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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,158]

Pursuant to section 21 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on October 2, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Cookson Semiconductor Packaging Material, a division of Alpha-Fry Technologies, Warwick, Rhode Island.

                    The three workers submitting the petition have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further                           ( print page 75313)                        investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.                

Signed in Washington, DC this 7th day of November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-30619  Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:50 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Clark, Adam

Subject: MT: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

FYI ‐ MT

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:35 AM

To: Dave Klemp (dklemp@mt.gov)

Cc: Monica Morales

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Dave

This email is a follow‐up to my update on the SAD call about the startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) SIP

call.  Montana will be included in the SIP call.

The information below is from headquarters.

The EPA Administrator signed a final action today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources

at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.
2

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy.  Your state will have 18 months to submit revisions

of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.  

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, attached to this email is a letter from the EPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action, including

the specific SIP provisions your state needs to address, we have posted a pre‐publication version of the action on our

website at:  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.  

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416
**Exhibit 34.2**

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

The Board of Directors

The Trust &Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche

Bank Trust CompanyAmericas:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in theaccompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that the Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche BankNational Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Honda Auto Receivables2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securitiestransaction (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performswith respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2017. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’scompliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards ofthe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company*’*scompliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performedthose selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactionsand servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed todetermine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2017, is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

Chicago, Illinois

April 27, 2017
June 5, 2015

 Exemption No. 11659A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0545

Mr. Jeffrey Sassinsky

President 

Fovea Aero Systems LLC

60 Fostertown Road

Medford, NJ 08055

Dear Mr. Sassinsky:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated May 20, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Fovea Aero Systems LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to 

your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

allows the petitioner to perform aerial data collection. You requested an amendment 

to conduct closed-set motion picture and television filming and production operations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. The 

unmanned aircraft(s) authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, 

speed and operating capabilities to those in this petition.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11659 

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 
2

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to permit closed-set motion picture and television filming.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11659 remain in effect except 

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to reflect operations for closed-set motion 

picture and television filming. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

permitted. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


I, David Lieberman,  Chief  Executive  Officer  ofWorld Health Energy Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.
 /s/David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Executive Officer


Date: November24, 2010





________________
 
 This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv),which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for theCompany's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing ofselected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Midland complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.02




SILICON IMAGE, INC.




SALES INCENTIVE PLAN FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF WORLDWIDE SALES




FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005




Pursuant to the sales incentive plan, the Registrant’s current Vice President of Worldwide Sales,
will receive a cash incentive payment based on the Registrant’s percentage of achievement of
planned revenue for the fiscal year, as set forth in the following table.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Percent Achievement	 	Amount of Cash	Percent of Incentive
	of Planned Revenue	 	Incentive Payment	Target Amount
	70%
	 	$76,125
	 	52.5%
	75%
	 	$81,563
	 	56.3%
	80%
	 	$94,250
	 	65.0%
	85%
	 	$106,938
	 	73.8%
	90%
	 	$119,625
	 	82.5%
	95%
	 	$132,313
	 	91.3%
	100%
	 	$145,000
	 	100.0%
	105%
	 	$159,500
	 	110.0%
	110%
	 	$174,000
	 	120.0%
	115%
	 	$188,500
	 	130.0%
	120%
	 	$203,000
	 	140.0%
	125%
	 	$217,500
	 	150.0%
	130%
	 	$232,000
	 	160.0%
	135%
	 	$246,000
	 	170.0%
	140%
	 	$261,000
	 	180.0%
	145%
	 	$275,000
	 	190.0%
	150%
	 	$290,000
	 	200.0%
exv10w13



 






Exhibit 10.13




Page: 1




SUMMARY OF CHEVRONTEXACO MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS AND CRITERIA



The Management Incentive Plan (MIP) of ChevronTexaco Corporation is an annual cash incentive plan
that links awards to performance results of the prior year. Individual target awards vary by salary
grade and are based on the competitive annual bonus practices of the nine oil competitors, with
reference to the award levels of the general industry comparator group. In any given year, actual
individual awards vary from zero to 200 percent of target or more, reflecting ChevronTexaco’s
business results and performance at the business unit and individual level.



Awards are based on the assessments by the Management Compensation Committee of ChevronTexaco’s
Board of Directors of performance compared with objectives and performance compared with the peer
competitor group. An individual’s actual award is based on three components, with each component
weighted equally. The components are: corporate results, operating company/Strategic Business Unit
(SBU)/staff results and a Leadership Performance Factor. The Leadership Performance Factor is based
on personal contribution in achieving business results and leadership behaviors demonstrated in
achieving the results. The chief executive officer’s award is based on two components, corporate
results and individual performance. Although a formula of specifically weighted factors is not
used to determine the total MIP fund available or the reporting unit ratings, the corporate
component is heavily influenced by financial metrics while the reporting unit ratings are a balance
of financial and operational metrics.



Corporate, operating company and SBU financial and strategic objectives are set at the beginning of
each year. Financial objectives are developed for: earnings, Return On Capital Employed, cash flow,
operating expense and other key operating measures. Relative Total Stockholder Return (calculated
as stock price appreciation plus dividends on a reinvested basis) and non-financial measures such
as safety and reliability are also included in the evaluation process. Results are measured against
internal objectives and against external oil competitor results.



An individual’s key job responsibilities and objectives are also established at the beginning of
each year. Individual objectives include achievement of business unit financial goals as well as
targets related to business operations (e.g., refinery throughput, production volumes, product
quality, safety, environmental performance, etc.). Performance assessments are also made on other
factors, including diversity, leadership, teamwork, communication, developing employees, creativity
and innovation, and building partnerships.



The corporate performance assessment is the same for all MIP participants. Individuals will have
different operating company, SBU and leadership performance assessments.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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 annual report of Worldwide Restaurant Concepts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
L. Boppell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

Date: July 17, 2003                        /s/ Charles L. Boppell
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Charles L. Boppell
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### SIMMONS et al. v. GARDNER et al.

No. 2333—7700.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Nov. 20, 1940.

John S. Morris and H. C. Ray, both of Fort Worth, for plaintiffs in error.

G. L. Robertson, H. T. Cooper, and Samuels, Foster, Brown & McGee, all of Fort Worth, amici curiae.

Boykin & Seideman, of Fort Worth, for defendants in error.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

This action originated in the probate court of Tarrant County. It had for its purpose the probating of the will of Gertrude S. Wilson, deceased. Application for probate was denied by the county court, and by certiorari the matter was taken to the district court. There probate of the will was again denied. Findings of fact were filed in the district court showing that the reason for denying probate was lack of sufficient pleadings. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this judgment. 134 S.W.2d 338. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals shows the peculiar situation with reference to the pleadings. Writ of error was granted because the Supreme Court thought the pleadings were sufficient.

Defendants in error by their attorneys of record have filed in this Court a confession of error on the part of the district court and of the Court of Civil Appeals, admitting that the pleadings were sufficient to justify an admission of the will to probate. They also request that the judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the district court be set aside, and judgment rendered ordering the will to be admitted to probate.- In the alternative, they prayed that the cause be reversed and remanded to the district court.

We do not think this Court is authorized, under the circumstances, to render judgment, but in pursuance of the admission of error and request of interested parties, the cause should be reversed and remanded.

The judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the district court are both reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court for such further action as the court may find to be appropriate in light of the agreements of the parties and developments since the former hearing.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Larry Thomas Webb, Appellant

No. 06-20-00100-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

15F0870-005). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice 

Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Larry Thomas Webb, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 2, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk