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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27197]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 14, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 725 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-407, K2025-405.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27197 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EXHIBIT 10.13

ALZA Corporation
Amended and Restated Executive Deferral Plan II
1999 Amendment 2

     ALZA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
pursuant to the power granted to it by Section 10.2 of the ALZA
Corporation Amended and Restated Executive Deferral Plan II (the
"Plan"), hereby amends the Plan, as follows, effective as of May
7, 1999.

1.   Section 6.3 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "Benefit Period.  The Survivor Benefit shall be paid
according to the following schedule:

               EDP II Account Balance	Distribution Period
               Up to $100,000             	Lump Sum
               $100,001 to $250,000             5 Years
               $250,001 to $500,000            10 Years
               $500,001 or More                15 Years

     Interest shall be credited on the unpaid balance at the
     Preferred Distribution Rate.  The lump sum payment, or the
     initial installment payment, of the Survivor Benefit shall
     commence within ninety (90) days of the delivery to the
     Company of proof of death, in such form as determined
     acceptable by the Committee.  Any subsequent annual
     installment payments shall be made prior to February 28 of
     each calendar year thereafter until the Participant's EDP II
     Account balance is paid in full."

2.   Except as expressly provided herein, the provisions of the
     Plan continue in their entirety as set forth immediately prior to
     the effective date of this amendment.

     The Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by its
duly authorized officer as of the date written below.


                              ALZA Corporation, a Delaware Corporation


                              By:  David R. Hoffmann
                              Its: Vice President and Treasurer
                              Date:May 14, 1999
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Washington, D.C. 20240

Date: ____________

Directive: TSR-1

Title: Calculating Reclamation Bond Amounts

Approval: Glenda H. Owens, 

 Deputy Director Signature: ____________________________________

Transmittal Number: ___________

1. Purpose 

This Directive establishes OSMRE’s policy for calculating reclamation bond amounts. This 

Directive includes a Handbook for Calculation of Reclamation Bond Amounts (Handbook) at 

Appendix A. The Handbook serves as guidance for the estimation of reclamation costs 

associated with surface coal mining operations in Federal program states and on Federal lands. 

2. Summary of Changes

a. Establishes the Handbook as an Appendix to the Directive.

3. Policy

It is OSMRE policy to ensure that:

a. OSMRE personnel use the Handbook, established by this Directive, to calculate 

reclamation costs for permits in Federal program states and on Federal lands. 

Once calculated, OSMRE personnel must use the reclamation costs to evaluate 

the adequacy of reclamation bond amounts for surface coal mining operations. 

b. OSMRE personnel use the Handbook during oversight of approved State 

programs as a technical guide when assessing the adequacy of bonds. However, 

such use is limited to that approved in oversight procedures and guidance. The

Handbook must not be used to compel States to adhere to the methods in the 

Handbook.

4. Responsibilities

a. The Assistant Director, Program Support, is responsible for developing and 

maintaining the Handbook.
2

b. The Regional Directors are responsible for ensuring use of the Handbook to 

calculate reclamation costs when assessing adequacy of reclamation bonds as part 

of the Federal permitting process. The Handbook may be used as a guide during 

oversight of approved State programs.

5. Procedures

Procedures to calculate reclamations costs, for use in evaluating reclamation bond adequacy, are 

contained in the Handbook. Revisions and/or modifications to the Handbook will be made as 

needed and will adhere to OSMRE Directive OPM-1, where required.

6. Reporting Requirements

None.

7. Effect on Other Documents

When issued, this version of Directive TSR-1 supersedes all previous versions and subsequent 

Change Notices. 

8. References

None.

9. Effective Date

Upon signature.

10. Distribution

By electronic format. All OSMRE directives are publicly available at

http://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm.

11. Appendices

a. Handbook for Calculation of Reclamation Bond Amounts.

12. Contact

Assistant Director, Program Support.
EXHIBIT 10.11

ALZA Corporation
Executive Deferral Plan II
Amendment 1998-1

     Section 7.4 shall be restated in its entirety as follows:
        7.4     "Payment of Benefit.
         a)   Except as otherwise provided in this Section 7.4, payment of
              the Primary Account Balance and the Secondary Account Balance
              which has vested pursuant to Section 7.3 above, if any, shall be
              made in a lump sum within ninety (90) days of the Participant's
              Termination of Employment.
         b)   A Participant may elect to receive benefits over a five (5)
              year period or a ten (10) year period, payable annually commencing
              within ninety (90) days of Termination of Employment.  All
              subsequent annual installment payments shall be made prior to
              February 28 of each calendar year thereafter until the
              Participant's EDP II Account balance is paid in full.  Such
              election must be made on the Election Form at least one full Plan
              Year prior to the date of Termination of Employment.  If a valid
              election is made under this Section 7.4(b) to receive benefits
              over a five (5) year period or a ten (10) year period, the unpaid
              balance shall be credited with interest at the Standard Rate from
              the date of the Termination of Employment through the date of the
              last installment payment, subject to Section 7.4(c).
         c)   Notwithstanding anything in this Section 7.4 to the contrary,
              and whether or not any election is made by the Participant under
              Section 7.4(b), a Participant may elect to defer the commencement
              of payout of Termination Benefits under this Section 7.4 for 1, 3,
              5 or 7 years after Termination of Employment.  An election to
              defer the receipt of benefits under this Section 7.4 must be made
              on the Election Form at least one full Plan Year prior to the date
              of Termination of Employment.  If a valid election is made to
              defer the receipt of benefits under this Section 7.4(c), the
              unpaid balance shall be credited with interest at a fixed rate of
              five percent (5%) per annum from the date of the Termination of
              Employment through the date of the last payment.
         d)   Other methods of payment shall be at the sole discretion of
              the Committee.

     The Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by its
duly authorized officer as of the date written below.


                              ALZA Corporation, a Delaware Corporation


                              By:/s/David R. Hoffmann
                              Its:Vice President and Treasurer

                              Date:December 11, 1998
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 57036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23668]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Tuesday, September 27 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. A 
break for lunch will be at the expense of the attendee. Security 
processing will be necessary for reentry into the building. The meeting 
will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a briefing of the Advisory Committee 
members on the status of the Bank's activities and progress reports 
from the various subcommittees.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to September 20, 2011, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Angela Marian Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-23668 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
```
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel W. Hollis, 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) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date: August 20, 2012



|/s/ Daniel W. Hollis                        | 
|------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Daniel W. Hollis                      | 
|Title: Chief Executive Officer and Director | 
|(principal executive officer)               |
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, John P. Howlett, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-K of Emtec, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

                a)             designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;

                b)            evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                c)             disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

                a)             all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

                b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------



We have issued our report dated February 14, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedules incorporated in the annual Report of Allied
Research Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Allied Research Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 2-
96771, effective April 22, 1985, File No. 33-25677 effective December 14, 1988,
File No. 33-41422 effective June 27, 1992, File No. 33-45303 effective January
24, 1993, File No. 33-57170 effective January 19, 1994, and File No. 33-57172
effective January 19, 1994 and Form S-8 filed March  20, 1998).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
______________________



Baltimore, Maryland
March 24, 2000



                                      E-4
#### Bergsrud, Appellant, vs. Maryland Casualty Company, Respondent.

*February 3*

March *4, 1930.*

*143For the appellant there were briefs by *Lees & Bunge*of La Crosse, and oral argument by *George W. Bunge.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *James E. Coleman*of Milwaukee and *Geo. H. Gordon, Law & Gordon*of La Crosse, attorneys, and *William J. McCauley*of Milwaukee, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. McCauley.*

Owen, J.

We need not consider certain questions discussed in the briefs, among which are whether plaintiff was a passenger in the taxicab, whether the driver was negligent, and whether the action was properly continued against the Maryland Casualty Company. These questions become immaterial because the nonsuit was properly granted on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We arrive at this conclusion notwithstanding the general rule of law that the mere fact that a person at the time he may receive an injury is intoxicated is not of itself evidence of contributory negligence as a matter of law (note, *47*L. R. A. n. s. 733; *Rhyner v. Menasha,*107 Wis. 201, 83 N. W. 303), and notwithstanding that prior to the enactment of sec. 85.39, Stats., by ch. 454, Laws of 1929, it was held that riding on the running-board of a truck was not contributory negligence as a matter of law. *Koss v. A. Geo. Schulz Co.*195 Wis. 243, 218 N. W. 175. Here we have one riding on the running-board of a car who, according to all the evidence, was too intoxicated to protect himself in that position, and whose condition was not apparent to the driver of the taxicab at the time he permitted him to ride on the running-board. A person may be injured while intoxicated under circumstances where his intoxicated condition does not contribute to his injuries, and he may ride on the running-board of a car if he is in possession of his mental faculties and in the enjoyment of his normal muscular power and control, without being guilty of contributory negligence, leaving out of consideration sec. *14485.39, Stats., which now makes it illegal to ride on the running-board. However, when one who, by reason of intoxication self-induced, is not in possession of his mental faculties and does not enjoy his normal muscular power and control, assumes to ride on the running-board of an automobile, he voluntarily places himself in a position of danger where he is unable to protect himself. We can conceive of no plainer case of contributory negligence. That his intoxicated condition proximately contributed to the accident is just as plain. The trial court correctly granted a nonsuit, and the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-102338, 333-13259, 333-05795, 333-05797,
333-53842, 333-69717, 333-27927, 333-27929, 333-09257 and 333-91801) and Form S-3 (Nos. 033-61903, 333-89836 and 333-09151) of American Science and Engineering, Inc. of our report dated
May 19, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Boston, MA
June 14, 2004

---



QuickLinks
#### Kenner v. Hord.

Monday, March 16, 1806.

Injunction — Death of Party — Revival—Dissolution.*— Where the defendant dies, after filing his answer to a bill of injunction, and before a decision of the cause; an order may be obtained, on the motion of his representatives, that, unless the complainant, within a certain time fixed by the Court, shall revive the suit against them, the injunction shall stand dissolved.

*

See monographic *note*on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.

The defendant, in this case, had died after the filing of his answer ; and now Botts, for his representatives, moved that an order might be entered, that the injunction should stand dissolved as an act of this day, unless, the complainant, on or before the last day of the next term, should revive the suit against the representatives of Hord. He cited the order, in the case of Carter v. Washington, as in point.

PER CURIAM.

A difference may, perhaps, be taken between the two cases : and the rules of the Court should be settled on very mature deliberation. At a subsequent day, the judge observed that the motion had been considered by the Court; that no distinction, in principle, could be discovered between this case and that of Carter v. Washington, and that the order might be entered as moved for.

N. B. An agreement at the bar prevented the entry.
Document

Exhibit 10.1

EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT


This EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Extension”) is entered into effective as of October 14, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Pioneer Energy Services Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Matt Porter (“Consultant”).  The Company and Consultant are each sometimes referred to herein as a “Party”, and together as the “Parties”.


A.        Company and Consultant entered into that certain Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated effective July 17, 2020.
B.        Company and Consultant desire to formally extend the Term of the Agreement through December 31, 2020.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


1.Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Agreement, unless otherwise defined in this Extension.
2.Engagement; Term. Per Section 1 of the Agreement, the Parties agree in writing to extend the Term of the Agreement through December 31, 2020.  The Agreement will terminate automatically on the close of business on December 31, 2020, unless the Parties agree in writing to extend the Term.   
3.Ratification.  The terms of the Agreement are hereby modified and amended pursuant to the terms of this Extension.  Except as modified by this Extension, the terms of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.
4.Counterparts. This Extension may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Consulting Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


												
	CONSULTANT






			PIONEER ENERGY SERVICES CORP.

	/s/ Matt Porter 		By:	/s/ Lorne E. Phillips
	Matt Porter
		Name:	Lorne E. Phillips

			Title:	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)

Print Date: 04/25/2011 Page 1 of 2 This is to signify that



## FORESTWOOD INDUSTRIE S

, INC

.

578 SOUND AVE NUE

WADING RIVER, N EW Y ORK 11792

Inspection Agency AA

- 720

Type A (Third

- Party) Inspection Body

has met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria for Inspection Agencies (AC98), has demonstrated compliance with

ISO/IEC Standard 17020, General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection

, and has been

accredited, commencing April 7, 2011 , to provide inspection services in the approved scope of accreditation.

Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Ramani, P.E.

Vice President PresidentForestwood Industries

, Inc

. AA

- 720

Type A (Third

- Party) Inspection Body

April 7, 2011

Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E.

President

Print Date: 04/25/2011 Page 2 of 2 Forestwood Industries

, Inc

. Gary Poserina

578 Sound Ave nue Quality Control Manager

Wading River, NY 11792 (631) 929

- 3197

FIELDS OF

INSPECTIONS TYPE AND RANGE OF

INSPECTIONS INSPECTION METHODS

AND PROCEDURES

Wood

- based b uilding p roducts

- Formaldehyde emissions In

- plant California Code of Regulation, Section 93120 Title 17;

Forestwood Industries Inc

., inspection procedure SAP

- 01

and Quality Program Audit Work Sheet