alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Gas Utilization Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 25, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Gas Utilization 
Research Forum (``GURF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damage under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, ARCO International Oil and Gas Company, 
Plano, TX has become a new member of GURF.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group. Membership in this group remains open, and GURF 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership. Information regarding membership in GURF may be obtained 
from the Secretary, Dennis Winegar, Vice President, International 
Marketing & Business Development, Texaco Global Gas and Power, P.O. Box 
4700, Houston, TX 77210-4700, Telephone (713) 752-7654, Facsimile: 
(713) 752-4681.
    On December 19, 1990, GURF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
January 16, 1991, (56 FR 1655).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 11, 
1997. The notice has not been published.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-29529 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00438

- CV

TEXAS ENERGY OPERATI ONS, LC APPELLANT

V.

RELIABLE WELL SERVIC E OF

NORTH TEXAS, LLC APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 89TH DISTRI CT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 185, 768

- C

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant’ s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.” It is the

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f ).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 1, 2018

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #31 – 7.01 Plan Sponsor Information 

Does the application include the required plan sponsor information, including 

 name 

 address 

 telephone number 

 email address 

 fax number 

 employer identification number (EIN) and 

 3-digit plan number (PN). 

See section 7.01. 

Document 31.1 provides the required information for the plan sponsor. 
International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund

EIN/Plan #: 38-6237143/001 

Checklist Item #31 – 7.01 Plan Sponsor Information 

31.1 

Document 31.1

Plan Sponsor Information

Name of Plan Sponsor: Board of Trustees of I.A. of M. Motor City Pension Fund

Contact Information:

Name: Mr. Duane Menter

Title: Plan Manager

Address: 700 Tower Drive, Suite 300

Troy, MI 48098

Phone: 248-813-9800 ext. 3212

Fax: 248-813-9898

Email: duane.menter@benesys.com

EIN of Plan Sponsor: 38-6237143
#### Reuben PITTMAN v. STATE of Florida.

No. 38376.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
IW17PF_457
IW17PF_458
IW17PF_459
IW17PF_460
IW17PF_461
IW17PF_462
IW17PF_463
IW17PF_464
IW17PF_465
IW17PF_466
IW17PF_467
IW17PF_468
IW17PF_469
IW17PF_470
IW17PF_471
IW17PF_472
IW17PF_473
IW17PF_474
IW17PF_475
Checklist Item #35 Application for Approval of a Suspension of 

Benefits Under MPRA

Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund EIN: 51-0161467

Plan No.: 001

Does the application 

include a designation of 

power of attorney for each 

authorized representative 

who will represent the plan 

sponsor in connection with 

the application. 

See section 7.05 and 

Appendix B. 

The Trustees for the Iron Workers Local 17 

Pension Fund prepared the Power of Attorney and 

Designation of Authorized Representative Before 

the Department of Treasury based upon the Model 

document provided in Revenue Procedure 2015-

34. The Power of Attorney Designation signed by

the Chairman Trustee for the Iron Workers Local

17 Pension Fund as the Authorized Trustee and

the Pension Fund’s Legal Counsel is attached at

pages IW17PF_368-369.

IW17PF_367
IW17PF_368

Redacted by the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury
IW17PF_369

Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury
#### John Jerry BLANCHARD v. Dallas Arnold PICOU et al. John Gerry BLANCHARD v. Robert C. KENT, Sr., et al. William A. ROE et al. v. Robert C. KENT, Sr., et al. William A. ROE et al. v. Dallas Arnold PICOU.

No. 62817.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 18, 1978.

John L. Hantel, New Orleans, for defendant-applicant-relator.

Chalin 0. Perez, New Orleans, Michael Kirby, Port Sulphur, Luke A. Petrovich, Bunos, for plaintiffs-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The present application is by Robert C. Kent, Sr., a candidate for school board in the Parish of Plaquemines. It was granted at the same time as the application for supervisory writs was granted on application of Dallas A. Picou, Jr. in the companion suits. *Roe, Dowdy and Blanchard v. Picou,*361 So.2d 874 (writ granted August 15, 1978).

In the lower court judgments, candidate Kent was held to be qualified as a candidate in the primary election to be held on the sixteenth day of September, 1978 for election to the office as a member of the Plaquemines Parish School Board, Ward 6 of the Ten Ward System in effect prior to June 11, 1970.

The present application by Kent was filed as a precautionary writ in the event this court held that the Five Ward System was still in effect. Since in the companion writs decision rendered this date, we have not held the five ward system to be in effect, the applicant is not in need of the precautionary relief sought by him only in the event this court determined that the Five Ward System was still in effect.

Accordingly, we recall and rescind the writ of certiorari, and we dismiss this application.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SHAWN KAFTOUSIAN,

 Appellant,

v.

NADIA REZAEIPANAH,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00019-CV 

Appeal from the

219th Judicial District Court

of Collins County, Texas 

(TC# 219-55034-2011) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

part of the judgment as to the dividing of the marital estate. We therefore reverse that part of the 

judgment and remand for a new trial, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We affirm the 

remainder of the divorce decree.

We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee the costs of this appeal. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 4047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DIQUELLE SWEET , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:18

- cr - 00042

- D

- 2 )

Submitted : March 9, 2022 Decided: March 16, 2022

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant U nited States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Diquelle Sweet seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In criminal cases, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good ca use, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4)

. Although the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but rather a claim

- processing rule, United States v. Urut yan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), “we must dismiss” the appeal “[w]hen the Government promptly invokes the rule in response to a late

- filed criminal appeal,” United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017). When the Government moves to di smiss the appeal within the time required by Local Rule 27(f), * this court will grant the motion. United States v. Hyman , 884 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2018). The district court entered judgment o n August 17, 2018. Sweet filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on February 3, 2021. Because Sweet failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period , and the Government has promptly invoked the appeal’s untimeliness, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismi ss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

* Local Rule 27(f)(2) requires that motions to dismiss be filed within the time allowed for filing a response brief. Here, the Government complied with that rule.3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                              AMENDMENT TO
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          FIRST AMENDMENT dated August 1, 1996 to Employment Agreement 
effective as of January 1, 1996, by and between The Coleman Company, Inc., a 
Delaware corporation (the "Company") and David Stearns (the "Executive").

          WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement effective 
as of January 1, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

          WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set 
forth herein.

          NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

          1.   Section 9(c) is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced 
with the following:

               9.(c)  During the time the Executive is employed by the 
     Corporation and for a period of two years following the termination of 
     such employment for any reason, the Executive will not serve as an officer,
     director or employee, or in any other way assist the efforts of, any 
     Significant Competitor.  As used herein, the term "Significant Competitor" 
     shall mean any corporation, partnership or entity (i) that competes 
     directly against the Corporation in one or more product lines with such 
     product lines representing at least 10% of the total sales of such 
     competitor, and (ii) where such competing products offered by the
     Corporation constitute at least 10% of the total sales of any organization 
     unit of the Corporation (e.g. division or corporate) that the Executive 
     has been employed at during the previous 24 months. Notwithstanding 
     anything above, this section shall not prohibit the Executive from owning 
     not more than 5% of any publicly traded company.  The restrictions on the
     Executive pursuant to this Section 9(c) shall lapse upon any material 
     breach of this Agreement by the Corporation, including without limitation, 
     the obligations of Corporation under Section 6 COMPENSATION UPON 
     TERMINATION.


<PAGE>

     2.   Executive acknowledges that he has been furnished a copy of 
Colorado Revised Statutes Section 8-23-113(2) and he acknowledges that his 
position is within the class of "executive and management personnel and 
officers" which is excluded from the statute.

     3.   The parties agree that as except as expressly amended hereby, the 
Agreement shall be in full force and effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the 
Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.

                              THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC.



                              By: /s/  LARRY E. SANFORD
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Name: Larry E. Sanford
                                  Title: Executive Vice President

                                  /s/  D.K. STEARNS
                                  ------------------------------
                                  David Stearns
Exhibit 32.3








Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted


pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Accretive Health, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Emad Rizk, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




Date: August 5, 2015


/s/ Emad Rizk


Emad Rizk


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIC ARDO CARRILLO

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00174

- CR

Appeal from the

120 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D02487 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the S tate ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

February 14

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

STATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaim e Esparza, the State ’s Attorney, p repare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 14, 2015

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of January, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### Ex parte Frankie Lee DAVIS.

77-609.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 21, 1978.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 119 ) IV-C-8

5

Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57

AM Sheet 119 of 232

# f *

ju-i.'IP'-e l P. 2

RC i Georg e Parke r Associat e Administrato r for Enforcemen t nationa l Highwa y

Traffi c Safet y

Administratio n 40 0 Sevent hStreet , 3.w . Washington, D C 2059 0 ^ »

Dea r «r . Parker :
W e ver y suc happreciate d th e opportunit y

t o mee t wit hyou an d you r staf f o

nJanuar y

1 2 t o discus s th e ongoin g analyse s o f NWTS A recal l data , among othe r setters , As yo u know , ther e ar e a numbe r o f unresolve d issue s concernin g the interpretatio no f the file s whic hyou hav e collected , Por ou r part , w e ar e aailou s t o continu e our discussion s an d resolv e an

y lenainin g questions . In connectio nwit hthi s process , ther e i s somethin g whic h you coul d d o whic hwoul d greatl y facilitat e our discussion s an d our understandin g of your analysis . W e fee l som

e confusio na s t o ho w you currentl y

classif y

the variou s group s o f recalls . T o clea r u

p thi s confusion , I reques t tha t you giv e u s you r classificatio n o f th e 3 8 recall s whic hHHTS a believe s ar e relevan t t o the adoptio no f onboar d controls . I nparticular , I would * lik e t o kno w ho w yo u woul d divid e the m aaon g the followin g thre e broa d categories : (1 ) Thos e recall s uniquel y associate d vit hevaporativ e contro l syste

m components . (2 ) Thos e recall s involvin g othe r fue l ayste n conpon-ant s whict i you believ e say b e affecte d b

y onboar d contro l hardware . (3 ) Thos e recall s relate d t o fne l qualit y (e.*?. , volatility ) o

r othe r fue l syats a problems . I t woul d suffic e fo r our purpose s I f you woul d sen d u s a lis t o f the recall s falling int o aac hcategory . T f vou believ e tha t ther e ar e son s relevan t recall s whic hcanno t h e classifie d i non e o f the abov e thre e categories , pleas e identif y thos e also .

SDSB:Anderson:McManus:256 5 Plymont hRd.:X496:1/21/88:ID#:5637 W Las t reviewe d b

y Charle s Gray :

### P. 3 

# /V *

mite d aaoaa t o f time avallabia , I ndin g t o thi s latte r a a soo na s pos s rvar d t o continoa d diicussion a on yo u agai nfor you r cooperation .
Sincerel y

Tours ,

Cheste r J . Prance , Chie f Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h
# FY2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7249 

RODNEY MORTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Pardon &

Parole Board; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-04-428-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Morton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Morton appeals the district court’s order denying

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000), on his complaint

challenging matters concerning his parole file. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Morton v. Fahey, No. CA04-428-1 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 21.1



|SUBSIDIARIES OF GOLUB CAPITAL BDC, INC.
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|Name                                   
|Golub Capital Master Funding LLC       
|Golub Capital BDC 2010-1 Holdings LLC  
|Golub Capital BDC 2010-1 LLC           
|GC SBIC IV-GP, Inc.                    
|GC SBIC IV-GP, LLC                     
|GC SBIC IV, L.P.                       
|Golub Capital BDC Funding LLC          
|Golub Capital BDC Holdings LLC         
|GC SBIC V-GP, LLC                      
|GC SBIC V, L.P.                        
|Upper GCC Holdings LLC
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2017, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Date:  March  22, 2018





Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer





By:  /s/ Steven C. McNeal


Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29982]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
    Date and Time: December 4, 1997 8:00 am-5:30 pm; December 5, 
1997 8:00 am-2:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
375, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Adriaan de Graaf, Executive Officer, MPS, Room 
1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1800.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations on 
development of MPS strategic planning mechanisms; provide advice on 
the appropriateness of current disciplinary boundaries; evaluate the 
current MPS interfaces with academia and industry; and advise on 
methods of achieving overall program excellence in MPS.

Agenda

December 4, 1997

AM
    Introductory Remarks
    Discussion on Science and Education Themes for the 21st Century
PM
    Roundtable Discussion--Assessing the Value of Basic Research
    Review of NSF GPRA documents and PHY COV Report

December 5, 1997

AM
    Strategic Planning/Science and Education Themes
PM
    Report on DMS Benchmarking Activity
    Meeting Wrap-up/Future Business
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29982 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# 2022 Income by Source