alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served : Jul y 1,201 0 UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F TH E SECRETAR Y WASHINGTON , D.C
.

Issued b y th e Departmen

t o f Transportatio n onthef'o f

July , 201 0 Essentia l Ai r Servic e a t LAK E MINCHUMINA , ALASK A Unde r 4 9 U.S.C
. 4173 1 et

seq . DOCKE T OST-2008-023 7

NOTIC E O F EXTENSIO N B y lette r dated Jun e 18 , we requestedcommen t on the carrier-selectio n issu e a t Lak e Minchumina , Alaska , n o late r tha n Jul y 1
. B y email datedJune 29 , 2010 , the communit y requeste d a

n extensio n unti l Jul

y 1 0 t o submi t additiona l comments . W e hav e decide d t

o gran t the community' s request , as th e additiona l amoun t o f tim e i s no t unreasonable
. Th e communit y mus t no w submi t it s comments n o late

r tha n July 10 , 2010
.

Denni s DeVany , Chief

, EA S an d Domesti c Analysi s A n electroni c version o

f thi s documen

t i s availabl e o

n th e Worl dWid e We b a t http://www.regulations.go v
Letter Agreement between Jack Africk and North Atlantic Trading Company, Inc.



 Exhibit 10.53 
 

 
  
 THOMAS F. HELMS,
JR. 
 Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer 
  
 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
  
 October 1, 2003 
  
 Mr. Jack Africk 
 Evolution Partners LLC 
 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 211 
 Boca Raton, FL 33431 
  

Dear Jack: 
  
 We are pleased that you are willing to continue as a consultant to North Atlantic Trading Company, Inc. As I have often said, we greatly value your expertise and wisdom. 
  
 As discussed, the prior terms of your Consulting Agreement shall remain unchanged except that
the term shall be extended to December 31, 2004. Those terms will include your annual compensation of $100,000.00, Claudia M. Bayarri on the National Tobacco payroll at a salary of $26,800 plus applicable benefits, and a cellular phone for your use.

  
 If this letter accurately reflects our understanding, kindly so indicate by
signing one of the enclosed duplicate originals and returning it to my attention. 
  

							
	 Sincerely,
	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 /s/ Thomas F. Helms, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 /s/ Jack Africk
	 	 	 	 10/3/03    
	 	 
	 Jack Africk
	 	 	 	 Date
	 	 

  

 257 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10010 Ÿ (212) 253-8185 FAX (212) 253-8296
# C_2009282EN.01001602.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-100/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/14/EC - Detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 282/31

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L Jelínek and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

| 2. | orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.

1

---
MID-ATLANTIC REALTY TRUST
                        AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF TRUST

     Mid-Atlantic  Realty Trust, a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust, having
its  principal   office  in  Anne  Arundel  County  in  the  State  of  Maryland
(hereinafter  called the Trust"),  hereby  certifies to the State  Department of
Assessments  and Taxation of Maryland that:

     FIRST:  The Declaration of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended by striking
Section 6.6 (b) (4) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

          "(4) Any Person  attempting to make any Transfer shall first ascertain
     that such Transfer is not a Prohibited Transfer. Any Prohibited Transfer or
     other  event  which,  if  effective,  would  result  in  the  Shares  being
     Beneficially  Owned by less than 100 persons,  or would result in the Trust
     being "closely held", shall be void ab initio and of no force or effect."

     SECOND: The Declaration of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended by striking
Section 6.6 (g) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

          "(g) Remedies Not Limited.  Subject to Section 6.10 of the Declaration
     of Trust, nothing contained in this Article VI shall limit the authority of
     the Board of Trustees to take such other  action as it deems  necessary  or
     advisable  to protect the Trust and the  interests of its  Shareholders  by
     preservation of the Trust's status as a REIT."

     THIRD:  The  Trustees  of the Trust,  at a meeting of the Board of Trustees
held on November 14, 1997,  unanimously  adopted a resolution in which set forth
the  foregoing  amendments  to the  Declaration  of Trust,  declaring  that said
amendments to the Declaration of Trust are advisable and approved.

     FOURTH:  The  Amendment  to the  Declaration  of  Trust  of the  Trust,  as
hereinabove set forth, has been duly advised by the Trustees and approved by the
shareholders  of the  Trust  by an  affirmative  vote  of  holders  of at  least
two-thirds of the outstanding common shares of beneficial  interest of the Trust
at a meeting of the shareholders held on May 15, 1998.

<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust has caused these Articles of
Amendment  to be signed  and  acknowledged  in its name and on its behalf by its
President and witnessed by its Secretary on this 23rd  day of June,  1998,  and
they  acknowledge the same to be the act of said Trust,  and that to the best of
their knowledge, information and belief, all matters and facts stated herein are
true in all  material  respects,  and that  this  statement  is made  under  the
penalties of perjury.

ATTEST:                                      Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust



____________________________                 By:________________________(SEAL)
F. Paul Robinson, Secretary                     F. Patrick Hughes, President

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          52,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    209,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               438,900
<PP&E>                                         233,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,086,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          372,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                    (318,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,086,400
<SALES>                                      1,123,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,123,800
<CGS>                                          814,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  814,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (61,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.99)
        

</TABLE>
Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2010–2014

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The percent of the 

U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school 

completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. 

The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to 

organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: September 2016

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2010–2014

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

64.6% - 74.9%

75.0% - 84.9%

85.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 108.4%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification) 

U.S. average = 86.3%

Appalachian average = 85.1%
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Hugh E. Sawyer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Allied Holdings, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.      May 23, 2007  */s/ Hugh E Sawyer*      *Date*  *Hugh E. Sawyer*    *Chief Executive Officer and President*
# C_2008313EN.01003902.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/39

---

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — AKKA/LAA v Commission

(Case T-414/08)

(2008/C 313/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība (AKKA/LAA) (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC); and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC) alleging that 24 of CISAC's (1) EEA based societies, including the applicant, engaged in a concerted practice ‘by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society’.

1

The main pleas and arguments are similar or identical to those raised in Case T-413/08.

---

(1)  Refers to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (‘CISAC’).

1

---
# C_2008107EN.01003101.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/31

---

Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Axis AB v OHIM — Etra Investigación y Desarollo (ETRAX)

(Case T-70/08)

(2008/C 107/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etra Investigación y Desarollo SA (Valencia, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2007 in Case R 334/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 November 2007 in Case R 334/2007-2;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ETRAX’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42 — Application No 3 890 291

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Etra Investigacion y Desarollo SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks containing the word element ‘ETRA’ and the letters ‘I’ and ‘D’ joined by the sign ‘+’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 49 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (1) (‘CTMIR’) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (‘CTMR’).

Pleas in law:

1

The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was filed in accordance with Rule 49(1) CTMIR which states that the Board of Appeal must reject an appeal as inadmissible if it doesn't comply with Articles 57, 58 and 59 CTMR and Rule 48(1)(c) CTMIR. Further, the applicant contends that since the language deficiency was not remedied by the opponent before the expiry of the time-limit set to lodge an appeal, namely, 12 February 2007, the Board of Appeal allegedly infringed Rule 49(1) and (2) CTMIR.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2008327EN.01003402.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/34

---

Action brought on 1 October 2008 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion (1-2-3.TV)

(Case T-440/08)

(2008/C 327/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 1-2-3.TV GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde und E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainz, Germany) and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1); and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘1-2-3.TV’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Application No 3 763 133

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘1, 2 ODER 3 ZDF-ORF-SFDRS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition on account of the differing overall impression of the marks.

Pleas in law:

---
#### R. L. HANCOCK and Mrs. R. L. Hancock, Same as Ruby May Hancock, Plaintiffs in Error, v. FARMERS MILL and ELEVATOR COMPANY, a Co-operative Association, Defendant in Error.

No. 36605.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 17, 1955.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1955.

H. F. Fulling, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

George B. Schwabe, Jr., Floyd L. Walker, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

Farmers Mill and Elevator Company, a co-operative association, brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, against R. L. Hancock and Mrs. R. L. Hancock, same as Ruby May Hancock, and recovered judgment for $636.23 on an open account from which no appeal was taken. The judgment was not paid, and execution was issued to and returned by the Sheriff with notation, “No property found”. On June 30th plaintiff filed in said cause an application for the appointment of a receiver (in the aid of execution) to take charge of all oil and gas *215owned by Ruby May Hancock produced from S2 of the SW4 of Sec. 36, Township 22 N, R. 12 E., Tulsa County, Oklahoma, which was the family’s constitutional homestead. Upon hearing the application was granted and Gordon Patton was appointed receiver to take charge of the, oil produced from said property and apply the proceeds of sale to the payment of the debt. On July 16, 1954, motion for new trial was filed. Also, on July 22, they filed their motion to vacate this appointment of receiver and on July 23, 1954, they filed their motion to discharge the garnishment. The Court overruled all the motions, and ordered the Bigheart Pipe Line Corporation, garnishee, to pay to the receiver the l/8th royalty interest of Ruby May Hancock in all oil produced from her property, the family homestead. To which ruling, defendants objected, excepted and appealed.

There are no disputed facts: The defendant’s answer and response raises only a question of law as to whether oil and gas produced and severed from the constitutional homestead is exempt from forced sale, levy and execution. '

We are of the opinion that ’accrued royalty arising under an ordinary oil and gas lease is personal property, see McCully v. McCully, 184 Okl. 264, 86 P.2d 786, and authorities therein cited and relied upon, and is not, in the instant case, a. specie of personal property exempt from forced sale, levy and execution under 31 O.S.1951 § 1.

The argument of defendants that accrued royalty from a homestead has the same legal exempt status as does the pro--ceeds of sale of a homestead, which is retained for reinvestment in another homestead, is untenable. The oil and gas after severance, being personal property, the rights and privileges concerning same are determined by the laws relative to personal property in general.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Michael Cohen, Appellant, v Vincent F. Nicolosi, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Queens County (Cosmo J. Di Tucci, J.), entered on or about August 16, 1991, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Cosmo J. Di Tucci, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.