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

----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 5, 2009      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,      and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                               |                                                |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | PAPERWEIGHT      DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|                                  |                               |                                                |
| Dated:  August      7, 2009 |                               | /s/      Mark R. Richards                      |
|                                  | Name:                              | Mark      R. Richards                               |
|                                  | Title:                             | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Charles J. Hogarty, certify that: 

 

1. Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Keystone Automotive Industries, 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand 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 underour 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure 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 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, 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 the registrant’sboard 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 andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 7, 2004
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 
333-17565, 333-33475 and 333-44371 of Renaissance Worldwide, Inc. (formerly 
known as The Registry, Inc.) on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 28, 1997
(which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
relating to the accounting for an acquisition as a pooling-of-interests)
appearing in this Transition Report on Form 10-K of Renaissance Worldwide, Inc.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

128) IV-C-94 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 128 of 232 
A 

- v • 

MAR T 1988 

P.2 

OFF* 

MR VND RADIATION 

Honorable John McCain 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator McCain: 

This in response to your February 3, 1988 letter relaying 

the concerns of one of your constituents regarding EPA's 

regulatory proposal to require onboard canisters on new 

vehicles to control refueling emissions. To assist you with 

your response, I have enclosed a copy of our proposal for yoiH 

review. Section E (pages 31177-31182) explains EPA's overafl 

rationale for proposing onboard controls. 

Briefly, EPA's decision to require onboard controls on 

vehicles instead of controls at the gas pump (known as Stage II 

control) was based on an in-depth analysis of many issues 

including the technical feasibility, cost and environmental 

impact of both control options. The results of our analyses 

showed that a nationwide onboard program would be preferable to 

a Stage II program. A more thorough discussion of these 

matters is given in the enclosed proposal. If you would like 

further information beyond that provided in our proposal, 

please contact Mr. °hilip Carlson of the Standards Development 

and Support Branch of the Amission Control Technology Division, 

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or 

Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place both your letter 

and the letter from Mr. Edgar Phares in our public docket and 

fully consider these comments in the next phase of our 

rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles N. Freed 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 
P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PKOTECTtON 

AGENCY 

Om 2 2 1988 

CENTRAL BOCKET 

SECTtON
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K


               CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                           THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934


DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED):              JANUARY 23, 1997


                          PACIFIC GULF PROPERTIES INC.
             (EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)


MARYLAND                             1-12546                         33-0577520
(STATE OR OTHER                 (COMMISSION FILE               (I.R.S. EMPLOYER
JURISDICTION OF                      NUMBER)                 IDENTIFICATION NO.)
INCORPORATION)


           363 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-7805
           (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)        (ZIP CODE)


       REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (714) 721-2700


         (FORMER NAME OR FORMER ADDRESS, IF CHANGED SINCE LAST REPORT)

                                      I-1
<PAGE>   2
ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

     99.1  Press Release Issued by the Company on February 18, 1997 relating to
the Company's fourth quarter and year end results.

     99.2  Press Release Issued by the Company on January 28, 1997 relating to
the acquisition of industrial business parks in Santa Ana, California.

     99.3  Press Release Issued by the Company on January 23, 1997 relating to
the acquisition of an industrial building in Algona, Washington.

                                      I-2
<PAGE>   3
                                   SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        PACIFIC GULF PROPERTIES INC., a
                                        Maryland corporation


                                        By: /s/ Donald G. Herrman
                                            -------------------------
                                        Name:  Donald G. Herrman
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer

February 18, 1997


                                      I-3
#### Delmar Dee MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 36116.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1963.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Sam Pater-nostro, Tom Reese and Emmett Colvin, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.

The proof of the state shows and the appellant while testifying admitted that he was driving a pickup at an excessive rate of speed on a public street about 12:25 a. m. on the date alleged.

Two officers testified that they saw the appellant immediately after he had stopped his pickup, heard him talk, saw him walk, smelled the odor of alcohol on him, and from appellant’s manner of driving the pickup, they expressed the opinion that the appellant was intoxicated.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that he was intoxicated but stated he had drunk one and one-half bottles of beer from one to two hours before his arrest. Appellant’s wife and son testified to substantially the same facts as the appellant and stated he was not intoxicated.

No formal bills of exception appear in the record; and the informal bills have been considered and they do not show error.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Order entered February 2 6 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00039 - CV THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. THOMAS A. DAVENPORT, Appellee On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 11 - 09411 - K 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s February 6, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file its brief by March 13, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIE RS JUSTICE
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498 **MEMORANDUM** SUBJECT: Air Quality

Modeling Output s for the Final Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division Office of T ransportation and Air Quality TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 1 1 - 0 135 DATE: February 20 , 201 4 The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used in the air quality modeling analy ses for the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards . The air quality modeling analy ses are discussed in Section I I I. C of the preamble, Section 7.2.2 – Section 7.2.4 of the Regulatory

Impact Analy sis (RIA) and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document . In formation on the air quality modeling invento ries is discussed in Section 7.2.1 of the RIA. Following is a list of the information contain ed on the enclosed disc :

- deposition DBF files folder: gridded annual nitrogen and sulfur deposition difference data for 2018 and 2030 reference cases and Tie r 3 control scenario s

- toxics DBF files folder: gridded annual and seasonal (winter/summer) toxics difference data for 2018 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenario s

- TI ER 3

_Final_O zone_DVs .xls x : county- level 8 - hour max ozone Design Value projections for 2018 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenario s

- TI ER3

_Final

_ annual PM_DVs.xls x : county- level annual PM2.5 Design Value projections for 2018 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenario s

- TI ER 3

_Final

_ daily

PM_dv s.xls x : county- level 24 - hour PM2.5 Design Value projections for 2018 and 2030 reference cases and Tier 3 control scenario s OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION- TI ER 3

_Final_Visibility .xls x : Class 1 Area visibility projections for the 20% worst day s f or 200 7 reference case , 2018 and 2030 reference case s and Tier 3 control scenario s

- CMAQv5.0 _Release Notes.doc x : REL EASE_NOTES for CMAQv 5.0

- CMAQv5.0 .1_Release Notes.doc x : REL EASE_NOTES for CMAQv 5.0 .1

- WRF_v3 3_2007_Performance_July 2012 .pdf: Misenis, C. Meteorological Model Performance for Annual 200 7 Simulation WRF v3.3 , USEPA/OAQPS, July 15 , 20 12 . Attachments
p130180.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0180

Focus Ready Draft 1/14/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ AH

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER:

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130180.eng

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B3T2 Linear: P1B2T2 // Branched: P2B3T2.

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

Page 2
p130180.eng

 

Page 3
p130180.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0180

 

Page 4
p130180.eng

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0180

Page 5
p130180.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0180

Page 6
p130180.eng

Page 7
p130180.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130180.eng

Page 9
URI -2011.12.31 10K EX10hh


3
Exhibit 10(hh) 


EXECUTION COPY


THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This THIRD Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), is made and entered into as of the 22 day of December 2011, by and between United Rentals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and William B. Plummer, a resident of the State of Connecticut (“Executive”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2008, which was subsequently amended effective as of December 30, 2008 and December 1, 2008 (as so amended, the “Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2011, the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors determined to increase Executive's target incentive opportunity under the Company's Annual Incentive Compensation Plan from 80% of Base Salary (at the beginning of the applicable performance period) to 90% of Base Salary (at the beginning of the applicable performance period) commencing on January 1, 2012 with any payment therefrom to be made in 2013 and on an annual basis thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect Executive's increased target incentive opportunity percentage.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 7(l) of the Agreement, the second sentence of Section 3(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in full with the following language:


“Executive's target incentive opportunity under the Annual Incentive Plan shall be 90% of Base Salary (as at the beginning of the applicable performance period) and Executive's maximum incentive opportunity shall be 125% of Base Salary (as at the beginning of the applicable performance period).”
		
	2.
	Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


		
	3.
	Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


		
	4.
	This Amendment may be amended only by a writing which makes express reference to this Amendment as the subject of such amendment and which is signed by Executive and, on 





behalf of the Company, by its duly authorized officer.
		
	5.
	This Agreement shall be governed by and construed (both as to validity and performance) and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Connecticut applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within such jurisdiction, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law or where the parties are located at the time a dispute arises.


[Signature page follows.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
	
		
	UNITED RENTALS, INC.




By:  /s/ Michael J. Kneeland
Name:Michael J.  Kneeland
Title:President and Chief Executive 
Officer
	EXECUTIVE




/s/ William B. Plummer
William B. Plummer
----

----

|   | (1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 4, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |                          |                                                                 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | PAPERWEIGHT DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|               |                          |                                                                 |
| Dated: May 7, 2010 |                          | /s/ Thomas J. Ferree                                       |
|               | Name:                         | Thomas J. Ferree                                                     |
|               | Title:                        | Senior Vice President Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
14910-13-PI

14 CFR Part 39

DEPARTMENT OF TRA.-NSPORTATION

federal A,,;ation Administration

o't~Y

IDocket No. FAA-201o-H,*u; Directorate Identifier 2009-I\'M-261-ADI

RlN 2120-AA64

Ainvortbiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series ..o\1rpla.TJ.cs

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACflON: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMM.o\RY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the pradu IS~_

~-

T-

""

~", ..•

{.~

~"'6/;C(//~

• • • • • • •

listed above that ",",'auldsupersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviaiion ~.",,,,,-

authority of another country to identify and co~ect an unsafe condition on an aviatiOl 'jij~

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe COndi[iOnas: ~if/q 10

During High Time Equipment (HTE) rJicws conducted within the scope

o~the A3l 0 aircraft D~sign-Servj.ceGo~l (DSG) ~xtensio~ work, Airb.us

dlscovcrcd that the sphned c.ouphngs aq~the sliding bcanngs of the flap

transm.ission system could be affected oy corrosion and wear, especially

when their protective components-suchlas wiper rings and rubber gaiters

could be'OOmedefective. 11

This condition, ifnot detected and corr eted, could degrade the functional

integrity of the flap transmission systerbl.

The proposed AD would require actions that arc intended to address the unsafe condi ~n

described in the MeAL

DATES: We must receivecOIlUnenlS on this proposed AD by [INSERT DATE 45

FAA Form 136~14.1 {6-89} OFFICIAL ALE copy
1 

STATE OF VERMONT 

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Environmental Division Unit Docket No. 120-8-14 Vtec

Arthaud CU JUDGMENT ORDER 

This is an appeal from a Town of Charlotte Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) decision 

denying conditional use approval for the demolition and reconstruction of a structure. The 

matter is now before the Court on Applicant’s withdrawal of the application and his motion for 

Dismissal with Prejudice. The Biebuycks are self-represented. Appellant Paul Arthaud is 

represented by Liam L. Murphy and Katelyn E. Ellerman, Esqs. The Town of Charlotte, is 

represented by David W. Rugh, Esq. 

Applicant Paul Arthaud no longer wishes to pursue the Conditional Use application and 

withdraws the application. He understands that the ZBA decision denying conditional use 

approval is now final. The Biebuycks wish to continue this appeal. 

When an applicant withdraws the application at issue in our de novo review, the 

Environmental Division’s subject matter jurisdiction ends. Additionally, the Environmental 

Division is without power to force an applicant to continue to pursue its application. While the 

Court is concerned that the practical effect of granting the motion to dismiss will be inefficient 

should a dispute underlying the subject property continue, we have no authority to extend or 

continue our subject matter jurisdiction. 

For this reason, the motion for Dismissal with Prejudice is GRANTED. As such the ZBA’s 

decision denying the conditional use approval application is final. This concludes the matter. 

So ordered. 

Electronically signed on July 17, 2017 at 2:22 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division 

Notifications: 

Liam L. Murphy (ERN 3953) and Katelyn E. Ellermann (ERN 6654), Attorneys for Appellant Paul 

Arthaud 

David W. Rugh (ERN 1507), Attorney for Interested Person Town of Charlotte 

Interested Person Nina Cucchiari 

Interested Person Norman Ernsting 

Interested Person Valerie Biebuyck 

Interested Person J.C. Biebuyck 

Mediator Donald R.(Tad) Powers 

nlow