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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01396]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2013 / 
Notices

[[Page 5164]]

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Board of Directors Executive Session Meeting

    Meeting: African Development Foundation, Board of Directors 
Executive Session Meeting
    Time: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Place: 1400 Eye Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
    Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
    Status:
    1. Open session, Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 9:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
    2. Closed session, Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 
p.m.

Shari Berenbach,
President/CEO, USADF.
[FR Doc. 2013-01396 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, RECEIVER OF CITYTRUST *v.*RICHARD E. FONTE ET AL.

*Nathan A. Schatz,*in support of the petition.

*Frederic S. Ury,*in opposition.

Decided June 10, 1998

The petition by the defendant Richard Matza for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 531 (AC 16555), is denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01674**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01674\01674_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01674\01674_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01674\01674_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01674\01674_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01674\01674_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01674\01674_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01674\01674_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01674\01674_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01674\Certification Statement_01674.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 01674\Follow-Up\ELG Questionnaire - update.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01674\Supporting Documentation\01674_LGE-TC - Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01674\Supporting Documentation\01674_LGE-TC - D-1 Wastewater Treatment Block Diagram - 1011r8.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01674\Supporting Documentation\01674_LGE-TC - WB-1 Water Balance Block Diagram - 1011r8.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01674\Supporting Documentation\01674_LGE-Trimble County - Fly Ash Block Diag_R2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01674\Supporting Documentation\01674_LGE-Trimble County - UNIT 2 Bottom Ash Block Diag_R1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01674\Supporting Documentation\LGE-Trimble County A5-2 - Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
****EXHIBIT 32.01****

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of Swank, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)        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.

 

 

| Dated: August 14, 2008 | /s/ John Tulin                                                                     |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | John Tulin, Chief Executive Officer                                                |
|                   |                                                                               |
|                   |                                                                               |
| Dated: August 14, 2008 | /s/ Jerold R. Kassner                                                              |
|                   | Jerold R. Kassner, Executive Vice President and Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer) |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Swank, Inc. and will be retained by Swank, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

----
Exhibit
        4.1

      


      


      


      February
        28, 2006

      


      Cranshire
        Capital, L.P.

      666
        Dundee Road

      Suite
        1901

      Northbrook,
        Illinois

      USA
        60062

      Attention:   Mitchell
        P. Kopin

      


      


      Dear
        Sirs:

       

      
        	Re:	Generex Biotechnology
                Corporation
	 	- Amendment to Jan 20
                06
                Additional Investment Right


      

       

      We
        make
        reference to the additional investment right issued by Generex Biotechnology
        Corporation (the “Company”)
        to
        Cranshire Capital, L.P. (“Cranshire”)
        on
        January 20, 2006 pursuant to which the Company, inter
        alia,
        granted
        to Cranshire the right to purchase a $1,000,000 principal amount debenture
        convertible at $1.25 per share (the “AIR”).

      


      The
        Initial Exercise Date (as that term is defined in the AIR) of the AIR is
        expressed therein as the 181st
        day
        after the date thereof. The Company hereby confirms that, in consideration
        of
        the exercise of the AIR by Cranshire and the delivery to the Company of a
        Notice
        of Exercise in respect thereof on or before the close of business on February
        28, 2006, the Company has agreed to abridge the Initial Exercise Date and
        to
        honor the aforementioned Notice of Exercise.

      


      Yours
        truly,

      


      Generex
        Biotechnology Corporation

      


      /s/
        Mark
        A. Fletcher

      


      


      Mark
        A.
        Fletcher

      Executive
        Vice-President, General Counsel

      maf:hs
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00697-CV 

DENNIS HUFFMASTER, Appellant 

V. 

AUTOFLEX LEASING, INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03426 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

The filing fee and docketing statement in this case are past due. By postcard dated June 

14, 2019, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the 

filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in 

dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated June 14, 2019, we notified appellant the docketing 

statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement 

within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this 

appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c). 

190697F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DENNIS HUFFMASTER, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00697-CV V. 

AUTOFLEX LEASING, INC., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03426. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. 

Justices Whitehill and Molberg 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee AUTOFLEX LEASING, INC. recover its costs of this

appeal from appellant DENNIS HUFFMASTER. 

Judgment entered August 22, 2019
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                    State or Other
                                                   Jurisdiction of   Percentage
                                                    Incorporation     Ownership
                                                    -------------     ---------
Parent
------
<S>                                                <C>               <C> 
BCSB Bankcorp, Inc.                                United States


Subsidiary (1)
----------    

Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.              United States        100%


Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1)
-----------------------------------------------------    

Baltimore County Service Corp.                     United States        100%
Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                United States        100%
</TABLE> 

-------------------------
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

75) ll-E-35 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM Sheet 75 of 264 
NOV-29-95 WED 10:26 W ! CANTON CITY HEALTH DEPT. FAX NO, 2164893335 

P.2 

Xl/£9/9<> ia.i i «*< 

P.02/02 

A-94-52 

ll-E-35 

COKTACT REPORT 

Promt Madeleine Strum, Coatings and Consumer Products Group 

Emission Standards Division 

Date of Contacts November 28, 1995 

Person Contacted* Rick Miller 

Company/Agency i Ohio EPA/ Canton 

Telephone Numberi 216 489 3365 (FAX 216 489 3335) 

CONTACT SUMMARY! 

Mr. Miller was contacted regarding the emission reduction measure 

at U.S. Fiberglass Products inc. The facility reported the use of 

carbon filters. Mr. Millar was aware that the facility installed 

these for odor complaints (the facility is a block away from and 

directly upwind from a middle school.) Mr. Miller did not know the 

destruction efficiency of the filter, however he believed that it 

did reduce emissions since there were no odor complaints after the 

installation. Mr. Miller thought there were little or no fugitives 

(i.e. capture efficiency would be close to 100%) since there V_B 

only one exhaust in the laminating/gelcoating area and that the 

area is at negative pressure. Mr. Miller referred me to Ashland 

(the possible supplier of the carbon) for the efficiency or 

possibly to Acitec (the designer of the system.) 

with regard to the system design, Mr. Miller indicated the exhaust 

air is drawn over a series of filters which are containeri2ed in 

sleeves. First the air goes through several mechanical filters (to 

remove particulates). There is one gelcoating/lay up area, which 

is a large area (not a spray booth) and cna exhaust stack is 

associated with all operations in the area. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




Description of Executive Incentive Bonus Plan




     In order to provide incentive to senior management to achieve various corporate goals established by the board for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2006, Taleo has adopted an Executive Incentive Bonus Plan (the “Plan”).
The Plan provides for payment of bonuses to eligible executives and corporate officers. In
addition, such executives and corporate officers will be eligible to receive restricted stock grants of between 20,000 and
40,000 shares.



     Aggregate cash bonus amounts
 range between 38% and 100% of base salary per individual at on-target
achievement of bonus plan goals and are available for 8 individuals. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer is paid
 bonuses pursuant
to his Employment Agreement and does not participate in the Plan.



     Each individual’s bonus will be determined by an individualized formula based on the
achievement of a variety of yearly and quarterly performance objectives including bookings, revenue, gross margins, cost of goods sold, system up-time, customer renewal rates and other objectives. For certain performance objectives
it is possible to exceed on-target achievement and receive a bonus payment in excess of the bonus payment payable for on-target achievement.



     Bonus payments are anticipated to be made both quarterly and yearly, depending on the relevant
performance objective. The Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of Taleo’s Board of Directors, and
will terminate in 2007.
#### KING v. KING et al.

No. 6151.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 3, 1952.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1952.

Harry Bunnenberg, Vernon, for appellant.

Storey, Storey & Donaghey, Vernon, Bullington, Humphrey, Humphrey & Fillmore, Wichita Falls, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a will contest action alleging testamentary incapacity that has been before us on a former occasion as reported in 242 S.W.2d 925. The.Supreme Court reversed our judgment and remanded the cause to us for further consideration upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion reported in 244 S.W.2d 660. We refer to both of these opinions for a full statement of the case and for the action taken on the assignments of error presented.

. In the trial court the case was tried to a jury which found that the deceased, Jessie King, did not have testamentary capacity to execute the will being here contested. The trial court rendered judgment denying the will to probate and this court in our former opinion' affirmed that part of the trial court’s judgment. As we understand the Supreme Court’s opinion referred to, it has approved our disposition made of all of appellant’s, assignments of error except for one complaint or assignment made by him in his application made for a writ of error. That one complaint or assignment charges that judgment should have been rendered for appellant, Carl King, notwithstanding the jury verdict which was “so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence as to be clearly'wrong and unjust.”

A re-examination of all of the evidence heard reveals to us that the issue of testamentary capacity was strongly controverted and there was much evidence heard on both sides. The evidence is too lengthy to be restated here but the testimony of the physicians who attended the testatrix over a period of many years, based upon their personal observations of testatrix and experiences with her while attending her, and the testimony of lay witnesses, based upon their acquaintance with testatrix and their observance of her demeanor, conduct and peculiar actions, all support appellees’ contentions in the matter as well as the *526verdict of the jury. , After carefully weighing all of this evidence as against all of the evidence to the contrary, it is our opinion that the jury verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight o.f all the evidence as to be clearly -wrong and unjust but that there was an abundance of evidence of probative value to support the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court as to the testamentary incapacity of the testatrix, the only issue submitted to the jury. Appellant’s assignment or complaint to the contrary is therefore overruled and with this clarification of our former opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed except as to that part heretofore reversed and rendered. In support of 'our holding we cite the authorities cited and discussed by the Supreme Court concerning such an issue in its recent opinion here-inabove referred to.
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

******PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350**

In connect
with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended August 31, 2006 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods covered by the Report.

It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



|Date: October 13, 2006 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                     
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.4


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

QUANEX CORPORATION 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN

FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES


 


THIS AGREEMENT by Quanex
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


W I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H:


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor maintains the
Quanex Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, as amended and
restated effective January 1, 1998 (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 13.01 of the Plan, the Sponsor has the right to amend the Plan;
and


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor has
determined to amend the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor
agrees that Section 5.05 is hereby completely amended and restated, effective for mandatory distributions under the Plan on
and after March 28, 2005, to provide as follows:


 


5.05         Immediate Payment of Small Amount Upon Separation From Service.
Each Participant or former Participant whose Nonforfeitable Interest in his
Account balance at the time of a distribution to him on account of his
Separation From Service is, in the aggregate, less than or equal to $1,000.00,
shall be paid in the form of an immediate single sum cash payment and/or as a
Direct Rollover, as elected by him under section 5.06. However, if a
Distributee who is subject to this Section 5.04 does not furnish instructions
in accordance with Plan procedures to directly roll over his Plan benefit
within 45 days after he has been given direct rollover forms, he will be deemed
to have elected to receive an immediate lump sum cash distribution of his
entire Plan benefit. If a Participant’s or former Participant’s Nonforfeitable
Interest in his Account balance payable upon his Separation From Service is
zero (because he has no Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance), he
will be deemed to have elected and to have received an immediate distribution
of his entire Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor
has caused this Agreement to be executed on the 19th day of December, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  QUANEX
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  Kevin P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  Kevin
  P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior
  Vice President – General Counsel and

  Secretary
> 
**Exhibit 32**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

          Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, theundersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Teltronics,Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ EWEN R. CAMERON          Ewen R. CameronChief Executive Officer

 

/s/ PATRICK G. MIN             Patrick G. MinChief Financial Officer

 

Date:     August 14, 2003
**Exhibit99.10**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the annual report of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregory S. Noval, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Dated:  March 30, 2007
|        | By:    | /s/ GREGORY S. NOVAL |
|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   |   | Name:                |   | Gregory S. Noval |
|   |   | Title:               |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 22909.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 21, 1944.

Samuel K. Wasaff, of El Paso, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

For driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, appellant was *281assessed the minimum punishment of a fine of $50.

There are no bills of exception accompanying the record.

The officer who arrested appellant while he was driving the automobile testified that he smelled liquor on his breath. He described his acts and conduct, and upon which he expressed the opinion that appellant was drunk at that time. This testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury’s conclusion that appellant was intoxicated.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 5

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 7 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 8 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 9 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 102-5 Filed 08/29/22 Page 10 of 10