alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.195

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

     This Termination Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated this 23 day of August,
2002, by and between PPD Development, LP, successor in interest by conversion to
PPD Pharmaco, Inc. ("PPD" or "Employer") and Patrick C. O'Connor, MRCP, Ph.D.
("Employee").

     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee are parties to that certain Employment
Agreement dated October 1, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, the term
thereof was automatically renewed for an additional one-year period on January
1, 2002; and

     WHEREAS, notwithstanding that the term of the Employment Agreement is not
scheduled to expire until December 31, 2002, Employee submitted his resignation
on August 9, 2002; and

     WHEREAS, PPD is willing to accept Employee's resignation and to terminate
the Employment Agreement upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
considerations contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:

     1. Termination of Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement and
Employee's employment with PPD shall terminate as of the close of business on
August 23, 2002 (the "Termination Date"). From and after the Termination Date,
neither party hereto shall have any rights or obligations to the other under the
Employment Agreement.

     2. Miscellaneous.

        a. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be altered or amended
except by writing signed by the parties.

        b. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of State of North
Carolina.

        c. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon PPD,
Employee and their respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal
representatives.

        d. The parties agree that any dispute under this Agreement or the
Employment Agreement shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to Section 19 of
the Employment Agreement.

<PAGE>

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be
executed as of the date first hereinabove set forth.

                                            PPD Development, LP
                                            By:  PPD GP, LLC
                                            Its General Partner

                                            By: /s/ Fred B. Davenport, Jr.
                                               ---------------------------------
                                            Name:    Fred B. Davenport, Jr.
                                            Title:   Vice President

                                            /s/ Patrick O'Connor
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Patrick O'Connor, MRCP, Ph.D.
#### Verna Huston *vs.*Leland Libby.

Androscoggin County.

Decided July 18, 1922.

This is a complaint under the so-called bastardy act. That the complaint, accusation at time of travail, constancy of accusation, declaration before trial, and all other statutory requirements had been complied with are not questioned. Upon the issue of fact as to whether the respondent is the father of complainant’s illegitimate child the jury found him guilty. That verdict he asks this court to set aside on account of manifest error in the finding.

He admits frequent acts of sexual intercourse* with the complainant but denies paternity of the child. He relies largely upon medical testimony as to time of conception and length of the period of pregnancy, as understood by the medical profession, also as to the power of the respondent to indulge in sexual intercourse while suffering from venereal disease. He also relies upon letters written by the complainant to another man, which, he says, tends to *591show that such other man was the father of the child. Other testimony was produced in defense to all which the jury listened with the witnesses in view.

*Frank A. Morey,*for plaintiff.

*Georcfe C. Webber,*for defendant.

On the other hand the complainant says that she first went alone to the respondent and informed him of her condition, that he was in bed on account of sickness, and that he said “he wanted to wait until he got up out of bed;” that later she went to him with her father and mother. At this interview there were present the father and jnother of the complainant, the father and mother of the respondent, as well as the complainant and the respondent. From the testimony of complainant’s mother at this latter interview he was asked if he was willing to marry Verna or make things right with her so there would not be any disgrace hereafter and that he did not then deny responsibility for Verna’s condition but cried and said he “didn’t want to get married now; the boys would all make fun of him.” Mrs. Huston also testified that, in the presence of his son, Mr. Libby, father of the.respondent, said “Now keep still and don’t say nothing to nobody about this and just as soon as Leland gets able so he can get around we will go and get his papers made out and you can get Verna’s papers made out. Just as soon as we can do it. Wait until he gets well and then we will go and get his papers made out and you can get Verna’s papers made out so that they can get married.” The complainant’s father corroborated his wife and says that the respondent, after convalescence, went away or, to use his own language “First thing I knew he had skipped.”

Other evidence appeared in the record which, with that already referred to and believed by the jury, would serve as a proper foundation for the verdict. We are not convinced that there was manifest error in the finding. Motion overruled.
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

*Notice Is Hereby Given*                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Chestatee State Bank, Dawsonville, GA (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Chestatee State Bank on 12/17/2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.                

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

Dated: January 28, 2015.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-01950 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 99.1



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

In connection with the Annual Report of Kinder Morgan Management, LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1)                                                                   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
    13(a) or 15(d) of      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                             
|                                                                     
|(2)                                                                   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
    in all material respects,
|the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.



|Dated:  February 26, 2003 |  | /s/ Richard D.
    Kinder                                 
|------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                          |  | Richard D. Kinder
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**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 of Pharmaceutical ProductDevelopment, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fredric N. Eshelman, Chief Executive Officer of PPD, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and 

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

 

Date: November 3, 2004
No. 91-782.

#### Jenkins *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Ampacity Derating and Cable Functionality for Raceway Fire Barriers (NUREG/CR-6681)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6681 (PDF - 2.97 MB)

## Publication Information 

**Manuscript Completed:**July 2000**Date Published:**August 2000

**Prepared by:** S. Nowlen

Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5000 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0748

R. Jenkins, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report discusses two topical areas associated with localized fire barrier cladding systems for cables and cable raceways, namely, ampacity derating and cable functionality. Ampacity is defined as the electrical current carrying capacity of a particular cable in a given set of routing and environmental conditions. Ampacity derating refers to the process by which cable electrical current carrying limits are reduced in order to compensate for the thermal insulating effects of a raceway fire barrier cladding system. Cable functionality refers to the practice of assessing fire endurance ratings for a raceway fire barrier based on an assessment of the protected cables' ability to perform their intended design function before, during, and after the fire endurance exposure.

The discussions are based on experience and insights gained through reviews sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) of related licensee submittals. These reviews were conducted between 1994 and 1999 and involved a total of 23 USNRC licensees and numerous individual licensee submittals. In each topical area, the report provides general technical background, discusses currently applied methods of assessment, and identifies potential technical issues that may arise in the application of each assessment method. The report also provides guidance to assist the USNRC staff in reviewing and assessing licensee submittals in each area.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 12/31/98 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 12/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,923
<SECURITIES>                                     5,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (308)
<INVENTORY>                                         48
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,645
<PP&E>                                          16,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,098)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,898
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,584)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,724
<SALES>                                          2,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,366
<CGS>                                              671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (254)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (125)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,992)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6405

RENARD WHEELER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-3407-CCB)

Submitted: October 6, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Renard Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann

Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wheeler v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-3407-CCB (D. Md. Feb.

19, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





In
connection with the report on Form 10-K of  Janel World Trade, Ltd.
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the SEC on the date
hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the registrant
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:





1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.





Dated:
      January 13, 2010
            /s/ James N. JannelloJames
      N. Jannello, ExecutiveVice
      President and ChiefExecutive
      OfficerDated:
      January 13, 2010
            /s/William J. LallyPresident
      and ChiefOperating
      OfficerDated:
      January 13, 2010
            /s/Linda BielerController
      and ChiefFinancial
      and AccountingOfficer
#### In the Matter of David Allen, Petitioner, v H. Carl McCall, as State Comptroller, New York State Retirement *754System, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 192]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police officer, injured his shoulder and neck while apprehending a female suspect who was causing a disturbance at a local health center. According to petitioner and other officers, a struggle ensued between petitioner and the suspect when petitioner attempted to handcuff her which resulted in petitioner falling to the ground and sustaining injury. However, the report of the incident given to both the Workers’ Compensation Board and the orthopedic surgeon who first examined petitioner was that petitioner was injured while lifting a prisoner from the ground. In denying petitioner’s application, respondent chose to credit the latter evidence and concluded that, because these activities were part of the normal and expected duties of a police officer, petitioner was not injured due to an "accident”. On this record, we find that substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rosario Lawlor, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 676]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 17, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, dressed entirely in dark clothing, was apprehended inside the lobby of a residential building by the superintendent while in possession of the superintendent’s property, which had been stored in the basement beyond a "No Trespassing” sign. The superintendent’s testimony established that the only access to the building was through the locked front door followed by entry through the locked vestibule door, that tenants had to admit visitors by intercom, and that tenants in this luxury residence typically did not admit strangers. When defendant saw the superintendent arrive, he leaned down as though to tie a shoe lace, but the superintendent observed that his laces already were tied. Defendant tried to leave without the property. Since such conduct was unequivocal and had legal significance without any explanatory embellishment, defendant’s subsequent statement to the superintendent that he was on the premises to look for a job was not part of the res gestae of the event, and was properly excluded as hearsay *(People v Salko,*47 NY2d 230, 239-240; *People v Sostre,*70 AD2d 40, 45, *affd*51 NY2d 958). Furthermore, the purpose of introducing the statement would have been precisely to establish the truth of the fact asserted therein.

We find no basis to disturb the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion. While it would have been better if the sentencing court had not made any reference to defendant’s use of drugs, the sentence, which was slightly more than midway between the minimum and maximum, was justified solely by defendant’s significant criminal record, which included a history of burglary *offenses,*and there is no support for the claim that the court was punishing defendant for a drug habit rather than for the burglary charged. Nor did the court’s comment placing this conviction within the context of a wave of burglaries suggest that defendant was being punished for uncharged crimes. *529Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
H. R. 1858 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4514 

Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott 

Ostrom Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT RYAN SCOTT OSTROM POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 4514 Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott 

Ostrom Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32

            RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, the undersigned officers of Tollgrade
Communications, Inc. (the "Corporation"), hereby certify that the Corporation's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Corporation.

Dated:  August 12, 2003

/s/ Christian L. Allison
-------------------------------
Name:  Christian L. Allison
Title:  Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Samuel C. Knoch
-------------------------------
Name:  Samuel C. Knoch
Title:  Chief Financial Officer




                                       38