-K (New York).

#### Nisonger Sales Company and Trans-World Shipping Corp. *v*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- OTCnet
- Training Overview

# Training Overview

Welcome to the OTCnet training site! Resources  are presented by user role, on the **Welcome** page to support Agencies,  Financial Institutions and the Federal Reserve Bank to get started and  stay  up-to-date with OTCnet. Topics include Administration, Deposit Processing,  Check Capture and Check Processing, Card Processing and the OTCnet Local Bridge  (OLB).

Visit the **Welcome** page by clicking the **Launch  Training Site** button below!

Learn more about upcoming training sessions by  clicking the **Launch Training Calendar** button below!

Explore our **Web-Based Training** modules and  other training resources with the links in the table!

Launch Training Site
Launch Training Calendar

Table may scroll on smaller screens 

Last modified 01/31/23