alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GERMAINE BERNARD Administrator d. b. n. v. JOHN B. JOHNSTON.

*Practice*— Appeal.

"Where on the trial in the Court below, there were no objections to any part of the evidence and no exceptions to any part of His Honor’s instructions, this Court on appeal can only affirm the judgment.

Civil ActioN, tried at Eall Term, 1877, of Pitt Superior Court, before *Cannon, J.*

This action was commenced in a Justice’s Court for the recovery of $181.89,alleged to be due by account to Francis A. Bernard, the intestate of plaintiff, for services rendered to defendant as clerk in a store.

The plaintiff’s witnesses testified among other things that F. A. Bernard commenced clerking for defendant in 1870; was with him as much as four months of that year, all of the year 1871, and three or four months of the year 1872, and that his services were worth $30 per month. The witness who testified as to the value of the services rendered, also stated that he clerked for the defendant at $25 per month, immediately preceding the time that Bernard was employed; that he did not quit the service of defendant because the pay was too small; that he was now Deputy Superior Court Clerk at $40 per month, and that Bernard was a better clerk than he, witness, was.

The defendant introduced no testimony, but insisted before the jury that according to the account stated by plaintiff, they should render a verdict for the defendant, because the plaintiff admitted in his account that he owed the defendant a book account of $508 and had not adduced testimony sufficient to show that his services were worth the amount claimed, ($30 per month) and that the defendant *26claimed and was entitled to a verdict for the difference between the $508 and the value of Bernard’s services to.be-fixed by them. The plaintiff in reply argued that he had fully made out his case and had shown that the amount due from defendant to him was greater than the sum admitted to be due the-defendant. Under the instructions of His Honor the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment. Appeal by plaintiff.

*Messrs. Gilliam §• Gatling,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Jarvis ¿-Sugg,*for defendant. •

Faircloth, J.

The defendant’s account was admitted by the plaintiff and the only issue was the value of the services-rendered by plaintiff’s intestate. The jury ascertained this and balanced the accounts and gave a verdict for the difference in favor of the defendant.

Neither party objected to the admission of any part of the evidence nor to any part of His Honor’s instructions to the jury, and we do not see any error in his instructions. The value of the services and the weight of evidence were matters alone for the jury to determine, and we find nothing to do except to affirm the judgment. The grounds assigned for a new trial were in the discretion of the Court below and we do not consider them.

No error. Let judgment be entered here for the defendant.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed-
Exhibit 32(e)

                                  CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mississippi
Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, we, the undersigned, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge and belief,
that:

     (1)  such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mississippi Power Company for the
          year ended December 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of
          Mississippi Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Mississippi Power Company.



                                                   /s/Anthony J. Topazi
                                                    Anthony J. Topazi
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                                 /s/Michael W. Southern
                                                   Michael W. Southern
                                              Vice President, Treasurer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 1, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

 v. 

PPL GENERATION, LLC AND PPL 

MARTINS CREEK, LLC, 

DELAWARE RIVERSIDE 

CONSERVANCY, INC., THOMAS AND 

NANCY SHAPPELL, AND WILLIAM 

VOGT, 

 Intervenors 

APPEAL OF: DELAWARE RIVERSIDE 

CONSERVANCY, INC., THOMAS AND 

NANCY SHAPPELL, AND WILLIAM 

VOGT, 

 Intervenors 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 MAP 2013 

Appeal from the order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 584 MD 2005 

dated September 19, 2013. 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM DECIDED: August 18, 2014 

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2014, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

hereby AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27.1 Financial Data Schedule

This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from financial
statements as at December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements:

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                  2,926
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,154
<ALLOWANCES>                            158
<INVENTORY>                             230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,499
<PP&E>                                  5,401
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          10,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   3,077
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                2
<OTHER-SE>                              5,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            10,500
<SALES>                                 19,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        19,670
<CGS>                                   16,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (5143)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (37)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (4770)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         55
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (422)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10(d)18

 

**BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS**

 

**GULF POWER COMPANY**

 

Effective as of March 1, 2008, the following are the annual base salaries of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and certain other executive officers of Gulf Power Company.

 

| Susan N. Story

President and Chief Executive Officer         | $396,084         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Ronnie R. Labrato

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | $242,959         |
| P. Bernard Jacob

Vice President                              | $223,637         |
| Theodore J. McCullough

Vice President                        | $182,973

  |
| Bentina C. Terry

Vice President                              | $209,572         |

 

 

Penny Manuel, Vice President of Southern Company Services, Inc., served as Vice President of the Company until August 2007.  Ms. Manuel’s annual base salary for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $208,141.
EXIBIT 32.2





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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sector 10, Inc.; on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Laurence A. Madison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.






By:  /s/ Laurence A. Madison




Name: Laurence A. Madison


Chief Financial Officer




February 22, 2011
May 29, 2015

Mr. Thomas R. Padgett, III

643 Kinsale Road Kinsale, VA 22488

Dear Mr. Padgett, III:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1251), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 September 12, 2017

s0906

Order 

Clerk

September 12, 2017

154066

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154066

COA: 332704

Oakland CC: 2013-245187-FH;

2013-245919-FH

PETER ANTHONY TRZOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2016 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 10(a)24

 

 

 

 

 

 

**SOUTHERN COMPANY**

**EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL**

**SEVERANCE PLAN**

 

 

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Troutman Sanders LLP

Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200

600 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia  30308

 

 

 

1

 

 

----
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 893

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 2000

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and in addition to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

AN ACT

To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide equitable

treatment with respect to State and local income taxes

for certain individuals who perform duties on vessels.

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

S 893 RFH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 111 OF TITLE 46,

2 UNITED STATES CODE.

3 Section 11108 of title 46, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) WITHHOLDING.—’’ before

6 ‘‘WAGES’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(b) LIABILITY.—

9 ‘‘(1) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION TO TAX.—

10 An individual to whom this subsection applies is not

11 subject to the income tax laws of a State or political

12 subdivision of a State, other than the State and po13 litical subdivision in which the individual resides,

14 with respect to compensation for the performance of

15 duties described in paragraph (2).

16 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—This subsection applies to

17 an individual—

18 ‘‘(A) engaged on a vessel to perform as19 signed duties in more than one State as a pilot

20 licensed under section 7101 of this title or li21 censed or authorized under the laws of a State;

22 or

23 ‘‘(B) who performs regularly-assigned du24 ties while engaged as a master, officer, or crew-
3

S 893 RFH

1 man on a vessel operating on the navigable wa2 ters of more than one State.’’.

Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day,

September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 87431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25599]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
a teleconference of the National Science Board/National Science 
Foundation Commission on Merit Review (MRX) for the transaction of 
National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: The MRX meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 4, 
2024, from 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Eastern.

PLACE: This meeting will be via videoconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Commission Chair's remarks 
about the agenda; Discussion of Revised Recommendations and Guidance 
and Draft Policy Language; and Commission Chair's closing remarks.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcecfc1ccc4dfedc3decb83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54373638353d26143a27327a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Ann E Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-25599 Filed 10-30-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1995 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           8,471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      327
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (147)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         175,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,794)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        182,883
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,174
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,310)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,541
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   147
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,406)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  10,133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Data Needed on Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Facilities

 Facility Data

o Tools for Bending, Incorporated

o 194 W Dakota Ave, Denver, Denver County, CO 80223-2195

o 39:42:33.1560, 104:59:28.1436

 Process Type

o Hard chromium electroplating 

o No other electroplating

o Until 2004, a co-located degreasing process was subject to MACT Subpart T. 

However, source switched to an exempt solvent, and the MACT is no longer 

applicable.

 Tank #1 Design and Operation

o Dimensions unknown, 200 gallon capacity

o Rectifier capacity: 2,000 Amps

o No permitted limit to hours of operation. Reported hours are 2,080 per year.

 Tank #2 Design and Operation

o Dimensions unknown, 130 gallon capacity

o Rectifier capacity: 500 Amps

o No permitted limit to hours of operation. Reported hours are 2,080 per year.

 Tank #3 Design and Operation

o Dimensions unknown, 175 gallon capacity

o Rectifier capacity: 1,000 Amps

o No permitted limit to hours of operation. Reported hours are 2,080 per year.

 Tank #4 Design and Operation

o Dimensions unknown, 175 gallon capacity

o Rectifier capacity: 750 Amps

o No permitted limit to hours of operation. Reported hours are 2,080 per year.

 Emission Control Technology

o Custom-made Packed-bed scrubber and surface tension control (Fumatrol)

o Operating Limits –

 Scrubber: Pressure differential between 0.0” W.C. and 1.2” W.C. 

 Duct Velocity Pressure: For all tanks, between 0.009” W.C. and 0.011” W.C. 

 Surface tension: For tank #1 ≤ 50 dynes/cm, for tank #2 ≤ 52 dynes/cm, for 

tank #3 ≤ 56 dynes/cm, for tank #4 ≤ 58 dynes/cm. 

 Emission Test Data 

o The State’s test report is unavailable.
 Other Available Supporting Documents

o Based on stack testing results of 0.008 g / dscm, calculated chromium emissions 

(assuming controls, 1,743 dscm / hour and 2080 hours) for the facility is 0.06 lbs / 

year.

o [See Attached Original Permit Application]

o [See Attached Construction Permit]
Amendment to Deferred Stock Award Agreement - Comverse and Mark Terrell



 Exhibit 10.152 

 

 

 May 30, 2008 

Mark C. Terrell 
 7367 Sawgrass Point Drive

 Pinellas Park, FL 33782 
  

			
	Re:	  	Amendment to the Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Deferred Stock Award Agreement”) dated effective as of December 5, 2007 between Comverse Technology,
Inc. (the “Company”) and Mark C. Terrell

 Dear Mark: 

Pursuant to the terms of the Deferred Stock Award Agreement, the Company is required to deliver to you on January 1, 2009 the number
of shares of Company common stock equal to the aggregate number of Granted Units (as defined in the Deferred Stock Award Agreement) that vest as of such date (i.e., 10,000 shares of Company common stock The Compensation Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors has determined that it would be beneficial to amend your Deferred Stock Award Agreement to provide greater flexibility as to the timing of the delivery of the 10,000 shares of Company common stock which will vest on
January 1, 2009 in order to alleviate the possibility of the vested Company common stock being required to be delivered to you (and taxable to you) when the Company common stock is not subject to an effective registration statement and/or other
restrictions on the resale of such stock. Accordingly, upon your execution of this letter amendment below and delivery to the Company by June 30, 2008, the Deferred Stock Award Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following
as the last sentence of Section 4: 
 “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section 4, the number of shares
of Common Stock deliverable to the Grantee in respect of any Granted Units which vest in calendar year 2009 shall be deliverable to the Grantee on the first date within the “short-term deferral period” (as defined in Treasury Reg.
§1.409A-l(b)(4)) on which there is an Effective Registration (as defined below) in place, but in no event later than March 15, 2010; provided, however, that in the event of the Grantee’s Service Termination in accordance
with Section 3(b) prior to March 15, 2010, the number of shares of Common Stock in respect of any Granted Units which are vested as of the Termination Date shall be delivered to the Grantee on the Termination Date. For purposes of this
Section 4, “Effective Registration” shall mean the registration of the shares of Common Stock granted to the Grantee hereunder pursuant to an effective registration statement on Form S-8 or any successor form under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and no restrictions under applicable law apply to the resale of such shares of Common Stock at the time of delivery of such shares of Common Stock.” 







 Except as expressly herein amended, the terms and conditions of the Deferred Stock Award
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

			
	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Andre Dahan

	Name:	 	Andre Dahan
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer



 

	
	Accepted and Agreed as of June 9, 2008:
	
	 /s/ Mark C. Terrell

	Mark C. Terrell

  

 2