alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document












Exhibit 10.4


SCHEDULE IV


PRICING TABLE


	
							
	Level
	Loan to Value Ratio
	Applicable Margin for Base Rate for Revolving Loans
	Applicable Margin for LIBOR Rate for Revolving Loans and Letter of Credit Fee
	Applicable Margin for Base Rate for Multi-Draw Term Credit Facilities
	Applicable Margin for LIBOR Rate for Multi-Draw Term Credit Facility
	Unused Commitment Fee

	Level IV
	> 45%
	1.20%
	2.20%
	1.20%
	2.20%
	0.35%

	Level III
	< 45%
>40%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	0.30%

	Level II
	<40%
>30%
	0.70%
	1.70%
	0.70%
	1.70%
	0.20%

	Level I
	< 30%
	0.50%
	1.50%
	0.50%
	1.50%
	0.15%






	
								
	Level
	Loan to Value Ratio
	Applicable Margin for Base Rate for Term A-1 Loan
	Applicable Margin for LIBOR Rate for Term A-1 Loan
	Applicable Margin for Base Rate for Term A-2 Loan
	Applicable Margin for LIBOR Rate for Term A-2 Loan
	Applicable Margin for Base Rate for Term A-3 Loan
	Applicable Margin for LIBOR Rate for Term A-3 Loan

	Level IV
	> 45%
	0.75%
	1.75%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	1.00%
	2.00%

	Level III
	< 45%
>40%
	0.75%
	1.75%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	1.00%
	2.00%

	Level II
	<40%
>30%
	0.75%
	1.75%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	1.00%
	2.00%

	Level I
	< 30%
	0.75%
	1.75%
	0.90%
	1.90%
	1.00%
	2.00%
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FORM 10-QSB AS RESTATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FASB 128, WHICH
WAS ADOPTED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000021828
<NAME>                                  COLONIAL COMMERCIAL CORP.
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     522,941
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            7,132,171
<ALLOWANCES>                               440,125
<INVENTORY>                              1,085,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         8,491,634
<PP&E>                                     376,913
<DEPRECIATION>                             167,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          13,899,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,672,335
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 83,598
<COMMON>                                    71,266
<OTHER-SE>                               8,206,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            13,899,010
<SALES>                                 16,698,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        16,698,842
<CGS>                                   12,608,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           12,608,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           202,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         227,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (173,891)
<INCOME-TAX>                                70,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (243,891)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (243,891)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.17)
        



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29092]



[[Page 59677]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP-97-355-003]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 24, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG), tendered for filing as part for its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Third Sub. Original Sheet No. 209
Second Sub. Original Sheet No. 211

    CNG requests an effective date of June 1, 1997, for its proposed 
tariff sheets.
    CNG states that the purposes of this filing is to correct the 
inadvertent reference to Sheet No. 38 in Section 4.1.A of Rate Schedule 
MPS, on Sheets No. 209. CNG has also corrected the effective date and 
docket number reference in the footer of that sheet, and has corrected 
identical errors that were also found in the footer of Sheet No. 211.
    CNG states that copies of this letter of transmittal and enclosures 
are being mailed to parties to the captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29092 Filed 11-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #26 

Does the application describe the plan's experience with certain critical assumptions, including a 

disclosure for each of the 10 plan years immediately preceding the application that separately identifies: 

- total contributions; 

• total contribution base units; 

• average contribution rates; 

- withdrawal liability payments; and 

• the rate of return on plan assets? 

See Section 6.03. 

The Plan's experience with certain critical assumptions, including a disclosure for each of the 10 plan 

years immediately preceding the application that separately identifies: 

- total contributions; 

- total contribution base units; 

• average contribution rates; 

■ withdrawal liability payments; and 

• the rate of return on plan assets 

set forth in Exhibit I of the Supplemental Actuarial Information document attached as Document 7.1. 

Document #26 - 1 - 

SWORCCPP-000168
#### EDMOR PROPERTIES, INC. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY.

No. 38310.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So.2d 622.
#### ORLANDO ARMATURE WORKS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Thurman G. MANNING et al., Appellees.

No. S-209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 1973.

Robert A. Hannah, Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for appellant.

Edwin C. Cluster, Ayres, Swigert, Cluster, Tucker & Curry, Victor J. Musleh, Ocala, Charles W. Abbott, Charles R. Faw-sett, and Roland A. Sutcliffe, Jr., Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the amended third party complaint against the City of Ocala.

The motion to dismiss the complaint alleged, inter alia, that § 440.11, which became effective June 19, 1971, prevented suits by third party tort-feasors against an employer. Counsel for the City appellee contended, and we think correctly so, that the cause of action, if any, against the City did not accrue until after the effective date of F.S. § 440.11, F.S.A., that is until the suit was instituted on October 27, 1971.

We agree with the appellees that the question of time of accrual of the cause of action was settled in the case of Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Manufacturing Company, 226 So.2d 836 (Fla.App.2nd, 1969).

Therefore, upon authority of the Mims case supra, the order dismissing the third party complaint against appellee is hereby

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3817 

To increase the criminal penalties for assaulting a Bureau of Prisons 

correctional officer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2024 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To increase the criminal penalties for assaulting a Bureau 

of Prisons correctional officer. 

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 ‘‘Safer Prisons Act of 

5 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ASSAULT ON BUREAU 

7 OF PRISONS CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS. 

8 Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3817 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub2 section (d); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(c) ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ASSAULT ON BU6 REAU OF PRISONS CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.—In the 

7 case of any violation of this section against a correctional 

8 officer of the Bureau of Prisons, the applicable maximum 

9 term of imprisonment under this section shall be doubled, 

10 and the applicable maximum fine shall be adjusted accord11 ingly.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60190

Summary Calendar

 

LINDA FAYE SIMS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:00-CV-289-P-B

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

February 17, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Linda Faye Sims appeals the district court’s denial of her complaint challenging the Social

Security Commissioner’s decision to deny Sims supplemental security income benefits based upon

her condition of insulin dependent diabetes and diabetes retinopathy. She argues that the decision

of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that Sims could perform past relevant work was not supported

bysubstantial evidence, that the ALJ did notsufficientlyconsider Sims’ssubjective complaints ofpain
and functional limitations, and that the case should be remanded to allow further development of the

record. 

The record reveals that the ALJ considered Sims’s testimony about pain and her functional

limitationsresulting fromher long-time condition of diabetes, that the ALJ articulated reasonsfor not

crediting all of Sims’s testimony about her limitations, and that the ALJ’s decision that Sims could

performher past relevant work wassupported by substantial evidence. See Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d

160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994); Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995). Even if the record

did not support the ALJ’s finding that Sims could perform a full range of medium level work, there

was substantial evidence supporting the ultimate determination that she could perform past relevant

work. See Shave v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2001). The record also indicates that the ALJ

sufficiently developed it, and Sims does not identify how the record should be further developed.

Sims’s argument that the case should be remanded for further development is without merit. 

AFFIRMED.
#### ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Howard ROSSMOORE, Appellee.

No. 72-504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 13, 1972.

*32A. C. Shields, III, of Dart, Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for appellant.

Robert P. Rosin, of Rosin & Abel, Sarasota, for appellee.

McNULTY, Judge.

Atlas Van Lines, a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, brings this interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion to vacate 1 a default judgment in favor of appellee. We reverse.

The relevant facts are undisputed. Ap-pellee-plaintiff utilized the “substituted service” *authorised*by § 48.181, F.S.A., (the “long arm” statute) when suing a foreign corporation. That statute provides that corporations, and natural persons, doing business in the State of Florida, “appoint” the Secretary of State as their agent for service of process in actions arising out of their business. The complaint herein was related to the conduct of appellant’s business, so service on the Secretary of State was proper in the first instance.

Appellant does not contest the service of process on the Secretary of State, but rather complains that *notice*of such service was not sent to it pursuant to § 48.161, F.S.1971, F.S.A., which reads in pertinent part as follows:

> “48.161 Method of substituted service on nonresident. — ■

> When authorized by law, substituted service of process on a nonresident . by serving a public officer designated by law shall be made by leaving a copy of the process . . . with the public officer or in his office . The service is sufficient service on a defendant who has appointed the public officer as his agent for the service of process. *Notice of service and a copy of the process shall he sent forthwith by registered or certified mail by the plaintiff or his attorney to the defendant*(Italics added.)

Appellee admits that the “notice” portion of § 48.161 was not complied with but contends it need not be when service is had under § *48.181, supra.*We find this position untenable. In the first place, § *48.181*merely *authorises*substituted service on nonresidents in certain situations (as does §§ 48.171, 48.182 and 48.19, F.S.1971,’ F.S.A. in other situations), while § *48.161, supra,*by its terms sets forth the *method*of substituted service on nonresidents in *all*those situations. Neither section is complete in itself and must, therefore, be read *in pari materia*with the other.

Having found that appellee should have complied with the notice re*33quirements of § 48.161, we also have no difficulty in finding the omission a jurisdictional defect. The purpose of our “long arm” statutes is to subject certain nonresidents to the *jurisdiction*of Florida courts, not to trials without notice and opportunity to defend; strict compliance therewith is therefore absolutely required.2

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

1

. Rule 1.540, F.R.Civ.P., 31 F.S.A.

2

. *Cf.,*Parish Mortgage Corporation v. Davis (Fla.App.1971), 251 So.2d 342; and American Liberty Insurance Company v. Maddox (Fla.App.1970), 238 So.2d 154.
#### SHAWNEE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.

No. 44674.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MG96-14-002]


K N Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Company; Notice of 
Filing

October 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 14, 1997, K N Wattenberg Limited 
Liability Company (KNW) submitted revised standards of conduct in 
response to the Commission's September 15, 1997, order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FERC para. 61,291 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KNW states that copies of this filing have been mailed to all 
parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this 
proceeding. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to 
intervene or protest should be filed on or before November 6, 1997. 
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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28461 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30286]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-227, RM-9159]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Wasilla, AK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of KMBQ Corporation, requesting the allotment of 
Channel 273C2 to Wasilla, Alaska, as that community's second local FM 
transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 61-37-32 
and 149-24-05.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 22, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before January 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner's counsel as follows: John Wells King and 
Amelia Brown, Esqs., Haley, Bader & Potts, 4350 North Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203-1633.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-227, adopted October 
22, 1997, and released October 31, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-30286 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ThinkEngine Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John E. Steinkrauss, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



     /s/ John E. Steinkrauss
     -----------------------------
     John E. Steinkrauss
     Chief Financial Officer
     October 28, 2008
#### Curtis David JONES, a minor, by David Jones, his Guardian ad litem, Appellants, v. Rose LUCKS, an Individual, Appellee.

No. 77-301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 12, 1977.

*692Stanley Epstein of Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Foosaner, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Neil Karadbil of Laswell & Taylor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal comes to us from an order denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, predicated on an insufficiency of process under Fla.R. Civ.P. Rule 1.140(b). We reverse.

This case involves service of process on a minor pursuant to Section 48.041(1). The pertinent language of that statute is as follows:

> Process against a minor who has never been married . . . shall be served: (1) By READING the process to the minor . . . to be served (Emphasis supplied).

The record reflects that the deputy sheriff who effected service handed over the papers and said only, “These are papers of someone suing you.” From this statement the trial judge concluded “that the reading requirement of Section 48.041 Florida Statutes ha(d) been satisfied.”

So far as we can determine no appellate court has been called upon to define what constitutes substantial compliance with the phrase “reading the process to the minor,” although the question was partially addressed in *Drake v. Wimbourne,*112 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). However, it seems to us that it is clear and *must*mean that the deputy should read the contents of the process out loud to the minor. Said process contains within it the important admonition that the incompetent served must answer the pleading within 20 days or face the prospect of default. Such an admonition is not substantially complied with by the mere statement that someone is suing.

Any doubt that the process server is required to actually *read*the contents of the process is dispelled when one refers to the adjoining section on service of process generally. This latter section simply provides that service can be made “by delivering a copy of” it. Section 48.031 Florida Statutes (1975). In consequence the term *read*the process, as distinct from *deliver*it must mean something extra, intended by the legislature. That intention is obvious. It is a further safeguard designed to improve the level of awareness so that an incompetent will better understand what is happening.

Statutes relating to service of process should be strictly complied with. *Drake v. Wimbourne, supra.*Thus, notwithstanding the other requirements of the same section, which admittedly would appear to us to provide ample safeguard to the minor being sued, we are compelled by the legislative act to the conclusion that the service of process was insufficient in this case.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.