alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-344-003]


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

November 20, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 14, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing changes to its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. This filing is in compliance with 
the Commission's Order issued October 30, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-344 
at 81 FERC para.61,118 (1997).

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 166.
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 170.
Substitute First Revised Sheet Nos. 182-185

    Texas Gas states that the instant filing is incorporating those 
changes directed by the October 30, 1997 Order, or are providing 
explanation where modifications have not been made.
    Texas Gas requests an effective date of November 1, 1997, for the 
proposed tariff sheets.
    Texas Gas further states that it has served copies of this filing 
upon the company's jurisdictional customers, interested state 
commissions, and all parties appearing on the official service list in 
Docket No. RP97-344.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests should 
be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests may 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31010 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,329
<INVENTORY>                                     35,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               336,160
<PP&E>                                         766,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,975,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          202,714
<BONDS>                                      1,296,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           753
<OTHER-SE>                                     455,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,975,799
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,787
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  495,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                56,594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,099
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,099
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC., and 

IRMA RIVERA,

 Appellants,

v.

MANUEL RAMIREZ,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00263-CV

Appeal from the

243rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014-DCV-1389) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a joint motion stating that they have settled the issue in dispute and 

asking that we render judgment in favor of Appellants to effectuate the parties’ agreement to 

proceed to binding arbitration pursuant to the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate executed by them. 

See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)(permitting appeals court to dispose of appeal by rendering 

judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement); TEX.R.APP.P. 43.2 (permitting appeals court to 

reverse the trial court’s judgment and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered). 

Because the attorneys representing the parties have signed the settlement agreement and filed it 

with the Clerk of this Court, we grant the motion. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)(requiring 

settlement agreement to be signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk before 

appeals court can render judgment in accordance with the agreement). Without regard to the 
2

merits, the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay 

Proceeding is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of Appellants. We assess all costs of 

this appeal against Appellants. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(requiring appeals court to assess costs 

against appellant absent an agreement by the parties).

October 16, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Barajas, and Larsen, Senior Judges

Barajas and Larsen, (Senior Judges)(Sitting by Assignment)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-32,880]


United Technologies Automotive, Incorporated, Steering Wheels 
Division (Currently Known as Breed Technologies, Incorporated) Niles, 
Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 30, 1997, applicable 
to all workers of United Technologies Automotive, Incorporated, 
Steering Wheels Division, Niles, Michigan. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on February 13, 1997 (62 FR 6806).
    At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of molded steering wheels and airbag covers. The 
company reports that in July, 1997 the Niles, Michigan location of 
United Technologies became known as Breed Technologies, Incorporated. 
The Niles, Michigan workers have their wages reported under a separate 
unemployment insurance (UI) tax account, ``United Technologies, 
Incorporated on Behalf of Breed Technologies, Incorporated''.
    The company also reports that worker separations are expected to 
occur at the Niles, Michigan facility when it closes at the end of 
October, 1997. Accordingly, the Department is amending the 
certification to reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of United Technologies Automotive, Incorporated, Steering 
Wheels Division adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-32,880 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of United Technologies, Incorporated, Steering 
Wheels Division, currently known as Breed Technologies, Niles, 
Michigan who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after October 15, 1995, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of November, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-31060 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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 this Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of China Modern Agricultural Information, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Liu Yanyan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Dated: July 8, 2013
By:
/s/ Liu YanyanLiu YanyanChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer)
----

----

| 2.   | Settlement Date for RSU. |
|----------------|--------------------------|

----

----

| 3.   | Recoupment and Forfeiture. |
|----------------|----------------------------|

----

| 4.   | Registration of Units. |
|----------------|------------------------|

| 5.   | Certain Corporate Transactions. |
|----------------|---------------------------------|

----

| 6.   | Shareholder Rights. |
|----------------|---------------------|

| 7.   | Assignment of Award. |
|----------------|----------------------|

| 8.   | Data Privacy. |
|----------------|---------------|

----

| 9.   | Notices. |
|----------------|----------|

----

| 10.   | Withholding and Taxes. |
|-----------------|------------------------|

| 11.   | No Advice Regarding RSU. |
|-----------------|--------------------------|

----

| 12.   | Stock Certificates. |
|-----------------|---------------------|

| 13.   | Stock Exchange; Applicable Laws. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------|

| 14.   | Successors and Assigns. |
|-----------------|-------------------------|

| 15.   | Plan. |
|-----------------|-------|

| 16.   | No Employment Guaranteed. |
|-----------------|---------------------------|

----

| 17.   | Nature of Company Restricted Stock Unit Grants. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------|

----

| 18.   | Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------|

| 19.   | Entire Agreement; Amendment and Waivers. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------|

| 20.   | Section 409A Compliance. |
|-----------------|--------------------------|

----

----

----
No. 9770.

#### Village of Wadsworth et al. *v.*Billman, a Taxpayer, etc.

(Decided December 4, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Medina County.

*Mr. W. S. Kerr; Mr. W. 0.- Johnston*and *Mr. Frank Fleath,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Rogers, Rowley & Rockwell,,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
# L_2005256EN.01001101.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 256/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 256/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1606/2005

of 30 September 2005

amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 as regards the quantity covered by the standing invitation to tender for the export of common wheat held by the Slovak intervention agency

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 6 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 114 757 tonnes of common wheat held by the Slovak intervention agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 114 757 tonnes of common wheat held by the Slovak intervention agency.

| (2) | Slovakia has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 33 192 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by Slovakia should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Slovakia has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 33 192 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by Slovakia should be granted.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 should therefore be amended. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 should therefore be amended.

| (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

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2005 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2

The invitation to tender shall cover a maximum of 147 949 tonnes of common wheat for export to third countries with the exception of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Liechtenstein, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro (*1) and Switzerland.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 September 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. 18. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1302/2005 (OJ L 207, 10.8.2005, p. 12).

2

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


 





	 	 	17672 Laurel Park Drive N, Suite 400E

Livonia, Michigan 48152-3984



 


 





 


January 30, 2018


 





James C. Gouin


17672 N. Laurel Park Drive, Ste. 400E


Livonia, MI 48152


 


 


Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement With Respect to LTI Awards


 


Dear Jim,


 


Reference is made to the Second Amended
and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2016, between you and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


This is to confirm that, effective for
fiscal years during the “Term” (as defined in the Employment Agreement) beginning on and after March 6, 2018, “three
hundred seventy-five percent (375%)” shall be substituted for “two hundred fifty percent (250%)” where the latter
appears in Section 4.3 of the Employment Agreement.


 


Except as provided by this letter, the
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Please acknowledge your agreement with
the foregoing by countersigning this letter below and returning it to me.


 


Regards,


 


 


/s/ Mark Flynn                                    


Mark Flynn


Sr. Vice President Global Human Resources


 


 


 


Acknowledged and agreed:


 


/s/ James C. Gouin                              


James C. Gouin
# .- Docket No: FAA-2015-3661 Directorate ID: 2015-NE-24-AD Disposition Comments Originating Office Tracking No.: SP1275BO-P 

### Next Step: 

### I8J FRAN D SNPRM D These comments are in 

### response to an SNPRM



### IZI No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received- -lfthis box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### No 

### Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point
for guidance. 

### Latest Revision. ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

### Choose one

. .if

other, explain: Commenter(s): Click here to enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? ('lick here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.
Do we agree? Yes/No If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List anychanges to 

### the AD If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert 

### j ustitication We disagree with 

### lnsert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List anychanges to the AD If NO, we don't agree because Insert our rationale ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one. lfother, explain: Click 

### here to enter text. Commenter(s): Click here to 

### enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is 

### it justified? Cli.ck .here to enter text.
Do we agree? Yes/No 

### Page I of3
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-166-009]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 6, 1997, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets with the proposed effective date of November 1, 1997:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 130
Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 154
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 286

    Columbia Gulf states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed 
to comply with the Commission's Letter Order (Order) issued October 27, 
1997, in Docket No. RP97-166-008. The Order directed Columbia Gulf to 
file revised Sheet Nos. 154 and 286, from its September 29, 1997, 
filing to include certain omitted items and to more fully comply with 
Order 587-C. Columbia Gulf states that Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet 
No. 154 reflects the pro forma language for tariff sections 6.2 (a) and 
(b) as approved in the June 11, 1997, order in these proceedings. 
Columbia Gulf further states that Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 
286 incorporates GISB standards 2.3.31, and to reflect Version 1.1 as 
the November 1, 1997, effective version for all GISB standards, with 
the exception of the Electronic Delivery Mechanism Standards (4.x.x). 
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 130 has been revised to reflect the proper 
continued number sequencing from Fifth Revised Sheet No. 129.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of its filings have been mailed to 
all of its customers, affected State Regulatory commissions, and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing, should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be made as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
consider by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken, but such protests will not serve to make protestants parties to 
this 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. 97-30188 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Vincent MONGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Stanley S. Phillips,’ North Bay Village, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of a judgment and sentence of three years in the state penitentiary for aggravated assault.

As two grounds for error in this appeal, appellant contends he was deprived of the right to take a discovery deposition of the state’s complaining witness, and he was deprived of a right to a speedy trial. Neither point is well taken.

 Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge for which he was convicted. A guilty plea made voluntarily in a criminal case constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. Hield v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 235; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 753; White v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 782.

Appellant’s third point on appeal attacks the guilty plea itself, because appellant alleges that he was induced by the prosecutor during plea bargaining negotiations to withdraw his not guilty plea by a false promise on the part of the state attorney that he would recommend to the trial judge that appellant receive only, a two-month jail sentence.

Appellant filed with the trial court a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate his sentence, and a motion pursuant to *35CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The court denied both motions.

The record shows that the prosecuting attorney denied to the court any previous, agreement'respecting the precise terms of appellant’s sentence. The trial judge also stated he was never informed at the time he imposed sentence of a two-month term of sentence.

Appellant relies on Brown v. State, Fla. 1971, 245 So.2d 41, as grounds for vacating his sentence and substituting a not guilty plea for his guilty plea. However, the record in this cause does not demonstrate that appellant’s guilty plea was caused by a misunderstanding of the facts or by a failure of communication as was present in Brown v. State. We do not feel the trial court abused his discretion by refusing to permit appellant to withdraw his guilty plea.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.