alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ossie Mae SCOTT, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, and Air La Carte, Respondents.

No. 77-1170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1978.

*1193Marcia K. Cypen, Miami, for petitioner.

Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Tallahassee, James R. Parks, Miami, for respondents.

Before HENDRY, C. J., HAVERFIELD, J., and E. HARRIS DREW (Ret.), Associate Judge.

DREW (Ret.), Associate Judge.

The only serious question here is the sufficiency of the notice of hearing before the appeals referee. On February 21, 1977, copies of such notice were mailed to the claimant, Ossie Mae Scott, at the address given by her in her original claim for benefits, advising of a hearing before the referee on March 1, 1977 at 10:30 A.M. Claimant failed to appear, but was represented at the hearing by her counsel.

In the application for review before the Industrial Relations Commission, filed following an adverse ruling, it is alleged that claimant was not aware of said hearing; that her counsel was unable to locate her due to a change of address and that, for said reason, a continuance was requested but denied without affording counsel for claimant the opportunity to cross-examine the employer and its witnesses. Instead, the claimant alleges “the referee advised counsel and employer’s witnesses to leave and return at a later time”.

It is important to note that the application for review did not allege any deficiency in the notice of hearing, nor did the Industrial Relations Commission, in its order affirming [now under review here], pass upon such a question.

The decision of the Commission is found to be without error and is affirmed. The voluntary appearance of claimant’s counsel at the hearing of March 1, 1977, without objection to the length of the time given to appear, was a waiver of any defect in the notice. Moreover, as counsel here urges, while the provision in Rule 8B-5.-ll(5)(a), U. C. Appeals Referee Rules of Procedure, providing for 7 days’ notice, may be invalid because in conflict with section 120.57(l)(b) 2, Florida Statutes, which provides for “reasonable notice of not less than 14 days”, that question was not presented to nor decided by the referee or the Commission and is improperly raised here for the first time.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                     3,284,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                286,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4,090,000
<PP&E>                                     4,744,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,500,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19,930,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     54,466,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     124,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (34,660,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19,930,000
<SALES>                                      251,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             251,000
<CGS>                                        160,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            220,899,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (396,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (220,412,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (220,412,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                            (220,412,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.97)


</TABLE>
##### 



Registration Rights Agreement
 By and Among
 Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation
 And
 the Investors set forth on the Signature Page hereto
 March __, 2007




---



##### 



REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT
  Agreement  Company (  Investor   Investors )
 Recitals:
 Securities Act Notes Note Purchase Agreement
 Conversion Shares
  Article 1
 Agreement
  ARTICLE 1  Definitions
 Affiliate
 Business Day
 Change of Control Transaction
 Closing Date
 Common Stock
 Company




---



##### 



Demand Notice Section 2.3
 Designated Holders Section 3.1
 Exchange Act
 Indemnified Party Section 2.9
 Losses Section 2.9
 Majority Holders
 Note Purchase Agreement
 Person
 Piggyback Registration Section 2.4
 Investors
 Purchase Price
 Registrable Securities
 Registration Statement
 2




---



##### 



register registered registration
 Representatives Section 2.9
  Rule 144 
  Rule 415 
 SEC
 Securities Act
 ARTICLE 2  Registration Rights
 Current Public Information
 Registration in Connection with a Change in Control Transaction
  Section 2.2(a) Section 2.3 3
        Demand Registration Section 2.2
 Section 2.3(h) Demand Notice
   Section 2.3
 Section 2.3
 Section 2.3 Sections 2.2 2.3 2.4
 Section 2.3 4
        Section 2.3 Section 2.8
 Section 2.3
 Section 2.3 Sections 2.6(e) 2.6(i) Sections 2.6(e) (i) Section 2.3(f)(i) Sections 2.6(e) (i) Sections 2.6(e) (i)
 5




---



##### 



Section 2.3 Section 2.6(e) Section 2.6(e) Section 2.6(i)
 Section 2.3 Section 2.2
 Piggyback Registration
 Section 2.2 Section 2.3 Piggyback Registration
  Section 2.4 Section 2.4(e) Section
2.8
 6




---



##### 



Section 2.4
 Section 2.4
 Underwriting
 Section 2.3
  7




---



##### 



Registration Procedures
  Section 2.2 Section 2.3 Section 2.4
      8




---



##### 



Section 2.3
 Section 2.3
    9




---



##### 



Conditions Precedent to Companys Obligations Pursuant to this Agreement Article 2
 Fees and Expenses
 Indemnification
 Representatives Losses 10
       Sections
2.6(e) (i) Sections 2.6(e) (i)
 Section 2.6(e) Section 2.6(i) 11
        Section 2.9(a) 2.9(b) Indemnified Party Indemnifying Party Section 2.9(a) 2.9(b)
 Section 2.9 Section 2.9 12
        Section 2.9(d) Section 2.9 Section 2.9 Section
2.9
 Participation in Registrations
  Section 2.6(e) Section 2.6(i) Section 2.6(e) Section 2.6(i)
 Compliance
 13




---



##### 



ARTICLE 3  Transfers of Certain Rights
 Transfer Sections 3.2 3.3
 Transferees
 Subsequent Transferees Section 3 Sections 3.1 3.2
 ARTICLE 4  Miscellaneous
 Recapitalizations, Exchanges, etc
 No Inconsistent Agreements
 Amendments and Waivers
 Severability
 14




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Notices
  
  rd
   Governing Law
 Forum; Service of Process
 Captions
 No Prejudice
 15




---



##### 



Words in Singular and Plural Form
 Remedy for Breach
 Successors and Assigns, Third Party Beneficiaries Article 3
 Entire Agreement
 Attorneys Fees
 Termination of Rights
 [Signature Page Follows]
 16




---



##### 



COMPANY:WHEELING-PITTSBURGH CORPORATIONBy:Title:




---



##### 



[Investor Signature Page- WPC Registration Rights Agreement]
 Investor Name:By:Name:Title:Address:Tax ID:
Document

Exhibit 10.30

Second Amendment To The


KB Home 


Section 409A Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan






This second amendment to the KB Home Section 409A Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan is adopted effective as of December 1, 2020:
    WHEREAS, KB Home (the “Company”) adopted the 409A Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan effective January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”) for the purpose of providing participants an opportunity to defer compensation that would otherwise be currently payable to such participants; and
    WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority reserved to the Company under the Plan, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein, effective December 1, 2020.


    NOW, THEREFORE, The Plan is hereby amended as follows:


    AMENDMENT
1.    Section 17.17 (Deduction Limitation on Benefit Payments) is hereby deleted in its entirety.
        


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted this second amendment to the Plan as of December 1, 2020.  


/S/ KB Home
#### Gordon D. MYLKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation and sentencing the appellant to one year in the county jail to be followed by probation for a term of one year.

*435The revocation of probation is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Roberts v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So.2d 695. See also Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607 (1947).

The sentence clearly is excessive. See Hutchins v. State, 3rd D.C.A., 286 So.2d 244, filed November 6, 1973. See also Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 280 So.2d 518. Therefore, that portion of the sentence which sentences the appellant to a probationary period is stricken. The order revoking probation is affirmed; the sentence is modified and as modified is affirmed.
#### LUM’S, INC., Appellant, v. Bennett KLEINFELD et al., Appellees. LUM’S, INC., Appellant, v. F. J. P. SULLIVAN and Jeef, Inc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 70-791, 70-792.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Maintain your existing site

## Keep up to date

### Agency Lead Portal

Approved agency employees and contractors can access the ALP for important information such as:

                            - System release and maintenance schedules.
                            - Training announcements for registrars and activators.
                            - Updated agency lead and back-ups list.

                            - Authoritative user data interface design guide, or SIP.
                            - Job aids.
                            - Reference materials.

If you need access or have trouble with signing in to the ALP, email gsamso@gsa.gov.

### Digital newsletters, alerts, and role holder training

We publish a monthly digital newsletter called Blue Top on the second Thursday of every month and send information about refresher training opportunities via email. Subscribe to the Blue Top newsletter and news for registrars and activators to get monthly refresher training. Registrars and activators will receive an email from us with joining instructions.

The registrar and activator should check the Team Registrar and Activator Communication Knowledge Source (TRACKS) portal daily for system enhancements and policy changes.

## Decommission credential centers

Email gsamso@gsa.gov to tell us you want to decommission your site. We will go over the available options and process.

## Contact

Role holders can contact USAccess.helpdesk@peraton.com or call 866-493-8391. If you are not a role holder, get help by submitting a question.

## Tell us what you think

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Federal credentialing services-  Overview 
-  Get appointment help 
-  Join our program    -  View price list 
  -  Find order forms 
  -  Maintain your existing site 
-  Contact for help 
-  About USAccess
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Earl Andrew GLOVER, Appellee.

No. 674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 28, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1967.

Edward A. Perse, of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens, Miami, for appellant.

Sheldon J. Schlesinger, of Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment holding that Earl Andrew Glover, ap-pellee, and plaintiff in the lower court, was entitled to coverage of uninsured motorist protection. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply the final proviso of F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) retroactively, as amended on July 1, 1963.

Norman E. Sharp owned a 1956 Chevrolet and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued a policy on December 13, 1960, on said car and Sharp executed in writing a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage on December 11, 1961, according to F.S.A. § 627.0851(1), describing said Chevrolet.

Effective July 1, 1963, the following amendment was added to said statute:

> “ * * * provided further that, unless the named insured requests such coverage in writing, the coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had re*107jected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer.”

On November 16, 1963, State Farm issued a new policy covering a 1962 Comet and on November 24, 1963, an accident occurred with an uninsured motorist. State Farm did not receive a rejection in writing on this new policy but depended on the December 11, 1961, rejection.

The lower court held that the 1963 amendment of F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) was not retroactive and this court affirms the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.

ANDREWS and CROSS, J J., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40346 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus FRED ROBINSON; CLARENCE ROBINSON, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-40-2
- - - - - - - - - - November 22, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Clarence and Fred Robinson appeal their convictions. They argue that, in the light of Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions and that jury instructions were improper. Fred argues: (1) the district court erred by increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); (2) his statements to sheriff’sNo. 95-40346 -2- deputies were involuntary and improperly admitted; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying a jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of the statements. We discern no error arising under Bailey
. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) ( en banc ), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995); United States v. Fike , 82 F.3d 1315, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed , July 29, 1996 (No. 96-5403); United States v. Casto , 889 F.2d 562, 566 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1092 (1990). The record reveals that Fred was appropriately assessed an enhancement for leading and organizing his brother's escape from jail and that Fred's statements to deputies were voluntary. United States v. Musquiz , 45 F.3d 927, 932-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 54 (1995); United States v. Broussard , 80 F.3d 1025, 1033 (5th Cir. 1996). Because the statements were voluntary and Fred proffered no evidence to support his contention to the contrary, the denial of the proffered instruction was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sellers , 926 F.2d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 1991). AFFIRMED.
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC

1296 Third Street NW, Kalama, WA 98625 / Phone: 360-673-0317

www.emeraldmaterials.com

New Chemical Substance Physical Properties

Physical Properties

Physical State @ Ambient Liquid

Specific Gravity @ 25°C 0.9899

Viscosity @ 8.1°C 53.0 cP

Boiling Point @ 760 mmHg 247°C

Boiling Point @ 3 mmHg 129.7°C
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 Western Sierra Mining Corp. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis Atkins, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 5, 2008/s/ Dennis AtkinsDennis AtkinsChief Financial Officer



1

---
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY et al., Appellants, v. TROPICAL PARK INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 17, 1971.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Murray A. Greenberg, Miami, for appellants.

Worley & Gautier and Robert G. Wor-ley, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by Metropolitan Dade County from the entry of a summary final judgment in favor of Tropical Park, Inc. in a suit wherein Tropical challenged the correctness of the 1968 ad valorem tax assessment in the amount of $6,195,880.00 which the county placed upon its race track property. The trial judge by his summary final judgment determined that the fair market value of the subject property was $3,768,195.00. The court arrived at this determination of value by taking the following position: (1) the evidence established without conflict that the correct assessment of the property was the amount fixed by the final decree in a previous suit and affirmed on appeal,1 (together with the uncontested assessment in 1968 for the improvements added since the 1967 assessment) ; (2) that no change in the market value had occurred from the date of the 1967 assessment to the date of the 1968 assessment; and (3) therefore, there was no issue of material fact. It is the appellant’s *552contention that such ruling of the trial court was error and in conflict with the holding and rule stated in the following cases: Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 695, 697; Simpson v. Merrill, Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 350; Hecht v. Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 709; and Homer v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 249 So.2d 491.

We have concluded that appellant’s contentions have merit and that the trial court erred in the entry of summary final judgment for the plaintiff; therefore, the judgment appealed is reversed with directions for further proceedings in accordance with the rule that each year’s assessment must be based on its own validity and not upon the assessment of any prior or subsequent year.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. Metropolitan Dade County v. Tropical Park, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 243.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 

## NOV 17 2011 Mr. Fred Mollenhauer Catalyst Paper P. O. Box 128 Snovvflake,Puizona 85937

DearMr. Mollenhauer:

I am vvriting to inform you that EPA Region 9 is developing a partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state ofPuizona. The purpose ofthe Regional Haze FIP is to improve visibility in national parks and vvildemess areas in Puizona and surrounding states as required by Section 169A ofthe Clean Air Act (Act). During the process ofdeveloping the PuizonaRegional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on March 2, 2011, the PuizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) performed a five-factor BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) analysis for the Snovvflake PaperMill. We vvill revisit ADEQ's determination, and possibly conduct a nevv five-factor BART analysis, to determine vvhether any additional emissions controls are vvarranted under section 169A(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, and EPA's implementing regulations and BART guidelines at 40 CFR Part 51, SubpartP and Appendix 

### Y.

As vve begin ourFIP analysis, vve have requested that ADEQ provide us vvith all background materials, including BART analyses, that vvere performed by them or the affectedfacilities. We may also request that you provide us vvith additional information on the Snovvflake PaperMill as our analysis proceeds. 

### In the meantime, vve vvelcome the submission ofany additional, relevant information that you vvould like to provide to our office.

EPA has entered into a consent decree that requires the Agencyto propose approval ofArizona's Regional Haze SIP and/or propose a Regional Haze FIP that meets the requirements ofthe Act and EPA's regional haze regulations byMay 15, 2012. The consent decree also requires the Agencyto take final action on the PuizonaRegional Haze SIP and/or FIP byNovember 15,2012. EPA Region 9 vvill hold public hearings in Puizona and solicitpublic comments on a proposed Puizona Regional Haze FIP in the months preceding the November 15 deadline.

Ifyou vvould like to submit any additional information or analysis, vve request that you send it by February29,2012. Any modeling ofthe facility should use the regulatoryversions ofCALPUFF (version 5.8, level 070623), CALMET (version 5.8, level 070623), and CALPOST (version 6.221). You may vvish to prepare a modeling protocol and consult vvith EPA Region 9 about thepreparation of modeling inputs in accord vvith EPA guidance. Submit any information to:

Thomas Webb US EPA (AIR-2) 75 Havvthome Street San Francisco, CA 94105You can also reach Thomas atwebb.thomas@epa.gov orbyphone at 415-947-4139.

Thankyou for your attention to this matter. Ifyouhave any questions, please contactThomas Webb or myself(mckaughan.colle n@epa.gov, 520-498-0118).
Sincerely,

# &j/::vf~ Associate Director, Air Division

cc: HenryR. Darwin, ADEQ Eric Massey, ADEQ
Exhibit 31.2

** **

** **

**Cameron International Corporation and Subsidiaries**

**Certification**

 

 

 

I, **Charles M. Sledge**, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cameron International Corporation;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 
| Date: April 1,   2016 |                                                |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                |
|                       | /s/ Charles   M. Sledge                             |
|                       | Charles   M. Sledge                                 |
|                       | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----