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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Availability of FY 2012 Service Contract Inventories.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, Department of Transportation is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2012 Service Contract Inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000                               ( print page 978)                            that were made in FY 2012. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at                         *http://www.whitehouse.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​omb/​procurement/​memo/​service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.*                         Department of Transportation has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory and the Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report on the Department of Transportation's homepage at the following link:                         *https://dotgov.prod.acquia-sites.com/​assistant-secretary-administration/​procurement/​service-contract-inventory.*                         Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Ames Owens in the Senior Procurement Executive office at 202-366-9614 or                         *ames.owens@dot.gov.*

Dated: December 31, 2012.

Ames Owens,

Associate Director of Commercial Services Management.

[FR Doc. 2013-00059 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00042-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES,

Appellant

v.

Amy W. ROCKWOOD,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-04447

The Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 Appellee has filed an unopposed motion to extend time to file her brief in this accelerated 

appeal. Appellant’s brief was filed March 16, 2015. Accordingly, because this is an accelerated 

appeal, appellee’s brief was due twenty days later on April 6, 2015, not thirty days later on April 

16, 2015, as appellee asserts in her motion. Appellee has asked for additional time to file her 

brief, specifically, until April 22, 2015. We GRANT appellee’s request and ORDER that she 

file her brief in this court on or before April 22, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Marine Midland Bank, N. A., Appellant, v Don Maloy et al., Defendants, and Michael S. Puntillo, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against defendant Michael Puntillo on a written guaranty, stating that there was an issue of fact whether plaintiff had made fraudulent misrepresentations, which induced defendant to sign the guaranty. We reverse and grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the guaranty of the four notes.

The guaranty provides that it "is unlimited in amount unless an amount is inserted in the space at the end of this paragraph. Only if an amount is so inserted, this Guaranty is limited to that amount”. No amount was inserted in the blank. Defendant contends that, at the time of the execution of the guaranty, the bank officer told him that the guaranty would be limited to the amount of $39,000 and that amount would later be inserted into the blank space. By the terms of the guaranty, defendant expressly agreed that "[t]his guaranty is absolute and unconditional and shall not be changed or affected by any representation, oral agreement, act or thing whatsoever, except as herein provided. This Guaranty is intended by Guarantor to be the final, complete and exclusive expression of the agreement between Guarantor and Bank and Guarantor expressly disclaims any reliance on any oral representation of Bank.”

Defendant’s acknowledgement in the guaranty that the guaranty was absolute and unconditional, and his disclaimer of any reliance on any oral representations of the bank, preclude him from asserting his defense of fraudulent inducement *(see, Scarsdale Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v S.E.W. Prods.,*151 AD2d 657; *see also, Citibank v Plapinger,*66 NY2d 90, *rearg denied*67 NY2d 647). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT LOUIS HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-231; CA-00-141-AM) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Louis Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LeGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Louis Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order denying Haynes’ motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Haynes’ motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

                      RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL / MIKE WOODS
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Position:    Vice President of Franchise Development
             Responsible for:

             1.  Assisting existing franchisees in developing additional sites.

             2.  Developing new franchisees in both domestic and international
                 markets.

             3.  Adding value to franchisor/franchisee relationship by providing
                 tools and techniques to enable both parties to improve the
                 profitability of their operations.

Salary:      $125,000 per year, paid monthly, and subject to annual performance
             adjustments.

Bonus:       1.  For the calendar year 1997, a bonus will be earned at the rate
                 of 5% of Initial Franchise Fees, as paid.  This bonus will be
                 paid within 60 days of receipt of Initial Franchise Fees
                 throughout the year.

             2.  In addition to the bonus earned in #1 for 1997, a discretionary
                 bonus will be paid as determined by the President.  Total
                 potential will be $15,000.  This bonus will be paid by February
                 15, 1998.

             3.  1998 and beyond - bonus plan will be negotiated.

Stock
Options:     125,000 incentive Stock Options will be granted at an exercise
             price of $2.00 per share and shall expire ten (10) years from the
             date the option is granted, or ninety (90) days from termination,
             whichever is earlier. Stock Option available for exercising shall
             be subject to a four-year vesting period, as defined in the plan.

                                      -1-

<PAGE>

Other
Provisions:  In the event that at least 50% of the Company's shares outstanding
             are transferred to new owners due to merger, sale or other
             consolidation, all vesting shall immediately accelerate to 100%.

Expenses:    All reasonable business expenses provided for or reimbursed by RRI.

Severance:   Year 1: If terminated without cause prior to the end of the first
             year, a six-month severance at the current base salary will be paid
             monthly.

             Year 2 and beyond: If terminated without cause after the first
             year, severance at the then current base salary will be paid
             monthly for a term of one year.

Benefits:    Participates in all benefit plans available to senior executives of
             RRI.

Other:       RRI understands that Woods has an employment arrangement with The
             Snyder Group Co.

Signed and dated this 7 day of January 1997.


/s/ Mike Snyder
----------------------------
Mike Snyder
President
Red Robin International


/s/ Mike Woods
----------------------------
Mike Woods

                                      -2-
Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers


The undersigned firm of Independent  Petroleum Engineers,  of Calgary,  Alberta,
Canada, knows that it is named as having prepared an evaluation of the interests
of Canada  Southern  Petroleum  Ltd.,  prepared for filings with the SEC on Form
10-K 1997,  dated March 25, 1998, and hereby gives its consent to the use of its
name and to the use of the said estimates.



                                             Paddock Lindstrom & Associates Ltd.



                                             /s/ L. K. Lindstrom
                                             L. K. Lindstrom, P. Eng.
                                             President
EXHIBIT 23.10






December 15, 2010
 
 
 
 We hereby consent to references to Ryder Scott Company L.P. contained in the section entitled “Basis of Reserves Estimates” within “Reserves, Production and Related Information” as set out in Part I, Items 1&2 Business and Properties of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, of Nexen Inc. (the Form 10-K/A) and to the use of our Report of Third Party letter report dated December 15, 2010, concerningour evaluation of certain oil and gas properties of Nexen Inc. located in the United States Gulf of Mexico, which are included as exhibits in the Form 10-K/A.
   
 \s\ Ryder Scott Company, L..P.
 
 RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580
           600,  1015   4TH  STREET, S.W.CALGARY, ALBERTA T2R 1J4TEL (403) 262-2799FAX (403) 262-2790
 621  17TH STREET, SUITE 1550DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501TEL (303) 623-9147FAX (303) 623-4258
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division QAD 100 B Appendix

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 October 1, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 1

How to Complete the Work Schedule Request (LP-110)

The Work Schedule Request is required when the applicant is requesting Scheduled Services. 

1. Regulations Applicable to the Requested Services: Place a check mark in the appropriate box 

to identify which regulations apply to this request.

2. Applicant Name: Enter the name of the applicant that is requesting scheduled services. This is 

the company that has Form LP-109: Application for Service on file and has been assigned an 

account number.

3. FSIS/Plant Number: Enter the FSIS/Plant Number for the company.

4. Miles: If applicable, enter the number of miles that will be charged as part of the agreement.

5. Location of Service Address: Enter the address where service will be provided. Include the 

name of the company if the location of service is at a company other than the one identified in the 

Firm Name.

6. Service Request Hours: Enter total shift hours requested on each applicable day, 10 hour 

maximum per shift. Record all shift hours based on the day of the start time.

- In plants where more than one grader is utilized, list the total number of scheduled hours per 

day. For example: two 8 hour shifts on Monday, the total hours would be listed as 16 for that 

day. 

- In plants with a night shift split between days, record all shift hours on the day of the shift 

start time. For example: a Monday night 8-hour shift starting at 8pm would be 8 hours on 

Monday.

7. Date: Enter the date the form is signed.

8. Title of Applicant Representative: Enter the title of the applicant representative that completed 

the form.

9. Signature of Applicant Representative: Enter the signature of the applicant representative that 

completed the form.

10. E-mail address: Enter the E-mail address of the applicant representative that completed the form. 

Include the phone number of the representative.

11. Special Provisions: Identify any special provisions that may apply to the Work Schedule 

Request.

Services provided under 7 CFR Part 54, Meats, Prepared Meats, and Meat Products (Grading, 

Certification, and Standards) allow for a Work Schedule Request to be split between multiple firms. 

When firms are sharing a scheduled agreement, complete the appropriate information for each firm.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.29

          Agreement between Norman D. Schuneman and the Company
          regarding the change in control arrangements, dated
          December 31, 1994.
     90
<PAGE>
RESOLUTION TO BE ADOPTED BY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BRENTON BANKS, INC.


RESOLVED, That the Board (Robert L. DeMeulenaere abstained) ratifies the
special pay arrangements (ATTACHMENT A) between management, Robert L.
DeMeulenaere, Larry A. Mindrup and Norman D. Schuneman.
      91
<PAGE>
ATTACHMENT A



NORMAN D. SCHUNEMAN AGREEMENT
12/31/94


It is the intent of Brenton Banks, Inc. to pay Norm Schuneman $375,000 if the
Company is sold and he is released one year after the sale.  If he is
released after one year of the sale, however, within two years of the sale,
he will receive $187,500.00.  The payment may be made over a 24 month period
of time.

If his pay is decreased, he would receive an amount for each year up to three
years which, when added to his new salary, will equal his old salary.

This Agreement is null and void three years from the above date.



/s/
Robert L. DeMeulenaere, President
BRENTON BANKS, INC.
     92
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          31,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,709
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,496
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,206,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,709
<SALES>                                         67,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,993
<CGS>                                         (47,532)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (47,532)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (142,285)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,200)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (133,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (133,024)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abraham Hache, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered January 30, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial of attempted rape in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of two to six years and one to three years, respec*310lively, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50.

Defendant, a stockman, was convicted of attacking a sales clerk in an elevator located in the store where they both worked. On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly used her peremptory challenges to exclude prospective Hispanic jurors. Of the five persons on the venire with Hispanic surnames, one served as the foreman, one was dismissed on consent, two were peremptorily challenged by the prosecutor, and defendant abandons any claim concerning the fifth, whose ethnicity was debated.

The trial court correctly ruled that defendant had failed to make a *prima facie*showing that the prosecutor had used her peremptory challenges improperly. Trial courts are vested with the fullest authority to decide whether the circumstances concerning the use of peremptory challenges create a *prima facie*case of discrimination *(Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79). We find no pattern of discriminatory challenges here. Defendant does not identify any questions or statements that the prosecutor made during the selection process that support the inference of discriminatory purpose. Nor did the prosecutor challenge the Hispanic juror who served as the foreman of the petit jury. *(People v Bolling,*166 AD2d 203, *lv granted*77 NY2d 836.)

The court, despite the lack of a *prima facie*showing, also ruled that the prosecutor gave adequate explanations for her peremptory challenges, and we find no merit to defendant’s appellate challenge to those explanations. While the court disagreed with some of the prosecutor’s views, the prosecutor did give clear and reasonably specific explanations. *(Batson v Kentucky, supra,*at 98, n 20.) Essentially, defendant’s claim on appeal challenges the trial court’s determination of the prosecutor’s credibility, to which we now defer. *(People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350, 357, *cert granted in part*— US —, 111 S Ct 242.)

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly directed a clerk to sequester the jury is unpreserved and unpersuasive *(People v Ford,*161 AD2d 262, 264, *lv granted*76 NY2d 892). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
JAMES T. MURZIKE,

Appellant,

v.

SEC'T. DEPT. OF CORR.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0425

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

George S. Reynolds, III, Judge.

James T. Murzike, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sean W. Gellis, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

WOLF and RAY, JJ., CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION.
BENTON, J., CONCURRING. 

I concur on the authority of Baldwin v. Crosby, 905 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2005). 

2
Exhibit 32.1

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
Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Paul Genova, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| |                          | 
| | ------------------------ | 
| | /s/ Paul Genova          | 
| |                          | 
| | Paul Genova             
| | Chief Executive
 Officer
| | May 16, 2011            

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.

26

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Montanez, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered on June 28, 1989, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Having pleaded guilty to robbing a man on a subway, defendant requested at sentencing that his plea be withdrawn and that new counsel be provided. The trial court was within its discretion in refusing to vacate the plea, as no cognizable ground to withdraw the plea, which was knowing and voluntary, had been advanced. *(People v Stubbs,*110 AD2d 725, 727-728.) It was not necessary for the court to inquire into the validity of a prior conviction which had already served as a basis for an enhanced punishment, from which no appeal had been taken. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
THIS REPORT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

-for Internal Use Only- 

 

An Affordability Analysis of The Amalgamated Sugar 

Company LLC's Affordability Claim with respect to the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Riley Boiler at 

the Nampa, Idaho facility 

February 12, 2010 

prepared by: 

Elliot Rosenberg 

Senior Economist 

U.S. EPA -Region 10 

assisted by: 

Lloyd Oatis (SEE) 

 Financial Analyst 

U.S. EPA -Region 10 

Steve Body 

Senior Planning Engineer 

 U.S. EPA- Region 10 

 
THIS REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION CLAIMED AS 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION AND IS 

NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC