alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.46


 


SEVENTH AMENDMENT

OF ESI PENSION PLAN


 


This Seventh Amendment of ESI Pension Plan (the “Plan”)
is adopted by ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the “Employer”).


 


Background


 


A.            The Employer originally established
the Plan effective June 9, 1998.


 


B.            The Plan has been amended by a
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment.


 


C.            The Employer now wishes to amend the
Plan further.


 


Amendment


 


1.             Effective
January 1, 2003, a new Section 7.01(d) is added to read as follows:


 


(d)           In 2003, after
reaching her Normal Retirement Date, the Member Nancy Lohr received a single
lump sum cash payment of the present value of her Cash Balance Account.  This Subsection (d) provides for and
authorizes that distribution to her.


 





















 


This Seventh Amendment of ESI Pension Plan is executed
this 19th day of October, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
  ITT
  EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/
  Nina F. Esbin

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Signature)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
     Nina
  F. Esbin

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Printed)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
     Senior
  Vice President, Human Resources

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Title)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  ATTEST:

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
     /s/
  Jenny Yonce

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  (Signature)

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
     Jenny
  Yonce

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  (Printed)

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
     Mgr,
  Benefits & HRIS

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  (Title)

  	
   

  	 

						



 


2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-41050, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132, No. 33-60891, No. 33-13013, No. 333-69157
and No. 333-86527 on Form S-8 and No. 333-87603 and No. 333-76853 on Form S-3
of our report dated December 15, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 1999.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc., listed in Item 14 (A) (2). The financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Jose, California
January 28, 2000
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6566, styled State v. Jason Miears, pending in the 379th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00637-CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED

On October 7, 2009, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of prohibition. The court

has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to

the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-86595, 333-65721, 333-40697, 333-34677, 33-65412, 33-97512, 33-65414, and
33-88114, of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 9, 2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. for the year ended February 4, 2001.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 26, 2001
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 249 

AN ACT 

To provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 

99 years certain restricted land, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 249 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA 

2 LAND ELIGIBLE FOR 99-YEAR LEASE. 

3 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of Au4 gust 9, 1955 (commonly known as the ‘‘Long-Term Leas5 ing Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Indians,,’’ and inserting ‘‘Indi7 ans,’’; 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘Ohkay Owingeh pueblo,’’ after 

9 ‘‘Cochiti,’’; 

10 (3) by inserting ‘‘the pueblo of Santa Clara,’’ 

11 after ‘‘Pojoaque,’’; 

12 (4) by striking ‘‘the the lands’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘the land’’; 

14 (5) by striking ‘‘lands held in trust for the 

15 Pueblo of Santa Clara,’’; and 

16 (6) by striking ‘‘lands held in trust for Ohkay 

17 Owingeh Pueblo’’. 

Passed the Senate May 8, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 249 

AN ACT 

To provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may 

other purposes. lease for 99 years certain restricted land, and for
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2441 

To amend the Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 to repeal 

the funding limitation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act 

of 1996 to repeal the funding limitation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RIVERS OF STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

4 Section 409(a) of the Steel Industry American Herit5 age Area Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; 110 Stat. 

6 4256; 113 Stat. 1501A–158; 122 Stat. 824; 129 Stat. 

7 2551) is amended by striking the second sentence. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7529

VICTOR PERKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-509-5-2BR)

Submitted: January 28, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Perkins appeals from the district court’s order and

judgment dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. See Perkins v. United

States, No. CA-01-509-5-2BR (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2001). Perkins has

filed a motion for summary judgment which we deny. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141639

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141639 COA: 289986 Wayne CC: 08-011715-FC KEITH ADIR CARTER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 20, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of approved extension to tribal-state gaming compact. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Extension of the Tribal-State Compact for the conduct of Class III Gaming between the Coushatta Tribe and the State of Louisiana executed on November 16, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective on December 8, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: December 1, 2000. 

Kevin Gover, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 00-31305 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Project No.: 0172.07.005.507 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

 Outgoing Call

Date: 9/23/2010 Time: 2:00 p.m.

Company Name: South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) regarding Mohawk 

Industries Oak River Plant (SC0001996)

Contact Name: Melinda Vickers, SC DHEC

Phone No.: (803) 898-4186

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Mohawk Industries’ 2008 Toxaphene Discharges

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on September 23, 

2010 at 2:00 pm to contact Melinda Vickers regarding the 2008 toxaphene discharges from the Mohawk 

Industries Oak River Plant. I asked Ms. Vickers about the toxpahene reporting limit in the facility’s permit. Ms. 

Vickers stated that the Mohawk Oak Rivers Plant is required to monitor for toxaphene because recent water 

quality data reported toxaphene and detectable concentrations. She stated that the facility must monitor 

toxaphene to determine if a limit is necessary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES G. CANADY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:02-cr-00127-F)

Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer Harjo, SMITH, SMITH & HARJO, Wilmington, North Carolina,

for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting United States

Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles G. Canady appeals his 200-month prison sentence

resulting from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) and use of a firearm

during a drug conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).

Finding no error, we affirm.

Canady contends the district court imposed his sentence

in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

After Booker, a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range

prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Green,

436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes, 401

F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining the sentence,

however, courts are still required to calculate and consider the

guidelines range, as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. In sentencing defendants

after Booker, district courts should apply a preponderance of the

evidence standard, taking into account that the resulting guideline

range is advisory only. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72

(4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is

within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. Hughes,

401 F.3d at 546-47.

Here, the district court correctly calculated Canady’s

range under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines using a

preponderance of the evidence standard. After giving due
- 3 -

consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, the district court then

sentenced him within the statutorily prescribed range for his

offenses and below the range provided for by the sentencing

guidelines. Canady has not rebutted the presumption that the

district court imposed a reasonable sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### BOGGS v. STATE.

No. 16423.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1934.

B. B. Gist, of Winnsboro, and Bozeman *&*Cathey, of Quitman, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

The evidence heard on the trial is not brought forward for review. *No*fault has been perceived in the indictment nor in any of the proceedings which, in the absence of the facts, would require discussion or justify a reversal of the conviction.

The criticisms of the charge and of the rulings upon the admission of evidence are not reviewable upon appeal in the absence of the facts up *on*which the prosecution is based.

The sentence is irregular. It will be reformed so as to condemn the appellant to confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of not less than two, nor more than three, years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING TRUST SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FORM 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING
TRUST SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,713
<SALES>                                          4,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,719
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,719
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,719
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- Fedmine, LLC Under Contract No. FA7014-13-P-1021 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59442, 59443

Edward J. Tolchin, Esq.

Offit Kurman, PA Bethesda, MD Lt Col James H. Kennedy III, USAF

Air Force ChiefTrial Attorney Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq. John E. Pettit, Esq.

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeals have been settled. Accordingly, they are dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 23 March 2015

TERRENCES.HARTMAN Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59442, 59443, Appeals ofFedmine, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

____ 2014

______ - NM -

____ 084

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

a1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151556

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151556

COA: 326205

Kent CC: 14-004338-FH

ARTHUR LEE BROYLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Kent Circuit Court’s order denying the 

defendant’s motion for plea withdrawal and/or to correct an invalid sentence and we 

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court. That court shall treat the defendant’s 

January 26, 2015 supplemental brief and February 20, 2015 supplemental motion as 

timely filed and evaluate the defendant’s issues on the merits. The defendant’s attorney 

acknowledges that the defendant did not contribute to the delay in filing a proper motion 

and admits her sole responsibility for the error. Because a motion to withdraw a plea or 

correct an invalid sentence is a prerequisite to substantive review on direct appeal under 

MCR 6.310 and MCR 6.429, the defendant was effectively deprived of his direct appeal 

as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v FloresOrtega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United 

States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999).

Costs are imposed against the attorney, only, in the amount of $500, to be paid to 

the Clerk of this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 99.1



Written
Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation (the Company) each hereby certify that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|1. |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(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: May 9, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | 

|                  |  |  |  | 
|----------------- |  |  |  | 
|                 
|Date: May 9, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  |