alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29821]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, November 14, 1997.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Proposed 1998 Federal Reserve Board employee salary structure 
adjustments and merit program.
    2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal System 
employees.
    3. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement that not only 
lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information 
about the meetings.

    Dated: November 7, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-29821 Filed 11-7-97; 10:08 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
#### Robert Dewayne YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ramon R. SILVEIRA, Appellant, v. AIRCRAFT CASTING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-678.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

Weiner & Rubin, Miami, for appellant.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment in an action for libel.

Plaintiff filed an action for libel against the defendant, his former employer. In his amended complaint plaintiff alleged he, a union member, was employed by the defendant in its steel casting inspection department and that on or about September 11, 1972, he was given a written notice of discharge which read as follows:

> “For disloyalty to the company, and working against the best interests of all employees, you are hereby discharged.”

At the time of the discharge, the only others present besides the plaintiff was the union’s chief steward who also received a copy of the notice of discharge and two employees in the defendant’s personnel department. The notice was not posted and the remaining two copies thereof were filed away promptly in locked cabinets.

Defendant-appellee moved for summary judgment and after extensive discovery and a hearing thereon, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee.

On appeal, appellant basically contends that the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment for the defendant where there was allegedly evidence before the court that plaintiff had resigned before the discharge notice was issued, thus raising the question of unprivileged communication sufficient to be submitted to a jury. We cannot agree.

A search of the record reveals that plaintiff-appellant never tendered formal written notice of resignation. At the most, the record supports that plaintiff had entertained the idea of resigning a day or two before his official discharge, but informed the union steward that anyone who believed he had resigned was mistaken. Hence, appellant was officially in the employ of defendant at the time of discharge. *20We also noted that plaintiff-appellant failed to follow the established grievance procedure to challenge his dismissal and instead choose to bring this action for libel.

Thus, we find the notice of discharge hereinabove to be a qualifiedly privileged publication and, therefore, affirm the judgment, herein appealed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1



C CACTUS, INC.   INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CLASS A COMMON STOCK SEE   REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 127203 10 7 THIS CERTIFIES THAT   SPECIMEN IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF   CLASS A COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF CACTUS, INC. transferable   on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney,   upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not   valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the   Registrar. WITNESS, the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly   authorized officers. Dated: PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF   FINANCIAL OFFICER COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER &   TRUST COMPANY, LLC (Brooklyn, NY) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED   SIGNATURE 


    




 










The following   abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,   shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to   applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM – as tenants in common TEN ENT – as   tenants by the entireties UNIF GIFT MIN   ACT–......................Custodian...................... (Cust) (Minor)   under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act........................................................   (State) JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as   tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the   above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE   INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT   OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the   Class A common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby   irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the   books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the   premises. Dated NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH   THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR,   WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE(S)   GUARANTEED: THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR   INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT   UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),   PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS FILED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,508
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,695
<INVENTORY>                                    253,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               540,297
<PP&E>                                         266,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 992,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          266,989
<BONDS>                                            435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           558
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   992,232
<SALES>                                        280,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,690
<CGS>                                          198,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,892
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,741
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29620]


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

TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


SES Performance Review Board; Notice

AGENCY: Trade and Development Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the 
Trade and Development Agency's Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre E. Curley, Assistant Director 
for Management, Trade and Development Agency, 1621 N. Kent Street, 
Arlington, VA 22209-2131, (703) 875-4357.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) (1) through (5), U.S.C., 
requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES 
performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority 
relative to the performance of the senior executive.
    The following have been selected as acting members of the 
Performance Review Board of the Trade and Development Agency: Lois E. 
Hartman, Deputy Director (retired), Office of Human Resources, Agency 
for International Development; James Sullivan, Director, Office of 
Energy and Infrastructure, Bureau for Research and Development, Agency 
for International Development; and John L. Wilkinson, Associate 
Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Global Programs, Agency for 
International Development.

    Dated: November 5, 1997.
Deirdre E. Curley,
Assistant Director for Management.
[FR Doc. 97-29620 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8040-01-M
#### Conoiso Servando FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40707.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March *8, 1971.*

Certiorari denied. 241 So.2d 881.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick John SACCUCCI, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-631.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 31, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK>                         0000741612
<NAME>                        TNP Enterprises, Inc.
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      921,142
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      8,537
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          26,216
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        27,629
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 984,210
<COMMON>                                       195,608
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            115,003
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 310,611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,060
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           475,681
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 194,858
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  984,210
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      118,125
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               712
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     102,921
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     103,633
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         14,492
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 281
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  14,773
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,641
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,132
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         36
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,096
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,870
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       10,224
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (10,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
#### Ilma N. LEOPOLD, Petitioner, v. RICHARD BERTRAM & COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 44056.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 102.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# L_2005301EN.01001201.xml

| 18.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 301/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 301/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1886/2005

of 17 November 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 11 to 17 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 November 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Exhibit (d)(2)

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND UNITARY FEE AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT, dated as of January 1, 2009, among DWS Value Equity Trust, a Massachusetts business trust (the “Trust”), on its own behalf and on behalf of the DWS S&P 500 Plus Fund (formerly known as the DWS Enhanced S&P 500 Index Fund) (the "Fund”), and Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Adviser').

 

WHEREAS, the Trust is engaged in business as an open-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust engages in the business of investing and reinvesting the assets of the Fund in accordance with the investment objectives, policies and restrictions specified in the currently effective Prospectuses (the “Prospectus”) and Statements of Additional Information (the “SAI”) of the Fund included in the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as amended from time to time (the “Registration Statement”), filed by the Trust under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

 

WHEREAS, the Adviser is engaged principally in rendering investment management services and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust desires to retain the Adviser to provide investment management services to the Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement, and the Adviser is willing to provide investment management services to the Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained in this Agreement, the Trust, the Fund and the Adviser agree as follows:

 

|   | 1. | *Appointment and Services*. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

 

(a)       The Trust appoints the Adviser to act as investment manager to the Fund.  The Adviser accepts its appointment and agrees to provide the services set out in this Agreement for the compensation set out in this Agreement.

 

(b)       Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the supervision of the Board of Trustees, the Adviser will provide continuing investment management of the assets of the Fund in accordance with the investment objectives, policies and restrictions set forth in the Prospectus and SAI of the Fund; the applicable provisions of the Investment Company Act, the rules and regulations thereunder; the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), relating to regulated investment companies and all rules and regulations thereunder; and all other applicable federal and state laws and regulations.  In connection with the services provided under this Agreement, the Adviser will use best efforts to manage the Fund so that it will qualify as 

 

----
AFS-11-327-E

October 19, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10374 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0549 

Mr. Dean T. Peterson 

Director of A&P School 

School of Missionary Aviation Technology 

468 East Sprague Road d-175 

Ionia, MI 48846 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It 

transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations 

of the exemption, including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By your letter dated May 16, and supplemental letter dated August 5, 2011, you 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of School of 

Missionary Aviation Technology (SMAT) for an exemption from § 65.75 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow SMAT 

to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately 

following successful completion of the general curriculum, prior to meeting the 

experience requirements of 14 CFR § 65.77. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the 

petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to SMAT. 

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629 

(copies enclosed), the FAA found that testing immediately after learning was a 

universally accepted instructional principle that reinforces learning. Therefore, we 
2 

allow the petitioner to test students immediately after successfully completing the 

general curriculum but before meeting the requirements of § 65.77. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the 

enclosed Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption 

Nos. 6569 and 8629 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant School of Missionary Aviation 

Technology an exemption from 14 CFR § 65.75(a) to administer the aviation mechanic 

general written test to students immediately following successful completion of the 

general curriculum but before meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

Condition and Limitation 

 Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, SMAT must provide its 

operations handbook to its certificate holding district office (CHDO) and receive 

approval of the operations handbook from the CHDO. 

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

David C. Gilliom 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight 

 Standards Service 

Enclosures
#### CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Charles T. FISHER, Appellee.

No. 68-626.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Aug. 27, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 72-1152.

#### Cement Masons Union Local 337, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Association of United States & Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. *v.*National Labor Relations Board et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.