alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21958]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than September 3, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill III, Assistant 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Carolina First Corporation, Greenville, South Carolina; to 
acquire First Southeast Financial Corporation, Anderson, South 
Carolina, and thereby indirectly acquire its subsidiary, First Federal 
Savings and Loan Association of Anderson, Anderson, South Carolina, and 
thereby engage in operating a savings and loan association, pursuant to 
Sec.  225.28(b)(4)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 14, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-21958 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Effective beginning July 1, 2007, non-employee
directors of Environmental Power Corporation (the “Company”) will be compensated as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 A monthly retainer of $4,000, except that the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) will receive a monthly retainer of $7,000,
and the Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board will receive a monthly retainer of $4,833.33; and 


  

	 	•	 	 the grant of a stock appreciation right (“SAR”) under the Company’s 2006 Equity Incentive Plan based on 15,000 shares of the Company’s common
stock, except that the Chairman of the Board will receive a SAR based on 26,250 shares of the Company’s common stock.
Before the Third Division,

February 10, 1941

No. 45368.

#### Protests 997895-G, etc., of Mrs. Hilde Ascher et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the lift vans in question are the same as those the subject of Abstracts 43642 and 43909. The claim for free entry as usual containers of duty-free merchandise was therefore sustained.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-755V

Filed: September 5, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

JOHN WANKET, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Isaiah Kalinowski, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Voris E. Johnson, Jr., Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On September 5, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that he did not 

incur any costs in pursuit of his petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and 

costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in

petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends his application for 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

attorneys’ fees and costs to $28,300.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The 

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $28,300.00,

representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, P.A., in the amount of 

$28,300.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Exhibit 10.22
  
 Re:
    
    Amended and Restated Overadvance Side Letter
 Parent SMM VCI Companies Company Laurus Security Agreement Original Overadvance Side Letter Agent Creditors Overadvance Initial Overadvance
Amount Maximum Overadvance Amount Applicable Overadvance Amount Annex A
 Period




---



##### 



Overadvance Rate
 Overadvance
Conditions Control Accounts
  Additional Warrant
 2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



LAURUS MASTER FUND, LTD.
By: Laurus Capital Management, LLC,
its investment manager.By:Name:Title:Date:VALENS U.S. SPV I, LLC
By: Valens Capital Management, LLC,
its investment managerBy:Name:Title:Date:VALENS OFFSHORE SPV I, LTD.
By: Valens Capital Management, LLC
its investment managerBy:Name:Title:Date:PSOURCE STRUCTURED DEBT LIMITED
By: Laurus Capital Management, LLC
its investment managerBy:Name:Title:Date:LV ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
as AgentBy:Name:Title:Date:
 4




---



##### 



AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER AGREEMENT:
 SILICON MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, INC.
 By:Name:
    
    Rudolph (Tré) A. Cates IIITitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
 SILICON MOUNTAIN MEMORY, INCORPORATED
 By:Name:
    
    Rudolph (Tré) A. Cates IIITitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
 VCI SYSTEMS, INC.
 By:Name:
    
    Rudolph (Tré) A. Cates IIITitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
 5




---



##### 



ANNEX A
  Period
    
    Applicable Overadvance AmountFeb 1, 2009 through and including February
28, 2009
    
    $1,050,000March 1, 2009 through and including March
31, 2009
    
    $1,025,000April 1, 2009 through and including April
30, 2009
    
    $1,050,000May 1, 2009 through and including May 31,
2009
    
    $975,000May 1, 2009 through and including May 31,
2009
    
    $950,000June 1, 2009 through and including June 30,
2009
    
    $925,000July 1, 2009 through and including July 31,
2009
    
    $900,000August 1, 2009 through and including August
31, 2009
    
    $875,000September 1, 2009 through maturity
    
    $0
 6
FINAL ACTION ON REGULATIONS 306

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 41, ISSUE 4, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2014 

# Title 24 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Subtitle 05 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 24.05.13 Maryland Public Art Initiative Program Authority: Economic Development Article, §§4-601

—4-608, Annotated Code of Maryland Notice of Final Action [13-434-F] On February 11, 2014, the Secretary of Business and Economic Development adopted amendments to Regulation .10 under COMAR 24.05.13 Maryland Public Art Initiative Program . This action, which was proposed for adoption in 40:26 Md. R. 2202 (December 27, 2013), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: March 3, 2014. DOMINICK E. MURRAY Secretary of Business and Economic Development 

# Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY
Notice of Final Action [13-372-F] On January 28, 2014, the Secretary of the Environment adopted amendments to: (1) Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of FuelBurning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations ; and (2) Regulations .06 and .07 under COMAR 26.11.14 Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills

. This action, which was proposed for adoption in 40:28 Md. R. 1981

— 1983 (November 15, 2013), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: March 3, 2014. ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Secretary of the Environment 

# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program Authority: Environment Article, §§1-404, 2-102, 2-103, 2-301, 2-1102, and 2- 1103, Annotated Code of Maryland Notice of Final Action [13-347-F-I] On January 28, 2014, the Secretary of the Environment adopted amendments to Regulation .02under COMAR 26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program . This action, which was proposed for adoption in 40:23 Md. R. 1986-1988 (November 15, 2013), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: March 3, 2014. ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Secretary of the Environment 

# Title 29 DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE Subtitle 01 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 29.01.04 Hazardous Material Security

Authority: Environmental Article, §§7-701

— 7-709, Annotated Code of Maryland Notice of Final Action [13-401-F] On February 4, 2014, the Secretary of State Police adopted new Regulations .01

— .06under a new chapter, COMAR 29.01.04 Hazardous Material Security . This action, which was proposed for adoption in 40:25 Md. R. 2137

— 2138 (December 13, 2013), has been adopted as proposed. Effective Date: March 3, 2014. MARCUS L. BROWN Secretary of State Police
#### Joaquin Antonio CORTIZO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1978.

*214Harry W. Prebish, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Ronald A. Dion and Jose R. Rodriguez and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, was tried and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to sell a controlled substance (Cocaine); sale or delivery of a controlled substance; and manufacture or possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to seven years on the “sale” count and five years each on the “conspiracy” and “possession” counts, all sentences to run concurrently. From his convictions and sentences, appellant has raised a number of points on appeal.

Point I claims that the trial court committed reversible error in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the conspiracy count on the grounds that the State failed to produce independent evidence of appellant’s participation in the crime. In conjunction with the first point, appellant’s point II claims as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Said motion was based upon the allegedly erroneous admittance of certain statements made by appellant’s co-defendants, while appellant was not present, implicating appellant in the conspiracy. It is appellant’s contention that because the state failed to produce independent proof of a conspiracy, the “co-conspirator exception” to the hearsay rule is not applicable and the court should have excluded the testimony of a confidential informant which related such statements to the jury.

Notwithstanding appellant’s contentions, after carefully examining the record, it is our opinion that the state did present independent proof of a conspiracy involving appellant and thus, the “co-conspirator exception” to the hearsay rule was both available and correctly utilized by the trial judge. *Adirim v. State,*350 So.2d 1082 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Appellant’s point III states that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing into evidence testimony of a subsequent, similar crime. We, however, find that the evidence was relevant insofar as proving such factors as intent, common scheme and design, while at the same time disproving unlawful entrapment. *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959); *Green*v. *State,*190 So.2d 42 (Fla.2d DCA 1966).

Appellant’s final point is without merit and need not be discussed.

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that the judgment and sentences appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
No. 00-6789.

#### Riel *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 21
Subsidiaries of Registrant

NAME

STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION
OF INCORPORATIONCintas Corporation No. 3

NevadaCintas Corporation No. 2

NevadaCintas Corp. No. 8, Inc.

NevadaCintas Corp. No. 15, Inc.

NevadaCintas  R.U.S., L.P.

TexasCintas Corporate Services, Inc.

OhioThe Millennium Mat Company, LLC

OhioGrupo Cintas de Mexico S.A. de C.V.

MexicoCintas Cleanroom Resources de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoCintas Service Transportation, LLC

OhioCintas C.V. Holdings, LLC

OhioCintas Corporation Hong Kong Limited

Hong KongCintas Wholesale First Aid LLC

OhioCintas Distribution LLC

OhioCDS Equipment Holdings, LLC

OhioCintas Netherlands Holdings C.V.

NetherlandsCintas Macau Limited

ChinaCintas de Honduras, S.A.

HondurasEmpresa Cintas de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoEnsambles de Coahuila, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoCintas Manufacturing LLC

OhioCintas Holdings LLC

OhioCintas Netherlands Holdings B.V.

NetherlandsCintas Canada Limited

Ontario, Canada3065521 Nova Scotia Company

Nova Scotia, Canada3065520 Nova Scotia Company

Nova Scotia, CanadaCintas Document Management  Netherlands B.V.

NetherlandsCintas Canada Investment Limited Partnership

Alberta, CanadaCintas Document Management  Germany GmbH

GermanyCintas China Holding Limited

Hong KongCintas (Suzhou) Enterprise Services Co., Ltd

China


72

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Pentagon’s top acquisition official talks innovation, sustainment with defense industry

By Beth Reece

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Better Buying PoweracquisitionStrategic EngagementWarfighter FirstFinancial StewardshipKendallBBP 3.0sustainmentUSD(AT&L)Supplier Conferencesuppliersindustry
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Suncrest Global Energy Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 8, 2007/s/ John W. Peters
John W. Peters
Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-341-002]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

August 4, 1997.
    Take notice on July 30, 1997, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheet listed 
below, with a proposed effective date of August 1, 1997:

Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 336

    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply 
with the Commission's order issued July 21, 1997 in the referenced 
docket (July 21 Order). The July 21 Order addressed Transco's 
submission of a pro forma tariff sheet incorporating into Transco's 
compliance filing to Order No. 587-C a fall-back provision for 
nominations in the event of the failure of electronic communication 
equipment and required Transco to file an actual tariff sheet to be 
effective August 1, 1997.
    Transco states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to 
customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20948 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence SMITH, Jr. and Sterling Carey.

No. 61450.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Clarence Smith, Jr. & Sterling Carey applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.