alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Highway

Administration

400 Seventh St., SW.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Refer to: HSA-CC64A

Mr. Albert Unrath, Sr.

Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

P. 0. Box 63 1

Colmar, PA 18915-1272

Dear Mr. Unrath:

In your July 1 1 letter, you requested that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) modify

its March 30,2000 acceptance (acceptance letter CC-64) of your U-MAD 1 OOK Truck Mounted

Attenuator (TMA) by removing the restriction that the support vehicle used should be “...no

heavier than the 8613-kg truck used for the test.” You believe that this condition of acceptance

is limiting sales of your TMA due to legal concerns in several State transportation agencies.

Members of my staff review formal requests for hardware acceptance by comparing the test

results with the acceptance criteria contained in the National Cooperative Research Program

(NCHRP) Report 350. In some cases, subjective decisions can be made, but generally the

analysis is quite straightforward. Regarding the weight of the support vehicle used in a TMA

test, Report 350 states in section 2.4. 1 .3 that “the truck or supporting vehicle to which an

attenuator or crash cushion is attached should be representative of the type and rnass (including

typical cargo) of the vehicle commonly used in service. If different types and masses of vehicles

arc used, consideration should be given to conducting the recommended test series...using a

vehicle at both the lower and upper extremes in terms of mass. In the absence of a common

support vehicle, it is recommended that TMA tests be conducted with a support vehicle having a

test inertial mass of 9000 kg (with a. plus/minus tolerance of) 450 kg.” The reasoning behind this

condition is obvious; too light a support vehicle (such as a pickup truck) would endanger the

driver of the support vehicle and result in unacceptable intrusion into the work area. The use of

a significantly heavier support vehicle would limit roll-ahead and would be likely to result in

unacceptable ridedown accelerations for occupants of the impacting vehicle.

In re-reading my original U-MAD 1OOK TMA acceptance letter, I can agree that the specific

wording used appears absolute and could be considered unnecessarily restrictive:. In subsequent

TMA acceptance letters, I have used, and will continue to use in future letters, the terms “similar

in weight” and not “significantly lighter or heavier” to define the weight of support vehicles

acceptable for use in service as compared to the vehicles used in the crash testing. Although not

explicitly stated in earlier letters, this restriction on the support vehicle weight applies

equally to all TMAs that have been accepted for use on the National Highway System. It

was not my intent to limit the support vehicle weight to the nearest kilogram, but to provide

general guidance from which State transportation agencies can set their own limits.
2

I hope that this letter will alleviate your concerns and serve to level the playing field once again.

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.

Sincerely yours,

’ Program Manager, Safety
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>            DEC-31-1998

<CASH>                                 422 
<SECURITIES>                          0    
<RECEIVABLES>                       16,143 
<ALLOWANCES>                          0    
<INVENTORY>                           0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    16,565 
<PP&E>                           1,357,729 
<DEPRECIATION>                    (163,845)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,411,410 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               51,270 
<BONDS>                            765,501 
<COMMON>                               174 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0    
<PREFERRED>                           0    
<OTHER-SE>                         326,100 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,411,410 
<SALES>                            197,586 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   198,689 
<CGS>                                 0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      114,001 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     9,611 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  43,751 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     31,326 
<INCOME-TAX>                          0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 29,307 
<DISCONTINUED>                        0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0    
<CHANGES>                             0    
<NET-INCOME>                        29,307 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         1.29 
<EPS-DILUTED>                         1.27 

        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to, and solely for purposes of, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in the
capacity and on the date indicated below that:

1. The Annual Report of Metrocall Holdings, Inc. ("Metrocall") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Metrocall.


    s/ Vincent D. Kelly                     Dated: March __, 2003
---------------------------------
Vincent D. Kelly
President and Chief Executive Officer


    s/ George Z. Moratis                    Dated: March __, 2003
---------------------------------
George Z. Moratis
Chief Financial Officer
# L_2005121EN.01007501.xml

| 13.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 121/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 121/75

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 721/2005

of 12 May 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 10 May 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 10 May 2005.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 10 May 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 31,00 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 May 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004.

3

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.8    
  


Mr. Keith
Reidy                                         
       19 May 2002

Metron Technology

770 Lucerne Drive

Sunnyvale, CA 94086 


Dear
Keith, 


As
we have been discussing, please find listed below our agreement for the termination of our distribution agreement with Metron Technology for SouthEast Asia and PRC. If you agree to the below listed
terms, please counter sign your acceptance. 



Specifically: 



	1.
	August
Technology and Metron Technology to immediately terminate their International Distributor Agreement for Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and mainland China
("PRC"). August Technology to immediately assume all service support to the existing installed base of tools.



	2.
	August
Technology to pay Metron Technology a $478,000 termination fee. Such termination fee will be offset against the open A/R balance that Metron has with August and all subsequent
balances shall be paid by 7/10/02.



	3.
	August
Technology takes ownership of the Metron NSX, FOB Singapore.



	4.
	All
issues surrounding the Taiwan distributor relationship (outstanding commissions, sales coverage, etc) are eliminated.



	5.
	August
Technology to provide technical/service support to Metron to allow Metron to realize final payments from any outstanding installation, either in SE Asia, PRC or Taiwan.



	6.
	August
Technology to re-purchase all spare parts at Metron's cost, including freight and duty. The list of spares to be re-purchased by August shall by
submitted by 7/10/02 to August.



	7.
	August
Technology to continue to utilize Metron Technology for distribution in South Korea, as outlined in the International Distributor Agreement, with the amendment to
paragraph 15.2 modifying the termination notice period from one (1) year to ninety (90) days. 




Keith,
if you agree to the above items, please indicate your acceptance by signing and returning this letter to me via fax at 952-820-0060. 


We
look forward to resolving this issue so that we can focus on the Korean market with your team to the mutual benefit of both parties. 



Best
respects, 


Mayson
Brooks

VP, Worldwide Sales & Field Operations

August Technology 


Agreed
to: 



	

	Keith Reidy

VP, Marketing	 	Date











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.8
#### MUSSELMAN STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Kathleen Mae RADZIWON, individually, and as widow of Frank Radziwon, deceased and Frank J. Rooney, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1971.

*328Thomas B. Mimms, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ellen S. Mills, of Kirsch & Druck, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Radiziwon.

PER CURIAM.

By interlocutory appeal we are asked to review an order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

The record discloses that within a one-year period immediately prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss the court reporter filed with the clerk the depositions of certain witnesses. Although the depositions had been taken *by the defendants*at a time more than one year prior to the filing of their motion, we hold that the filing of the depositions constitutes sufficient affirmative showing of prosecution of the action to justify denial of a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 1.420(e) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. Cf. Fund Insurance Companies v. Preskitt, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 866; Cypress Corporation of Florida v. Smith, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 481; Rosenfeld v. Glickstein, Fla. App.1967, 200 So.2d 242; Owens v. Ken’s Paint and Body Shop, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 17; and Eastern Elevator, Inc. v. Page et al., Fourth District Court of Appeal, 250 So.2d 326, opinion filed June 18, 1971.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.19**

 

**DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS**

**BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS**

 

**Leased Automobiles**

 

Varian, Inc. (“the Company”) leases an automobile for the each of its executive officers, subject to certain lease “cap” limitations that vary by executive officer. The Company reimburses the executive officer for allfuel, maintenance and repairs costs for the leased automobile, and the Company insures the automobile under its insurance programs. The Company also reimburses the executive officer (by way of a “gross-up” payment) for taxes on income thatis imputed to the executive officer for the personal use of the automobile.****

 

**Reimbursement for Financial and Tax Counseling**

 

The Company reimburses its President and Chief Executive Officer for up to $15,000 (per year) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to obtain financial advice, estate planning advice, tax advice and/or tax return preparation. The Companyreimburses each of its other executive officers for up to $6,500 (per year) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to obtain financial advice, estate planning advice, tax advice and/or tax return preparation. 

 

**Reimbursement for Annual Medical Examination**

 

The Company reimburses each of its executive officers for up to $1,000 (peryear) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred for an annual medical examination. 

 

**Use of Aircraft**

 

The Company has a 12.5%“fractional ownership” interest in an aircraft that the Company’s executive officers may use for business travel. Executive officers’ family members and guests may accompany an executive officer using the aircraft for businesstravel, since no additional cost is incurred by the Company for additional passengers.
LAW OFFICES

GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE NW SUITE 800 

WASHINGTON DC 20036-6802 

 

AARON A. GOERLICH TELEPHONE 202 776-3970 

DIRECT DIAL 202 776-3974 FACSIMILE 202 776-3975 

AGOERLICH@GGH-AIRLAW.COM WWW.GGH-AIRLAW.COM

August 7, 2012 

VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY 

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

Chief, Documentary Services 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: Docket DOT-OST-2011-172 Nordic Global Airlines Oy 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

 Pursuant to the conditions of the Foreign Air Carrier Permit issued to Nordic Global 

Airlines Oy d/b/a Nordic Global Airlines Ltd. (Order 2012-1-29), enclosed please find the 

current AOC issued by TraFi, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Thank you. 

 Sincerely, 

 Aaron A. Goerlich 

 Erin M. Tallardy 

 Counsel for Nordic Global Airlines Oy 

cc: Robert Finamore, DOT
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3710 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company capital 

formation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2024 

Mr. BUDD (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small 

company capital formation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regulation A+ Im5 provement Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JOBS ACT-RELATED EXEMPTION. 

7 Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 

8 77c(b)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking 

10 ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$150,000,000, adVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:40 Feb 03, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3710.IS S3710

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3710 IS

1 justed for inflation by the Commission every 2 years 

2 to the nearest $10,000 to reflect the change in the 

3 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

4 published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’’; and 

5 (2) in paragraph (5)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘such amount as’’ and in7 serting: ‘‘such amount, in addition to the ad8 justment for inflation provided for under such 

9 paragraph (2)(A), as’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘such amount, it’’ and in11 serting ‘‘such amount, in addition to the adjust12 ment for inflation provided for under such 

13 paragraph (2)(A), it’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 27, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00273-CV IN RE CHARLES LEON WILKERSON, Appellant On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-19-00837-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case have not been filed. By postcards dated Marc h 11, 2024 and March 15, 2024, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We di rected appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressl y cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by po stcard dated March 11, 2024, we informed appellant the docketing stat ement was due and directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. By letter dated April 30, 2024, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been f iled because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide, within ten days, verification he (1)–2– had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, or (2) was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appella nt that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court re garding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

240273F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN RE CHARLES LEON WILKERSON, Appellant

No. 05-24-00273-CV On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-19-00837- 3. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered June 27, 2024
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-66944, No. 33-67138, No. 33-74734,
No. 33-94878, No. 333-66837, No. 333-78499, No. 333-81159 and No. 333-68168 on Forms S-8; Post Effective
Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to Registration Statements No. 33-66944, No. 33-67138, No. 33-74734 and
No. 33-94878 on Forms S-8; and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-81159 on Form S-8 of QRS
Corporation of our report dated February 8, 2002 except for 4th and 5th paragraphs of Note 8, which are as of March 12, 2002 and footnote 1 to the last
paragraph of Note 8, which is as of February 13, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of QRS Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San
Francisco, California
March 19, 2002

---

QuickLinks
No. 9724.

#### Clare *v.*Nichols et al., Admrs., et al.

(Decided November 27, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Clermont County.

*Mr. W. A. Hicks,*for plaintiff in error.

*601
      *Mr. John Nichols; Messrs. Davis & Woodlief*and *Mr. Frank Davis, Jr.,*.for defendants'in-error. ■

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew,' Summers and Spear, JJ., concur..- . ' ./ •
Exhibit (h)(11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Financial Services Firm (“you” or “Intermediary”),

 

As principal underwriter of the DWS Funds, we (or a predecessor firm) or our affiliate have entered into a selling group or other agreement or agreements (the "Agreement") with you to permit you, as applicable, to sell, service, or facilitate trading in shares of the DWS Funds (collectively, the "Shares").  

 

This amendment to the Agreement is entered into as of the date indicated in the signature block below, with an effective date of October 16, 2007, or such earlier date as of which you begin providing the Shareholder information described below, and includes the following provisions: 

 

**1. Agreement to Provide Information.**Intermediary agrees to provide the Fund, upon written request, the taxpayer identification number (“TIN”), the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”), or other government-issued identifier (“GII”), if known, of any or all Shareholder(s) of the account and the amount, date, name or other identifier of any investment professional(s) associated with the Shareholder(s) or account (if known), and transaction type (purchase, redemption, transfer, or exchange) of every purchase, redemption, transfer, or exchange of Shares held through each account maintained by the Intermediary during the period covered by the request.

 

**2. Period Covered by Request.**Requests must set forth a specific period, not to exceed 90 days from the date of the request, for which transaction information is sought. The Fund may request transaction information older than 90 days from the date of the request as it deems necessary to investigate compliance with policies established by the Fund for the purpose of eliminating or reducing any dilution of the value of the outstanding shares issued by the Fund.

 

**3. Form and Timing of Response.**

 

(a)  Intermediary agrees to provide, promptly upon request of the Fund or its designee, the requested information specified in paragraph 1 above. If requested by the Fund or its designee, Intermediary agrees to use best efforts to determine promptly whether any specific person about whom it has received the identification and transaction information specified in paragraph 1 is itself a financial intermediary (“indirect intermediary”) and, upon further request of the Fund or its designee, promptly either (i) provide 

 

----