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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 19, 2018.

      ( print page 33277)    

# PLACE:

Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 12, 2018.

Lynn M. Powalski,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15292 Filed 7-13-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.2

    

    

    Form of Amendment No. 5 to Adewale Oshodi’s Employment Agreement

    

    

    This Amendment No. 5 (the “Amendment”),
      dated as of March 16, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), is between International Seaways, Inc. (the “Company”) and Adewale O. Oshodi (the “Executive”).

    WHEREAS,
      Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (“OSG”) and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement, dated September 29, 2014 and as amended as of March
      2, 2015, which was assumed by the Company and subsequently further amended as of November 7, 2017, April 5, 2019 and April 2, 2020 (the “Employment Agreement”).

    WHEREAS, the
      Employment Agreement was assigned to the Company on November 30, 2016 in connection with the spin-off of the Company from OSG (the “Assignment”).

    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to Section 13(g) of the Employment Agreement, following the Assignment, references to “the Company” in the Employment Agreement constitute a reference to the Company (rather than to OSG).

    WHEREAS, the
      Company and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with Section 13(c) thereof.

    NOW, THEREFORE,
      in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, conditioned and effective upon the occurrence of the Closing and the Assignment, the parties agree as follows:

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Section 3(a) is hereby amended by replacing “$268,785” with “$276,848”.

            


    

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall
                be binding on the Company in the same manner and to the same extent as on OSG if no assignment to the Company had taken place.

            


    

    
      	
              3.

            	
              This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an
                original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

            


    

     [Signature Page Follows]

    
      
        


    

    

    

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

    	 	
            Adewale O. Oshodi

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
            International Seaways, Inc.

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
            Name: Lois K. Zabrocky

          
	 	
            Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Joseph Ralph McDANIEL, Jr., a minor, Appellant, v. Edgar W. BENJAMIN et ux., Appellees.

Nos. M-456, M-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 1970.

MacLean, Baxter & Brooke, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict and an order denying appellant’s motion to set aside *712the verdict and grant a new trial as to damages only.

Our examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral arguments submitted by the parties indicates that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the judgment or order appealed.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and WIGGIN-TON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 711 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2014 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. KING of New York, and Mr. JOYCE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced 

that it may need to eliminate or reduce levels of door-todoor delivery service by the conversion of millions of 

homes and businesses to centralized delivery or curbside 

and require those who wish to retain their door service 

to pay a delivery tax; 

Whereas reduced levels of service will have an immediate impact on current year revenue and a long-term impact on 

the viability of a business inevitably causing a larger drop 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 711 IH 

in revenue from service cuts than from the estimated savings of elimination or reducing door delivery; 

Whereas door delivery is a vital service that the American 

people have relied on since the 1860s in both rural and 

urban areas and ensures the security of mail and packages; 

Whereas voluntary conversion of businesses in 2013 equated 

to a mere 0.8 percent of voluntary conversions confirming 

that businesses depend on in-person contact with letter 

carriers to ensure transactional security and initiate new 

business and revenue for the Postal Service; 

Whereas millions of Americans will be forced to retrieve their 

daily mail and packages from a centralized location removing the daily convenience for Americans in receiving 

checks, medications and other essential items; and 

Whereas eliminating or reducing door delivery services will 

serve as a hindrance for the elderly and disabled who will 

be forced to retrieve their mail and packages and be required to submit to a cumbersome application process in 

order to opt out of the requirement: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation 

4 of door delivery for all businesses and residential cus5 tomers. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10196

BENJAMIN W. MCKEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WILLIAM PERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV 0327-T)

December 4, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

McKee challenges the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to the defendant rejecting McKee’s action for loss of

employment opportunity because of age discrimination.

For essentially the reasons stated by the district court in

its thorough order of December 26, 1995, we affirm the district

court’s judgment. Although the plaintiff, who was 54 years of age,

established a prima facie case, the defendant produced evidence the

plaintiff was not as qualified as applicants who were accepted in2

the program McKee sought to join. This was a non-discriminatory

reason for the challenged action. McKee then failed to produce

sufficient evidence to show that the employer’s stated reason for

refusing to select McKee into the program was untrue or pretextual.

McKee’s retaliation claim must fail for the same reason. Because

McKee failed to show that the proffered reason for the employer’s

action (superior qualifications of other candidates) was a

pretextual reason for not selecting McKee, no inference arises that

the employer failed to select McKee for the program because he

filed an EEOC complaint.

AFFIRMED.
#### DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF DALLAS, Appellant, v. Israel Henry SPIKES, Bankrupt, Appellee.

No. 8185.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 9, 1937.

Wm. Andress, Jr., and Chas. S. McCombs, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

John E. Sentell, of Snyder, Tex., for appellee.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is the holder of a mortgage on the property of the bankrupt, Spikes. The assignments of error all run to an order of the court overruling a petition of appellant to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings or, in the alternative, to give it leave to proceed in a state court. The grounds for dismissal urged were that subsection (s) of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended by the Act of Congress of August 28, 1935, § 6, 49 Stat. 943, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 (s)’, is unconstitutional, as not within the bankruptcy powers of Congress, and deprives appellant of property rights granted to it by the laws of the state of Texas. On the authority of Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Davis (C.C.A.) 83 F.(2d) 322 and Wright, Bankrupt, v. Vinton Branch of Mountain Trust Bank of Roanoke, Va., 57 S.Ct. 556, 81 L.Ed.-, decided March 29, 1937, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,230,305
<SECURITIES>                                   591,428
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,475,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (87,065)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,395,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,610,110
<PP&E>                                      67,437,307
<DEPRECIATION>                             (24,923,528)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,564,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,507,128
<BONDS>                                     88,484,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,577,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,779,601)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,564,193
<SALES>                                     16,547,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,442,449
<CGS>                                        3,885,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,264,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                76,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,975,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,971,136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,971,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,163,367)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (832.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (832.67)


</TABLE>
#### Helen LAVADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 5, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130181 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130181 COA: 266192 Kalamazoo CC: 03-001363-FH HADJI HUSSINE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 8, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2

                            PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                                  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                    NUMBER                PERCENT            EQUIVALENT
                                                   OF SHARES            OUTSTANDING            SHARES
                                                  ----------            -----------         -----------
<S>                                               <C>                   <C>                 <C>
COMMON STOCK

    From Founders' Stock                           2,300,000                 100.00%          2,300,000
    Stock Options Exercised                        1,057,725                  95.47%          1,009,840
    Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock     15,310,943                 100.00%         15,310,943
    1994 Common Stock Offerings                   11,242,857                 100.00%         11,242,857
    1995 Common Stock Offerings                    4,323,874                 100.00%          4,323,874
    1996 Common Stock Offering                     6,000,000                 100.00%          6,000,000
    Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued        90,641                 100.00%             90,641
    1997 Warrants Exercised                           48,300                 100.00%             48,300
                                                  ----------                                -----------
                                                  40,374,340                                 40,326,455

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                          40,326,455

NET LOSS                                                                                    $(8,982,341)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                          $     (0.22)
                                                                                            ===========
</TABLE>
#### In re ESTATE of Edward Carpenter GARRATT, Deceased.

No. 72-780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Mark A. Farber, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Evergreen Solar, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2003

                                                     /s/ Mark A. Farber

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

                                                     Mark A. Farber

                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard MAIDEN.

No. 62736.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Richard Maiden, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Emma KOECHLING, Appellant, v. Warner PYNE, as Receiver of the Pelham National Bank, Pelham, N. Y., Appellee.

No. 282.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,

March 1, 1937.

Arthur J. Brothers and Epstein & Brothers, all of New York City, for appellant.

Hardy, Stancliffe & Hardy, of New York City (William F. McDermott and George T. Barker, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed on the authority of Jennings v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 294 U.S. 216, 55 S.Ct. 394, 79 L.Ed. 869, 99 A.L.R. 1248, which has overruled, though without mention, the doctrine of Schumacher v. Harriett, 52 F.(2d) 817, 82 A.L.R. 1 (C.C.A.4).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 86 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 86

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Dr. Shakil 
 Afridi is an American hero and that he should be immediately released 
                       from custody by Pakistan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2013

 Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Higgins, 
 Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Stockman, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Gohmert, 
  Mrs. Bachmann, Mrs. Lummis, and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Dr. Shakil 
 Afridi is an American hero and that he should be immediately released 
                       from custody by Pakistan.

Whereas Dr. Shakil Afridi is a hero to whom the people of the United States owe 
        a debt of gratitude for his help in finding the hiding place of Osama 
        bin Laden;
Whereas Dr. Afridi, a Pakistani physician, demonstrated the universally 
        respected attributes of courage, dignity, and honor in aiding the United 
        States in bringing to an end the reign of the terrorist leader Osama bin 
        Laden who masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks which murdered 
        3,000 United States citizens; and
Whereas Dr. Afridi is currently imprisoned by the Government of Pakistan, a 
        deplorable situation which constitutes a hostile act by Pakistan against 
        the United States and belies the notion that Pakistan is an ally in the 
        war against terrorism: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Dr. Shakil Afridi is an American hero and that he should be immediately 
released from custody by Pakistan.
                                 <all>
```