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

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         APPOINTMENTS AUTHORITY

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, 
the President of the Senate pro tempore, and the majority and minority 
leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, 
boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by 
law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
----

Commission notice updating the list of parties under examination pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 on the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty on imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China

(2004/C 299/04)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (1) of 20 January 1997 authorises the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty on imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China. This duty resulted from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (2) of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (3), and maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 (4). Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 comprises a list of parties whose requests for authorisation for exemption from the extended duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 71/97 were under examination.

Interested parties are hereby informed of the receipt of further requests for exemption, pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97, and of requests which are still under examination at this stage. The suspension from the extended duty, following these requests, took effect as shown in the Annex to this notice, which constitutes an updated list of parties under examination.

----

(1)OJ L 17, 21.1.1997, p. 17.

(2)OJ L 16, 18.1.1997, p. 55.

(3)OJ L 228, 9.9.1993, p. 1.

(4)OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 39.

----

ANNEX

Parties under examination

----
Amendment to Deferred Stock Award Agmt - Comverse and Richard Nottenburg



 Exhibit 10.107 
 

 
 May 30, 2008 

Richard Nottenburg 
 1303 East Algonquin Road

 Schaumburg, IL 60196 
  

			
	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 Richard Nottenburg

 Dear Richard: 

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-1(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 May 30, 2008:
	
	 /s/ Richard Nottenburg

	Richard Nottenburg

  

 2
### If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call 

### at (207) 493-5851 .



### ~ c , Sincerely, 

# '~ ~JfJ~ 

# 8 .,-

~. " " " . " . '

. ~. 

# C

c 

# t:j : -

~ ' 

# co,c
. c:J..
" .~ 

# o: c ' 

# o : ~ ~

" ~


## ~ - 

## ~ "" ~ 

# C/) 

# .~ AROOSTOOK COUNTY TOURISM

'Apd14, ; t014 Kevin Schlemmer, Chief Bssential Air- Service Division 

### Office-of Aviation Analysis United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,Room 64171 Washington, D.C. 20590 

### Subject: Comments on Pen Air Essential Ail ' Service Bid De~r 

## Mr. Schlemmer: Aroostook : County Tourism 

### (ACT), a standing committee of the 

### Northern Maine Development 

## Commission, is dedicated 

## to improving the economy of north 

### em Maine through its tourism efforts. Working under the brand Aroostook 

### "the Crown of Maine", 

### ACT promotes 

### some of the regions 

### greatest.assets like.itspristine beauty, diverse culture, storied history and wonderful people . to potential visitors from around the world." To get those potential visitors, dependable, convenient air service is needed, that is why 

### ACT recommends adoption of the Pen Ail : 

### EAS bid, Option 

### 2.

. Option 2 addresses several concerns from business and personal travelers, who need earlymorning departures and late day arrivals. 

### Option I would make it nearly impossible for travelers 

### to . reach the 

### Iargestajrports, with the exception 

### ofLogan, on the - east coast in 011(;l day, adding expense to traveling to and . from northern Maine and hampering tourism development in this region. 

### Option 2, is similar 

### to the schedule used by Colgan Air 

### dba US Airways Express 

### for the majority of their 

### 'll - year.tenure- atP'Ql before leaving the market in June 

### of 20 12. According to PQI officials, the 

### recom mended schedule seeks to address . the-significant decline 

### in boardings of 20 percent. ACT encourages USDOT to incorporate th is revised schedule in their final 

### agreement with Pen Ail ' .

J 

## on Gulliver Tourism Developer, ACT I 

# I 

# I I , I I 

### 11 W est Presque I

sle Road • P,O. Box 7 7 9 • 

### C aribou, Maine 04 7

36 T oll- f ree: 888-11 6- 2463 • 

### email: il1quiries@vis it a roostook. com
#### P. B. BARBEE, Adm’r, v. CALVIN J. GREEN.

Appeal, *motion to dismiss*— Rules *of Supreme*Court, *observance of.*. •

A motion to dismiss an appeal, upon the ground that the appellant did not cause the same to be docketed in accordance with Rule 2, will not be granted, where it appears that the appellee has also failed to comply with its requirements. One who seeks benefit under the Rule must himself observe it.

Motion to dismiss an appeal heard at October Term, 1884, of The Supreme Court.

*Messrs. Lewis &*No??, for plaintiff appellee.

*Messrs. Battle & Mordecai,*for defendant appellant.

Merrimo'N, J.

The appeal was taken in this action at the last term of the superior court of Wake county, which was held in the month of August last. The transcript of the record was not filed and the appeal docketed in this court, until the 18th of October, more than eight days after the present term began, and after the court had begun the call of the cases from the judicial district to which the case belongs.

The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, because the appellant failed to docket the same within the time above indicated in accordance with paragraph six of Rule 2.

It is clear, that the motion cannot be sustained, because, although the appellant did not comply with the *rule*in respect to docketing appeals, as regularly as he ought to have done, the appellee did not proceed as the *rule*allowed him to do in such a case.

If the appellant failed to bring up a transcript of the record and docket the appeal before the call of the causes *159from the district to which it belonged *teas concluded,*during the week set apart to that district at the term of this court to which the appeal was taken, *then*the appellee, on exhibiting a certified transcript of the record, or the certificate of the clerk, as required by paragraph seven Rule 2, and filing the same, may move to have the appeal docketed and dismissed at the appellant’s costs. Rule 2, par. 7, (89 N. C., 598).

This the appellee did not do. He did not exhibit a transcript of the record, or the certificate of the clerk as required. He waited until the appellant docketed his appeal and then moved to dismiss it. This he could not do, because the rule does not provide for, or authorize such motion, and it is only by virtue of the rule that a motion to dismiss could be sustained for the causes mentioned. The appellant did not comply with the rule, nor did the appellee in his motion to dismiss. Whoever would avail himself of the benefits of the rule must observe its requirements, and place himself within its purpose and scope.

Motion denied.
-  Resources 
          A-Z Index
Annual Reports
Budget and Planning
Careers at OSMRE
Coalex Reports
Education & Outreach
FAQs
Federal Assistance Manual
Forms
Glossary
Grants
Reclamation Bonds
Sustainability
Tribal Consultation
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy

# Federal Assistance Manual

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) uses this Federal Assistance Manual (FAM) to show how OSMRE and its grantees manage Federal grants. You may view the entire document or select a chapter of interest below.

View Entire Federal Assistance Manual
                - FAM Definitions
                - FAM Acronyms
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

Commission Monthly Case Activity for January 2015 

 

 

 

1. 

Cases Pending Beginning of Month 

32 

 

 

 

 

2. 

Cases Added to Docket 

 

Florida Gas Contractors, Inc. 

No. 14-0948 

Direction for Review on 01/15/15 

 

CSA Equipment Company, LLC 

No. 12-1287 

Direction for Review on 01/16/15 

 

2 

 

3. 

Cases Subtracted From Docket 

 

 

 

0 

4. 

Total Cases Pending End of Month 

34
#### Mader (Joseph E.), Respondent, vs. Boehm and another, Appellants.

*October 11*—

November *7, 1933.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Benton, Bosser & Tuttrup,*attorneys, and *A. W. Parnell*of counsel, all of Appleton, and oral argument by *Roger R. Tuttrup.*

For the respondent Joseph E. Mader there was a brief by *Winter & Winter*of Shawano, and oral argument by *P. J. Winter.*

Owen, J.

This action is brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the same automobile accident which has received extended consideration in the companion case of *Anna Mader v. Joe Boehm,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 55, 250 N. W. 854). In this case, as in that, the jury determined that the plaintiff, Joseph E. Mader, was not guilty of any want of ordinary care. As we concluded there, so must it be determined here, that Joseph E. Mader was guilty of a want of ordinary care as a matter of law. Whether that want of ordinary care was a proximate cause of the accident and the damages which the plaintiff sustained, is a question for the jury. The judgment therefore must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial upon that question and for an apportionment of the negligence of the respective parties,

*By the Court.*— So ordered,
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3948

___________________________

Isaac Dewayne Russell

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Correctional Medical Services; Dr. Richard Pritchard, Correctional Medical

Services; Dr. David Ware, Correctional Medical Services; Shirley Barnes,

originally sued as Shirley Banes; Wendy Kelly, Deputy Director, Arkansas

Department of Correction; Connie Hubbard, Varner Unit, ADC; Roland Anderson,

Regional Medical Director, Correctional Medical Services

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: July 31, 2013

Filed: August 5, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Isaac Dewayne Russell appeals the district court’s adverse

1

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for medical treatment for a

painful shoulder problem. Upon de novo review of the record, see Mason v. Corr.

Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009), and careful consideration of

Russell’s arguments for reversal, we affirm. For the reasons stated by the district

court in its well-reasoned decision, we agree that summary judgment was warranted

on the merits of Russell’s claims against Dr. Roland Anderson, Dr. David Ware, and

Connie Hubbard, an Advanced Nurse Practitioner. We also find no abuse of 2

discretion in the denial of postjudgment relief. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas. 

Russell has waived his claims against the remaining parties, some of whom he 2

does not mention in his appellate brief, by not addressing the reasons the claims

against themwere dismissed. See Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d

436, 438 n.3 (8th Cir. 2013).

-2-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 23a
                                                                     -----------

                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                           ----------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-51969) and on the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(File Nos. 33-58951, 33-53499, 33-53487, 33-52420, 33-8658 (Amendment No. 1),
2-99919, 333-51739, 333-68369 and 333-80913) of Allen Telecom Inc. of our report
dated February 22, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
March 28, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK>      0000926867
<NAME>     WEST TOWN BANCORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         715,081
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,586,255
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,852,867
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,779,000
<LOANS>                                     13,612,845
<ALLOWANCE>                                     37,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,360,854
<DEPOSITS>                                  21,129,206
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            353,752
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,852,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              25,360,854
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                510,974
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              123,280
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               190,299
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               824,553
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             450,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             450,133
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          374,420
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    7,302
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                404,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,232)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (16,487)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.11
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                29,869
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               37,171
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            37,171
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                         MEDIRISK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   THREE MONTHS               NINE MONTHS
                                                                ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,        ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                               1998          1997          1998           1997
                                                               ----          ----          ----           ----
<S>                                                          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock               $    234      $     19      $(12,797)     $  (3,291)
                                                             ========      ========      ========      =========

Net income (loss) per share of common stock - basic and
    diluted:
    Income (loss) per share before extraordinary item        $   0.03            --      $  (2.25)     $   (0.65)
    Loss per share - extraordinary item                            --            --            --          (0.21)
                                                             --------      --------      --------      ---------

Net income (loss) per share of common stock                  $   0.03      $     --      $  (2.25)     $   (0.86)
                                                             ========      ========      ========      =========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding -
    basic                                                       7,260         4,171         5,677          3,830
                                                             ========      ========      ========      =========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding -
    diluted                                                     7,531         4,937         5,677          3,830
                                                             ========      ========      ========      =========
</TABLE>
FAA PART 16 AIRPORT PROCEEDINGS DOCKET ' i,.»t ^ «. «,,* 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC i 

Docket No. 16-08-05 

ALCA, Inc., Cylinder Shop, Inc., 

Suncoast Aviation, Aircraft Parts 

and National Aviation, 

Complainants, 

vs. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Respondent. 

Fl 

IP 

— J, — ^ 

O 

/ 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

Petitioners, hereby files this Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief and 

in support thereof would show: 

1. Petitioners have filed a Part 16 Complaint against Miami Dade County; 

2. The County filed its response after a several month delay and 

received a several month time extension; 

3. The Reply Brief will address issues speirming a lengthy time period and involving 

multiple parties and factual and legal issues; 

4. Undersigned counsel is currently preparing for several trials and several appeals; 

5. It is requested that undersigned counsel receive an extension of up to November 

1,2008, to file the Reply Brief; 
Michael A, Pizzi, Jr., Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 079545 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief was mailed/FAXed to: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket 16-08-05 

Room 925, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Jennifer Trock, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

By: 

ichael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. 1 
Respectfully submitted, 

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, Jr., P.A. 

Attorney for Defendant 

15271 NW 60* Avenue 

Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 

Phone: 305 231 2121 

FAX: 305 231 2123 

E-mail: mpi7y.ijr(%vahoo.com 

By:_ / ^ 4 

"Michael A^ Pizzi, Jn, Esq 

Florida Bar No. 079545 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief was mailed/FAXed to: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket 16-08-05 

Room 925, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Jennifer Trock, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

By: 

ichael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. n