alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OMB Control No. 2060

- 0 347

Ms. Rebecca Hindin National Program Manager ENERGY STAR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L Street, NW (Room 913 L ) Washington, DC 20005
Dear Ms. Hindin : As the corporate energy director for [name of company], I am writing to nominate the following plant for award of the (Date) ENERGY STAR: [Plant name] [Plant street address] [Plant city, state, zip code] As documented by the attached Statement of Energy Performance, I affirm that the aforementioned plant meets the conditions necessary to qual ify for the ENERGY STAR, including :

 **Energy performance** in the top 25 percent of similar existing plants, indicated by a minimum rating of 75 out of 100 as determined through the most current version of the ENERGY STAR plant energy performance indicator too l for this type of plant; and ,  **Safe lighting levels** that meet the Il luminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommended best practices for industrial facilities as described in IESNA Lighting Handbook ; 9 th Edition, Chapter 19

. An objective assessment of the facility’s environmental record has been conducted as described in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Instructions for Applying for the ENERGY STAR. I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this Application

. The information is based on reasonable inquiry and is, to the best of my knowledge , true, accurate, and complete

. I have no reason to believe the plant would not meet all EPA program requirements for receiving the ENERGY STAR. I am sub mitting this application within 4 months of the Period Ending Date on the enclosed Statement of Energy Performance. I understand EPA reserves the right to request and review any records which support the data used to produce the energy performance rating for this plant. I also certify that I am maintaining a file on this plant in accordance with EPA’s f ile maintenance guidelines. Furthermore, I agree to associate the ENERGY STAR name and logo only with the aforementioned plant and to adhere to ENERGY STAR’s Identity Guidelines. Sincerely, Signature__________________________ S ignatory Name (Corporate Energy Manager for [Company name]):_________________ Facility Owner:_______________

__________ Attachment s : Statement of Energy Performance , EPI Printout , Award Specification Sheet , Compliance Check Worksheet The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range up to 10 minutes per response. Send com ments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Penn sylvania Ave., N W, W ashington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. EPA Form 5900

- 264
Exhibit 32.1   Bingham Canyon Corporation  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Bingham Canyon Corporation (the “Company”) certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ Brett D. Mayer Brett D. Mayer Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
FAA Home
Airports
Resources
Series 150 Advisory Circulars (ACs) for Airport Projects

# AC 91-16 - Category II Operations - General Aviation Airplanes (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 91-16
- Title
- Category II Operations - General Aviation Airplanes
- Date cancelled
- 2015-05-21
- Cancellation notes
- AFS Cancellation Memo from Richard Mathews
- Date issued
- 1967-08-07
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AFS-820
- Description
-  	Sets forth acceptable means by which Category II operations may be approved in accordance with FAR Parts 23, 25, 61, 91, 97, and 135. 
- Content
-    -  Cacnellation Memo AC 91-16  (PDF) 
  -  AC 91-16  (PDF) 

## View All

      - Current Series 150 ACs
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs
      - Advisory Circulars

## Export All

      - Current Series 150 ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs  (CSV)

## Top Requests

      - AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design
      - AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
      - AC 150/5370-10H, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
      - AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings
      - AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
      - AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design
June 7, 1999



[Legg Mason, Inc. Letterhead]


 
February 1, 2008
















Mark Fetting

c/o Legg Mason, Inc.

100 Light Street

Baltimore, MD 21202


Dear Mark:


On behalf of the Legg Mason, Inc. Board of Directors and Compensation Committee, I am delighted to confirm our agreement as to your compensation for serving as President and Chief Executive Officer of Legg Mason, Inc. ("Legg Mason").  



Effective January 28, 2008, your annual salary will be $500,000.  The Compensation Committee has established your target incentive compensation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 ("fiscal year 2009") at an amount no less than $7.5 million.  Whether you are actually awarded this target amount of incentive compensation will be determined in part by your percentage, as allocated in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, of the bonus pool for that fiscal year under Legg Mason's Executive Incentive Compensation Plan.  A portion of your incentive compensation for fiscal year 2009, equal to at least 30% of your total compensation (base salary plus incentive compensation), will be paid in shares of restricted stock of Legg Mason (or other equity awards) and the remainder will be paid as a cash bonus.  The restricted stock grant (or other equity award) will be made on the same terms and conditions, subject to the attainment of specified performance goals, that restricted stock grants (or other equity awards) are made to other Legg Mason executive officers at the same time. As you know, Legg Mason typically pays incentive compensation for a fiscal year in mid-May following the end of the year.  For fiscal years after fiscal year 2009, your compensation will be discretionary, subject to the financial performance of Legg Mason and your contribution to the company. 



In addition, you will also be eligible for annual option awards, the grant of which will be determined by the Compensation Committee, subject to the approval of Legg Mason's independent directors, at the appropriate time.  You will also be eligible to participate in all Legg Mason benefit plans available to similarly situated full time employees. 


	 
	 




Mark Fetting

February 1, 2008

Page 2


As is Legg Mason's practice, this letter does not constitute an employment contract.  You should understand that your employment will be "employment at will," and that the compensation package described above is dependent on your continued employment and your attainment of specified performance goals.





Very truly yours,



/s/ Roger W. Schipke



Roger W. Schipke

Chairman Legg Mason, Inc.

   Compensation Committee


 

















	
cc:
	
Compensation Committee

Nick St. George

Chip Mason
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21222]


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

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION: Notice of Comment Period for Exposure Draft on Deferral of 
Required Implementation Date for Cost Accounting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), as amended, the Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) announces that it is publishing for review and 
comment an Exposure Draft entitled Deferral of Required Implementation 
Date for Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Number 4. 
This Exposure Draft proposes for the Cost Accounting Standard (SFFAS 4) 
and the Revenue Standard (SFFAS 7) that the effective dates be delayed 
until fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998. Comments are due 
by September 12.
    Hard copies of the Exposure Draft are available from FASAB, 441 G 
St., N.W., Washington, D.C., Room 3B18. (202-512-7350). The Exposure 
Draft is also available on the Internet, through FASAB's home page:

http://www.financenet.gov/fasab.htm

    Dated: August 6, 1997.
Wendy M. Comes,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-21222 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         227,493
<SECURITIES>                                     2,525
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,960
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,978
<PP&E>                                          33,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,687
<BONDS>                                          2,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       355,407
<OTHER-SE>                                    (115,496)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,911
<SALES>                                         91,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,373
<CGS>                                            9,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               156,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (7,917)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,459
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,954)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO MAURICE CHAPMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-98-10, CA-99-970-7)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Maurice Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge

Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Maurice Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Chapman, Nos. CR-98-10;

CA-99-970-7 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Hostetter *v.*Cleaver, Appellant.

*Sheriff’s interpleader*— Issue—Evidence—Case *for jury.*

On the trial of a feigned issue to determine the ownership of personal property levied on bjr the sheriff, a, verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence although conflicting tended to show that the defendant in the writ under which the levy was made had been in possession of the property under an agreement of conditional sale in which it was provided that in the event of a default in the payments, the vendor might retake possession of the property, and that the vendor, who was the plaintiff in the issue, had retaken possession under the agreement, two days before the levy was made.

Argued March 8, 1910.

Appeal, No. 372, Jan. T., 1909, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Franklin Co., Dec. T., 1908, No. 116, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Aaron Hostetter v. Minnie M. Cleaver and *234Edgar E. Lee.

May 9, 1910:

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Sheriff’s interpleader under the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 95. Before Gillan, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed.

*Error assigned*was in submitting the case to the jury.

*George J. Edwards, Jr.,*with him *Sharpe & Elder,*for appellants.

*Henry C. Niles,*with him *T. Z. Minehart*and *George E. Neff,*for appellee. v

Per Curiam,

This was a feigned issue to determine the ownership of personal property levied on by the sheriff. The defendant in the writ under which the levy was made had been in possession of the property under an agreement of conditional sale in which it was provided that in the event of a default in payments the vendor might retake possession of the property. The contention of the plaintiff in the issue, who was the vendor, was that he had retaken possession under the agreement, two days before the levy was made. Some things connected with the alleged retaking of possession of the property threw doubt upon the good faith of the contention made, and there was much that afterwards took place that is suggestive of a course of conduct shaped by after-discovered law, but the issue of fact was necessarily for the jury and there was no error in the manner of its submission.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### A. F. BLAIR COMPANY, INC. v. M & H ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 11407.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 9, 1977.

*1263G. William Jarman, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

John I. Hulse, IV, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee M & H Engineers & Const. Co.

Gordon R. Crawford, Gonzales, for defendant-appellee Hanna.

Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

CHIASSON, Judge.

This matter is before this Court, ex pro-prio motu, on a rule to show cause why the appeal of Robert C. Mason and M & H Engineers and Construction Company, defendants-appellarits, should' not be dismissed for failure to timely file an appeal bond.

The District Court judgment was signed on October 26, 1976. Code of Civil Procedure Article 2087, as amended by Act 201 of 1976, provides that a devolutive appeal may be taken, and security therefore furnished, within sixty days after the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial where no application for a new trial has been filed timely. Act 201 of 1976, which became effective on October 1, 1976,- reduced the delay for perfecting a devolutive appeal from ninety to sixty days.

An appeal was taken by the appellants on December 15, 1976, and security was furnished on January 24,1977.1 Under Act 201 of 1976 the appellant had until January 3, 1977 to perfect his appeal. To perfect an appeal the appellant must both obtain an order of appeal and post a bond before the expiration of the allowed delay. The appellant did not post a- bond within the allowed delay. Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The sixty day delay provided by Act 201 of 1976 governs in this case because the District Court judgment was signed after the effective date of the act and a right of appeal does not exist until after the rendition and signing of a judgment.

For the above reasons, the appellants’ appeal is dismissed. Costs to be paid by appellants.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

1

. Appellants’ security was furnished within the 90 day delay allowed previously.
Plac e holder for Video Submitted by Jason Bell (around page 322 of Hearing Transcript)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,626
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 136,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (9,803)
<INVENTORY>                                   193,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              356,744 
<PP&E>                                        179,105
<DEPRECIATION>                              (133,323)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                470,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         120,160
<BONDS>                                       157,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       85,549
<OTHER-SE>                                    106,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  470,383
<SALES>                                       718,135 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              721,510
<CGS>                                         544,003         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 687,485 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (8,695)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            25,240
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   25,240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .74
        

</TABLE>
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

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of New England Bancshares,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Scott D. Nogles,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
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 as of and for the period  covered by
                  the Report.




                                                 /s/ Scott D. Nogles
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Scott D. Nogles
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 November 13, 2006
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William J.Birmingham, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Form 10-K of Ault Incorporated (the Registrant);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)          Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  September 27, 2005
|        |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |   | William J. Birmingham           |
|   |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

69

----