alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Design Line 7 (98.00%) Design Line 8 (98.60%)

65-80%

15-25%

5-10%

98.12%

to

98.46%

98.64%

to

98.77%

55-65%

30-35%

5-10%

99.02%

to

99.11%

98.60%

to

98.65%

98.63%

to

98.72%

• Mix Data for DL7 and DL8

• Published efficiency levels for products from each section

Purchased on Low Cost (Aluminum or Copper, Shielded)

Add other feature (Low Temperature Rise, sound level, K-rated, Harmonic Mitigating, etc...)

NEMA PREMIUM, CSL3, CEE Tier 1

98.00%

to

98.12%
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20122]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1494-133]


Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

July 25, 1997.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the Office of Hydropower Licensing 
(OHL) has prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) for an 
application for approval of a marina expansion. Grand River Dam 
Authority proposes to permit Mr. Terry Frost, d/b/a Cherokee Yacht 
Club, to expand an existing marina on Grand Lake's Duck Creek. Cherokee 
Yacht Club requests permission to add two covered docks containing 53 
boat slips to an existing marina consisting of 134 slips and 2 gas 
docks. The proposal would bring the total number of slips to 187. In 
the FEA, staff concludes that approval of the licensee's proposal would 
not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment. The Pensacola Project is on the Grand 
River, in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties, Oklahoma.
    The FEA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the EA are available 
for review at the Commission's Reference and Information Center, Room 
2-A, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Additional 
informational can be obtained by calling the project manager, John 
Estep, at (202) 219-2654.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20122 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Gloria Rivera, Appellant, v Samuel Shlagbaum, Respondent.

[612 NYS2d 68]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated September 10, 1992, as (1) denied her motion for leave to place the action on the trial calendar by filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for inquest, and (2) granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to enter a timely default judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion is granted, the defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

The plaintiff commenced this action by serving the defendant with a summons and complaint on June 8, 1990. The defendant neither appeared nor served an answer. From May 30, 1991, to October 30, 1991, the plaintiff’s attorney mailed letters and made telephone calls to the defendant’s insurer inquiring when an answer would be interposed. In June 1991, the insurer’s adjuster told the plaintiff’s attorney that he was in the process of obtaining the relevant file and that he would get back to the plaintiff in three or four weeks. In October 1991, the same adjuster informed the plaintiff’s attorney that he still did not have the plaintiff’s file. The plaintiff subsequently moved to place the matter on the trial calendar by filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for inquest. The defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of abandonment. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, granted the defendant’s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint. We reverse.

In *Ingénito v Grumman Corp.*(192 AD2d 509), we held that *525forbearance by a plaintiff to allow a defendant’s insurance carrier time to investigate an accident is a sufficient cause for delay in entering a default judgment and that such forbearance satisfies the requirements of CPLR 3215 (c). In addition, the plaintiff in this case submitted an affidavit of merit in the Supreme Court which was uncontested by the defendant *(see, Woodward v City of New York,*119 AD2d 749). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to place the matter on the trial calendar by filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for inquest is granted, and the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint is denied *(see,*CPLR 3215 [a]; *Ingenito v Grumman Corp., supra; Singh v Kalish,*153 AD2d 621, 625). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 47758.

#### Protests 724851-G, etc., of Louis Marbe Cohn (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The case was submitted on a stipulation between counsel that the merchandise in question consists of “8-Bu. paper hats,” known as harvest hats, similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). The protests were sustained to that extent.
#### GORGAS v. ZEOP.

May 27, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why fieri facias should not be set aside.*

Special bail, or a plea of freehold for a stay of execution, cannot be entered on a judgment rendered against the defendant in a *scire facias*on a recognizance of bail for stay of execution.

THIS was a *scire facias*in a recognizance of bail for stay of execution. After judgment, the defendant pleaded his freehold for a stay of execution against him. Plaintiff issued a *fieri facias*and this was a rule to set it aside.

*Graham,*for the rule,

contended that under the act of the 18th June, 1836, relating to executions, *(Stroud’s Purd. lit. Executions,)*there may be bail, and a *cesset execuiio*in an action of this kind,

*Budd,*contra.

Per Curiam.

The act did not intend to give a *cesset*in such a case. If it were otherwise, the plaintiff in certain cases would be delayed in collecting his debt, even although the plaintiff had already been put to the disadvantage of one stay of execution allowed by the act. The practice has always been as stated.

Rule discharged.
```

[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]               
[Page 36065]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-32]                         

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, June 30, 2010; 11 a.m.-12 Noon.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: June 21, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15512 Filed 6-22-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: March 13, 2006
    
    /s/ Doug RockDoug RockChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,President and Chief Operating OfficerDate: March 13, 2006
    
    /s/ Margaret K. DormanMargaret K. DormanSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
   85
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of D.J. and E.J., children. ) ___________________________________) ) C.J., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-263 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD ) LITEM PROGRAM, ) ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed October 23, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Leigh Frizzell Hayes, Judge. C.J., pro se. Meredith K. Hall, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

MORRIS, ATKINSON, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Placeholder: confidential business information item

Hy-Yield Bromine letter to EPA regarding transfer of CSAs

For more information please contact Jeremy Arling by phone at 202-343-9055 or by

email at arling.jeremy@epa.gov
Exhibit 10.1 Discretionary Incentive Plan for 2008




			Navigation Links




EXHIBIT 10.1
Discretionary Incentive Plan





This Discretionary Incentive Plan (Plan) is being implemented relative to the performance of certain executive officers of the
Company during 2008 to provide such officers an alternative incentive plan to the Annual Incentive Plan (AIP).  Under this Plan, a
pool of funds will be set aside for certain discretionary incentive payments, if any, to be made for performance in 2008.  This Plan
is only applicable to performance during 2008.

This Plan is effective only if no incentive payments are made under the AIP for 2008 performance.  The Board of Directors has the
authority, in its sole and subjective discretion, to modify or terminate all or any part of this Plan at any time with or without
prior notice.

The Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer are not eligible to participate under this Plan.  Each of the
other participants under the AIP are eligible to participate under this Plan.

One third of the maximum of the payment that would be made to each participant (exclusive of the CEO, President and COO) under the
AIP, if all Company earnings and individual performance targets for 2008 were to be achieved, will be set aside in a Discretionary
Incentive Pool.

As to each participant eligible under this Plan, the Compensation Committee, after obtaining input from the Chief Executive Officer,
will recommend to the Board of Directors and the Board will decide, in its sole and subjective discretion, whether or not an
incentive payment is to be made to the participant and the amount of such payment, if any.  These decisions will be made within 60
days after the end of 2008 based on the performance of the participant during 2008 as evaluated and determined by the Board of
Directors, in its sole and subjective discretion, after obtaining recommendations from the Compensation Committee.

Incentive payments under this Plan are to be paid, if at all, within 60 days after the end of 2008.  The participant must be actively
employed on the date of the payout in order to receive an incentive payment, unless termination is due to death, incapacitation or
retirement.  Any payment will be prorated in these situations.  All payments are subject to applicable tax withholdings as well as
any 401(k) and/or deferred compensation deductions.





		
	Navigation Links
123 STAT. 3490 PUBLIC LAW 111–131—JAN. 29, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3319: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Oct. 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–131 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 440 South 

Gulling Street in Portola, California, as the ‘‘Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul 

McCleery Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMIAH PAUL MCCLEERY POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Army Specialist Jeremiah 

Paul McCleery Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery Post Office 

Building’’. 

Approved January 29, 2010. 

Jan. 29, 2010 

[H.R. 3319] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
July 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DEREK ANTHONY WEST, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00622-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 20 16

- 4674 Directorate ID : 2016

- SW

- 001

- AD Helicopter Model:

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 5 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to p revent a failure of an air conditioner compressor drive pulley or tail rotor output wheel, which could lead to loss of tail rotor drive and helicopter control.

Costs :

• I nspecting the pulley and wheel will take about 7.5 work

- hours for a cost of $638 per h elicopter and $3,190 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

• Replacing an Air Comm pulley will cost $2,380 for parts and 0.5 additional work

- hour for a cost of $2,423 per helicopter.

• Replacing an Airbus wheel will cost $19,231 for parts and 10 addition al work

- hours for a cost of $20,08 1 per helicopter.

• The optional terminating action of installing an Airbus output flange will cost $2,327 for parts and 0.5 additional work

- hour for a cost of $2,370 per helicopter.

• Reporting the required inspection infor mation to the FAA will take about 0.5 work

- hour for a cost of about $43 per helicopter and $215 for the U.S. fleet.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of smal l entities? Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : Richard Thomas
April 28, 1942

No. 47125.

#### Protests 72919-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Serbando Sanchez, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A-20-0854-CR.

Vs. No. 11-22-00036-CR * September 8, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
***Exhibit 99.2***

**CERTIFICATION**

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. (“the Company”), hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

 

|    |   |   |                                   |
|---------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| 6/26/03 |   |   | /s/ Timothy E. Blow                    |
|         |   |   |                                        |
| Date    |   |   | Timothy E. BlowChief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 September 27, 2018

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2018

158077(38)

In re PAROLE OF RONALD IRWIN 

____________________________________

MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTING 

ATTORNEY, 

Appellee, 

SC: 158077

v COA: 342963 

Macomb CC: 2017-000053-AP

RONALD IRWIN, 

Appellant.

_____________________________________

PAROLE BOARD, 

Intervenor-Appellee. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellant to extend the time for filing 

his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on September 5, 2018, is accepted for filing.
#### HAMILL v. O’DONNELL.

May 27, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why the judgment should not he set aside.*

The words “ book debt” under the act of 28th March, 1835, means, debts for goods sold and delivered, and for work, labour, and services; and the words “ book entries” mean, the entries in the *original*book of the plaintiff which, under the ordinary rules, would be competent to go to a jury as evidence in support *of plaintiff’’ s*claim.

*102THIS was an action to December term, 1836, No. 153. The plaintiff filed a copy of “ book entries,” under the act of 28th March, 1835, his claim being for a “book debt;” that is to say, for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff entered judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, whereupon the defendant obtained this rule to show cause.

*F. E. Brewster,*for the rule.

*Badger,*contra.

Upon examination, it appeared that the copy of the book entries filed by plaintiff, was a copy of the ledger entries, and not of the entries in the original book of the plaintiff.

Per Curiam.

The act of 28th March, 1835, sect. 2d., in using the words, “ book debt” and “ book entries,” refers to their usual signification, which includes goods sold and delivered, and work, labour and services performed, the evidence of which, on the part of the plaintiff, consists of entries in an original book, such as is competent to go to a jury, were the issue trying before them-The words of a statute, are in construction, to receive their ordinary and usual meaning, and no strained inference is to be drawn; this is a familiar rule. The judgment in this case must be set aside.

Rule absolute.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, J.C. Chatpar, certify that:

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cyber Digital, Inc.;
- Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 fiscal year covered by this annual report;
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the fiscal years presented in this annual report;
- The registrant's other certifying officers 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 annual 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; and 
	c)  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
- 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

	a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonable 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 controls over financial reporting.

 

June 27, 2005

/s/  J.C. Chatpar

J.C. Chatpar

Chief Executive Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer