alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68259-68260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 122397A]


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; 
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Public Workshop

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a workshop to explain provisions of the 1998 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the Alaska groundfish 
fisheries, introduce the proposed electronic reporting system, provide 
detailed instructions on completion and submittal of the required forms 
and logsheets, and answer questions on recordkeeping and reporting from 
members of the fishing industry and other interested parties.


[[Page 68260]]


DATES: January 6, 1998, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the NMFS Alaska Fisheries 
Science Center, Building 9, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, 
Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This workshop is scheduled by NMFS in 
response to requests by the affected fishing industry for a training 
workshop on the groundfish recordkeeping and reporting system.

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-33976 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

The BVI Business Companies Act 

(No. 16 of 2004) 

Share Certificate 
  

					
	 Certificate Number [    ]
	  	 Satellogic Inc.
	  	Number of Shares [    ]

 The Company is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each, divided into
Class A ordinary shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each and Class B ordinary shares with a par value of US$0.0001 each. 
 THIS IS TO
CERTIFY THAT                 is the registered holder
of ***                 *** Class A Ordinary Shares
of US$0.0001 each fully paid in the above named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said Company and to the terms and conditions endorsed hereon. 

Signed by a director of the company this                day
of                 . 
  

	
	Director
Page 1 of 2 

Janet Travis 

From: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> 

To: '"Janet Travis"' <jtravis@gilanet.net> 

Sent: Tuesday, May 31,2005 2:21 PM 

Subject: RE: updated district mtgs 

Janet, 

Is this what we came up wit 

Dl June 13 Pat 

-$$ D2 June 13 Janet 2 

,D3 June 14 Mllard (and Daniel?) 

4 D4 Mav 31 Pat and ~arrell ~DONEY L I 

D5 ~une 13 Daniel 

D6 May Janet [DONE] 

D7 June20 Margaret 

Elderly Concerns June 8 air team 

The key issue: if we miss these dates (if the districts cancel) the next options are in July after the formal close of 

the public comment period because the district meetings are linked to Council meetings - there won't be anymore 

meetings after June 13 (except for District 7). But I don't see any problem with going to district 

meetings after July 1 and still incorporating comments, if we have to. 

Also, I spoke with Darrell G today. He said that the best place to reach people who live in 'subdivisions' is to put 

a flyer or some outreach document in the Housing Department office. Let's talk about having a flyer on the 

open burning issue at Housing (maybe with a check list for options or something like that). 

Darrell is double checking to make sure we are on Elderly Concerns for next Wednesday (June 8). 1 asked him 

to do this. 

Darrell G will be at NCAl the week of June 13; 1 think someone was saying that NCAl mid-year had already 

happened. The challenge for us may be that Council people may be at NCAl and not at their district meetings 

(when we are there). But Janet, I still would like you to notify the district representatives of Council when we are 

going to be at their Districts. 

Thanks 

Pat M 

----Original Message---- 

From: Janet Travis [mailto:jtravis@gilanet.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 26,2005 1:59 PM 

To: Patrlcla Mariella 

Cc: wantone3@gilanet.net; russell betsuie; Margaret Cook; Lemy Williams; dan blair; Darrell Gerlaugh 

Subject: updated district mtgs 

Janet & Dan will draft a one page summary of the open burning &fugitive dust ordinances to distribute at 

the meetings since these ords are of most interest to Community members. 

D-I June 13 - Pat 
Page 2 of 2 

D-2 June 6 - Janet 

D-3 June 7 - Dan & Janet 

D-4 May 31 - Darrell, Pat, W~llard 

0-5 June 13 - Darrell 

D8 Done 

0-7 June 20 - Margaret 

Elderly concerns June 8 - All?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2216900
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          375500
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        308600
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  361700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3262700
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       788200
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             452600
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1241200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            885600
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               33800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   91000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  988200
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3262700
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       646100
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             65400
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      437500
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      502900
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         143200
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                6200
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  149400
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         43700
<NET-INCOME>                                    105700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        400
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   105300
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        172000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        42400
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          149100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.56
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HARRY MICHAEL SZEKERES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 121 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration and decision of this matter.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00442-CV

Style: Alan Schrock v. City of Baytown

Date motion filed: January 24, 2018

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Amended Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended appellant’s brief is granted. The Clerk of this Court

received and filed appellant’s amended brief on January 24, 2018.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: January 30, 2018
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)








In
connection with the quarterly report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
A. Risher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      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/
      James A. RisherName:
                James
      A. RisherTitle:
                Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
                March
      17, 2009











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
EX-10.150 12.31.2013




Exhibit 10.150




THIRD AMENDMENT TO


ERIE INSURANCE GROUP
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES


(As Amended and Restated Effective December 31, 2009)


WHEREAS, Erie Indemnity Company (the “Company”) maintains the Erie Insurance Group Retirement Plan for Employees, as amended and restated effective December 31, 2009 (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company has delegated to the Employee Benefits Administration Committee (“EBAC”), through its Charter, the authority to make certain amendments to the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company has previously amended the Plan by an Amendment dated December 21, 2012.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby further amends the Plan as follows:


1.    Section 2.34 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety and shall now read as follows:


“2.34    “Spouse” shall mean, with respect to any Participant, the person to whom the Participant is married at a given determination date, as determined under applicable law.”


		
	2.
	In all other respects, the Company ratifies and confirms the Erie Insurance Group Retirement Plan for Employees as Amended and Restated effective December 31, 2009, which together with this Amendment No. 3 constitutes the entire Plan.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Plan Amendment to be executed this 27th day of December, 2013.


ATTEST:                        ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY




/s/ Sheila M. Hirsch                    By: /s/ Sean J. McLaughlin                    
Sean J. McLaughlin
Title:    EVP, Secretary and General Counsel


ATTEST:                        EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE




/s/ Karen A. Skarupski                    By: /s/ William D. Gheres                    
William Gheres
Title:    Chair, Employee Benefits
Administration Committee
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7238 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7238

 To require the Secretary of Defense to recommend a minimum number of 
                            bomber aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2020

 Mr. Brown of Maryland (for himself and Mrs. Hartzler) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Defense to recommend a minimum number of 
                            bomber aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long Range Bomber Expansion Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM BOMBER AIRCRAFT FORCE LEVEL.

    (a) In General.--Not later than February 1, 2021, the Secretary of 
the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report with recommendations for the bomber aircraft force structure 
that enables the Air Force to meet the requirements of its long-range 
strike mission under the National Defense Strategy.
    (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
include each of the following elements:
            (1) The bomber force structure necessary to meet the 
        requirements of the Air Force's long-range strike mission under 
        the National Defense Strategy, including--
                    (A) the total minimum number of bomber aircraft; 
                and
                    (B) the minimum number of primary mission aircraft.
            (2) The penetrating bomber force structure necessary to 
        meet the requirements of the Air Force's long-range strike 
        mission in contested or denied environments under the National 
        Defense Strategy, to include--
                    (A) the total minimum number of penetrating bomber 
                aircraft; and
                    (B) the minimum number of primary mission 
                penetrating bomber aircraft.
            (3) A roadmap outlining how the Air Force plans to reach 
        the force structure identified under paragraphs (1) and (2), 
        including an established goal date for achieving the minimum 
        number of bomber aircraft.
    (c) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
    (d) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to the public 
the unclassified form of the report submitted under subsection (a).
    (e) Bomber Aircraft.--In this section, the term ``bomber aircraft'' 
includes penetrating bombers in addition to B-52H aircraft.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ruby DAVIS v. D. H. HOLMES, LTD. and Otis Elevator Company.

No. 9174.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 10, 1978.

Drury, Lozes & Curry, James H. Drury, Robert P. Baumgartner, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Gerdes & Valteau, Paul R. Valteau, Jr., Lloyd W. Hayes, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LEMMON, BOUTALL and BEER, JJ.

BEER, Judge.

On October 18, 1973, appellee, Ruby Davis, fell while on a moving escalator in D. H. Holmes, Ltd. department store. Suit against D. H. Holmes, Ltd. and Otis Elevator Company resulted in judgment dismissing the claim against Holmes and the awarding of damages in the amount of $8,660 against Otis Elevator Company, who suspensively appeals.

The record is void of any evidence to indicate malfunction of the escalator or impropriety of its design, installation and operation.

Able counsel for appellee relies upon *Tarantino v. City Stores Co.,*278 So.2d 149 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973), but we find that case distinguishable on its facts, for, here, *744there is no proof of any defect which might have been obviated by a more complete system of inspection and/or maintenance. Indeed, there is no proof whatsoever of the cause of Ruby Davis’ fall. One of the shoes which she was wearing was introduced in evidence in an attempt to show that it was, in some way, “caught” in or on the escalator, but we find no connexity between the alleged catching of her shoe and any failure or malfunction of the system. If her shoe did catch, there is absolutely no evidence in this record to attribute the catching to any defect, failure or malfunction of the escalator.

The judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in favor of Ruby Davis and against Otis Elevator Company is reversed, and the claim of Ruby Davis is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Each party to this appeal is to bear its own costs.

*REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 3RD QUARTER 1998 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,994,264
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     57,412
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         357,609
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       237,247
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 204,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,851,368
<COMMON>                                             2
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      528,893
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            329,888
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 858,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           70,000
<PREFERRED>                                     89,703
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           951,964
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   37,287
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     18,313
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                12,478
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 812,840
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,851,368
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,377,450
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            62,412
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,156,948
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,219,360
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        158,090
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,127
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 160,217
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        65,261
<NET-INCOME>                                    94,956
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,259
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   91,697
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        71,210
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         222,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33424]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150-AF73

Codes and Standards; IEEE National Consensus Standard, Withdrawal

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is withdrawing a direct 
final rule that would have amended Commission's regulations to 
incorporate by reference the most recent published version of IEEE Std. 
603-1991, a national consensus standard for power, instrumentation, and 
control portions of safety systems in nuclear power plants. The NRC is 
taking this action because it has received significant adverse comments 
in response to an identical proposed rule which was concurrently 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Satish K. Aggarwal, Senior Program 
Manager, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6005, Fax (301) 
415-5074 (e-mail: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53933), the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register a 
direct final rule amending its regulations at 10 CFR 50.55a(h) to 
incorporate by reference the most recently published version of a 
national consensus standard. The direct final rule was to become 
effective on January 1, 1998. The NRC also concurrently published an 
identical proposed rule on October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53975). In these 
documents, the NRC indicated that if it received significant adverse 
comments in response to this action, the NRC would withdraw the direct 
final rule and would consider the comments received as in response to 
the proposed rule and address these comments in a subsequent final 
rule. The NRC has received significant adverse comments on the direct 
final rule. Therefore, the Commission is withdrawing the October 17, 
1997, direct final rule. The public comments received will be addressed 
in a subsequent final rule issued in either a notice of final 
rulemaking or in a notice of withdrawal of the proposed rule.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33424 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```