alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex4_7.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.7

    


    


    The
following is a summary of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company Savings and
Stock Investment Plan for Salaried Employees, effective March 1,
2008:

    


    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              Former
      salary roll employees may roll over lump-sum distributions from the
      General Retirement Plan to the Savings and Stock Investment Plan for
      Salaried Employees.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
annual report on Form 10-K/A of Hub International Limited (the "Company") dated April 26, 2007 containing the financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, John P. Graham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                       |  |                      
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By:                                    |  | /S/    JOHN P. GRAHAM
|John P. Graham Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 26, 2007
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 21 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 21 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

3 Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

5 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

6 RULES’’. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

11 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con12 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

13 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

14 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

15 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

16 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

17 (1) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

18 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

19 this subsection)’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

21 case of a joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), 

22 the matter after the resolving clause of such resolu23 tion shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

24 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll 

25 relating to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll 

26 relating to ll. Such rules shall have no force or 
3 

•HR 21 EH

1 effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled 

2 in and additional clauses describing additional rules 

3 to be included as necessary)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 21 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 

other purposes. of disapproval for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions
# C_2004201EN.01000701.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 3 March 2004 in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs

(Case C-182/04)

(2004/C 201/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 3 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs on the following questions:

The questions in the present case match the questions in Case C-181/04.

---
# CA2004137EN.01000201.xml

| 15.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 137/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 137/2

---

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for a Director (grade A2) in DG Agriculture (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations)

COM/079/04

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004

(2004/C 137 A/03)

Page 15: Closing Date

Closing Date

For:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 14 May 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

14 May 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 14 May 2004.’

14 May 2004

Read:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 1 June 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

1 June 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 1 June 2004.’

1 June 2004

---
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

MICROSSYSTEMS, INC.

 

 

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002)**

 

I, A.L. Giannopoulos, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer of MICROS Systems, Inc. (“Registrant”), certify that tothe best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

 

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

 

(2)       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
| /s/  | A.L. Giannopoulos |   |
|-----------|-------------------|--------|
| Name:     | A.L. Giannopoulos |
| Date:     | February 14, 2003 |

 

----
Conservation Practice Overview 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

October 2017 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

CPS Structure for Water Control (Code 587)

A structure for water control is a structure in a water 

management system that conveys water, controls the 

direction or rate of flow, maintains a desired water surface 

elevation, or measures water. 

Practice Information

A structure for water control may be installed for a wide 

variety of conservation purposes. These structures are 

often installed in a planned irrigation or drainage system. 

Flashboard risers, check dams, division boxes, water 

measurement devices, and pipe drop inlets are examples of structures that could be used. 

The structure may be part of a wildlife project that requires modification of the water flow with chutes 

or cold-water releases. Sluices to provide silt management; debris screens to keep trash, debris, or 

weed seeds out of pipelines; and tide gates to prevent backflow into a channel are examples of other 

uses of this practice. Bridges, culverts, flumes, inverted siphons, and long span pipes can be used to 

convey water over, under, or along a ditch, canal, road, railroad, or other barrier. 

This practice has a minimum expected life of 20 years. Operation requirements for the facility will 

depend upon the type of system chosen by the operator. The operation and maintenance plan will 

describe the amount and timing of water level management needed for the planned system. 

Semiannual maintenance will include inspection of the components and removal of debris. Additional 

inspection will be needed after major storm events.

Common Associated Practices

A Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Structure for Water Control (Code 587) is commonly 

associated with CPSs such as Dike (Code 356), Subsurface Drain (Code 606), Open Channel (Code 

582), and Wetland Restoration (Code 657).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00026-CV

THOMAS J. BLANKENSHIP,

Appellant

v.

ROY DAVIS, FRANK KAPAVIK 

AND BRENT EWING,

Appellees

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-4246-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Dismiss.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it 

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
Blankenship v. Davis Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 8, 2011

[CV06]
National Reconnaissance Office Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #02-21

Contact: (703) 808-5050 June 15, 2021

NRO returns to Virginia’s Space Coast with NROL-111

16th payload on orbit in 18 months as NRO readies for six scheduled launches in 2022

CHANTILLY, Va. — Today the National Reconnaissance Office, in collaboration with 

U.S. Space Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center, Northrop Grumman, and 

Virginia Space/Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, successfully launched the NROL-111

mission aboard a Northrop Grumman Minotaur I. The Minotaur I launched at 9:35 a.m. 

EDT from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia carrying three classified national 

security payloads designed, built, and operated by the NRO to support its overhead 

reconnaissance mission. NROL-111 is the agency’s second dedicated launch from 

Virginia.

“NRO is the best in the world at delivering space-based intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance to more than 500,000 government users working together to keep 

America safe,” said NRO Director Dr. Christopher Scolese. “NROL-111 is the 16th

payload we put on orbit in 18 months to advance our mission of providing critical 

information to every member of the Intelligence Community, two dozen domestic 

agencies, our nation’s military, lawmakers, and decision makers.”

For the past 60 years, the NRO has been successfully innovating and meeting the needs 

of its U.S. intelligence, military, and federal civil partners and today remains the world’s 

leader in unique intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. 

“NROL-111 continues NRO’s 60-year legacy of pushing the envelope of the possible 

through ingenuity and collaboration,” said NRO Principal Deputy Director Dr. Troy Meink.

“Our legacy is carried on by the dedicated men and women of the NRO, and supported 

by our talented mission partners, who made today’s launch a success.”

NROL-111 is NRO’s final scheduled launch for 2021. In 2022, NRO is scheduled to start 

the year with two launches from New Zealand in January and February, NROL-162 and 

NROL-199. Also in February, NROL-87 is scheduled to launch from Vandenberg Space 

Force Base. Three additional NRO missions are planned for later in 2022. 

Additional information on launch dates will be announced on NRO’s official social media 

sites.

###
# C_2005045EN.01002502.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/25

---

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-459/04)

(2005/C 45/57)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2004 classifying the applicant in Grade A5, step 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2004 classifying the applicant in Grade A5, step 3;

| — | order the Commission to pay the difference between the salary corresponding to the applicant's classification in Grade A5, step 3, and the salary corresponding to classification in a higher grade, with default interest of 5.75 % per annum from 1 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the difference between the salary corresponding to the applicant's classification in Grade A5, step 3, and the salary corresponding to classification in a higher grade, with default interest of 5.75 % per annum from 1 December 2002;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, a Commission official, applied for a post at A5/A4 level in the field of taxation and customs. He was selected and appointed at Grade A5, step 3. The applicant contests that decision, arguing that he is a particularly highly qualified candidate with exceptional qualifications and that he should, therefore, have been appointed at Grade A4. On that basis, the applicant raises a plea of manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also raises a plea of breach of the right to a fair hearing alleging that the defendant did not give him an opportunity to present his point of view before the contested decision was taken.

Finally, the applicant relies on a plea of breach of Article 253 EC, pointing out that no reasons were stated for the contested decision, or in the alternative, that inadequate reasons were stated.

---
# C_2005125EN.01001601.xml

| 24.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/16

---

2005 CALL FOR PROPOSALS

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

in the field of Community cooperation as regards Civil Protection

(2005/C 125/06)

| I.1. | The aim of this call for proposals is to identify actions, which might be eligible for financial support from the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment. This aid would take the form of co-financing. |
| --- | --- |

I.1.

The aim of this call for proposals is to identify actions, which might be eligible for financial support from the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment. This aid would take the form of co-financing.

| I.2. | The fields concerned, and the nature and content of the actions (as well as the conditions for granting assistance and application forms) are set out in the documentation relating to the call for proposals. This documentation may be consulted on the Europa website at:
  http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

I.2.

The fields concerned, and the nature and content of the actions (as well as the conditions for granting assistance and application forms) are set out in the documentation relating to the call for proposals. This documentation may be consulted on the Europa website at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm

| I.3. | Procedure for the submission and examination of proposals:
  The call for proposals is open until 31 July 2005.
  The procedure for the appraisal of a proposal with an indicative timetable is as follows:






  — | receipt, recording and acknowledgement of receipt by the Commission, |
| --- | --- | --- |

I.3.

Procedure for the submission and examination of proposals:

The call for proposals is open until 31 July 2005.

The procedure for the appraisal of a proposal with an indicative timetable is as follows:

—

receipt, recording and acknowledgement of receipt by the Commission,

| — | examination by the services of the Commission, |
| --- | --- |

—

examination by the services of the Commission,

| — | formulation of the final decision and communication of the result to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

formulation of the final decision and communication of the result to the applicant.

Beneficiaries will be selected on the basis of the criteria set out in the documentation relating to this call for proposals and within the limits of the available budget.

The entire procedure is strictly confidential. In the event of approval by the Commission, a contract (made out in Euro) will be concluded between the Commission and the party submitting the proposal.

The decision of the Commission is final.

---
Exhibit 23.2

Independent Auditors' Consent


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements on Form
S-8  (No.  333-47851,   333-47843,   333-47059,  333-46991,  and  333-83146)  of
FlexiInternational  Software,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  February  27,  2001,
appearing  in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  FlexiInternational  Software,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002. We also consent to the  incorporation
by reference of our report dated  February 27, 2001, on the financial  statement
schedule of this Form 10-K.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
March 28, 2003
# STATE OF NEVADA Jim Gibbons, Governor Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Allen Biaggi, Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E., Administrator

January 5, 2009

Bruce Polkowsky, Air Resources Division NPS-ARD P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225

Dear Mr. Polkowsky:

In accordance with the USEPA Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements, Nevada is hereby providing the opportunity for the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to review and comment on Nevada's draftRegionalHaze State Implementation Plan (RH SIP). Itis our understanding that you are the point ofcontactfor this review; however, we are sending a copy ofthis letter to those FLMrepresentatives listed below for expediency. Nevada's RH SIP and BART support documents may be accessed at ftp.anonymous.state.nv.us (ifcontrol/click does notwork, type this address into yourbrowser). The user name is "ftp.anonymous" and the password is "stateftp". Once into the site, go to NDEPIBAQPIFLM Consultation- RH SIP. We are also sending a single hard copy to you.

In addition to the SIP, you

### will find a subfolder called "BARTDocuments" inthe FLM folder. BART analyses prepared by Nevada sources for units subjectto BART are in that folder, as well
as Nevada's review ofselected source analyses. Please note certain chapters inthe SIP contain links to the NevadaDivision ofEnviromnental Protection (NDEP) web site for BART support documents, but the documents are notposted, yet. You must usethe ftp site postings.

Inlate October/early November, Rick Graw and Don Shepherd did an informal review at NDEP's request ofNevada's proposed BART regulation and the supporting BART analyses. We discussed Rick'scomments in a conference call with him in early November. We did not have time to respond directly to Don's comments (a series ofe-mails) before the BART regulation went to the State Environmental Commission (SEC) for adoption onNovember 12. However, we revised the proposed regulation atthe SEC Hearing in response to some ofDon's comments, and we also made a number ofrevisions to the SIP.

Once we have received the FLM comments or atthe end of60 days from this letter, we planto hold a public commentperiod and 

### will make the FLM comments available to the public. Feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions during your review. You may reach me at (775) 687-9356 orbye-mail at amalone@ndep.nv.gov.

ele K. Malone, Supervisor Planning and Modeling Branch Bureau ofAir Quality Planning
90I S. Stewart Street, Suite 400I • Carson City. Nevada 8970 I • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • www.ndep.nv.gov p,ln<.don**~td** pop.,January 5, 2009 Bruce Polkowsky Page 2

cc: Colleen Cripps, Deputy Administrator, NDEP Mike Eiges, Chief, Bureau ofAir Quality Planning,NDEP Greg Remer, Chief, Bureau ofAir Pollution Control, NDEP Rick Graw, Forest Service, USDA Scott Copeland, Forest Service, USDA Don Shepherd, National Park Service, 001 Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service, DOl
# C_2004255EN.01002301.xml

| 15.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/23

---

RESERVE LIST

RESERVE LIST

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/B/9/03

OPEN COMPETITION

(2004/C 255/10)

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS (B5/B4)

(Latvian language)

in the field of production coordination

No successful candidates

in the field of proofreading

| | ADOVICA IVETA |
| --- | --- |

ADOVICA IVETA

| | BILZENA AIJA |
| --- | --- |

BILZENA AIJA

| | BRENTE INGUNA |
| --- | --- |

BRENTE INGUNA

| | PUCIRIUSS HEINRIHS |
| --- | --- |

PUCIRIUSS HEINRIHS

| | RUMBENIECE LILITA |
| --- | --- |

RUMBENIECE LILITA

| | SEKSTE INGUNA |
| --- | --- |

SEKSTE INGUNA

---
Lt Co one

ET

HANDLF VIA•-•••••••

-RIP-SECR-- BYENAN

CUNT HOL SYS I I M

1St-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D C

THE NRO STAFF 11 September 1975

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: NSSM on Tactical/Operational Support

In a discussion with Dr. Elliott following the Space Policy

Working meeting, I was told that Dr. Kissinger will issue a

National Security Study Memorandum. This memorandum will ask

the question as to how much of the "Gordon Moe study findings"

should be implemented by the Government. The study findings

relate to the employment of NRO satellites in support of the

tactical/operational area. I advised Dr. Elliott that two

major impacts ought to be considered in reviewing the question.

First, should NRO systems begin competing for conventional support dollars, the NRO mechanism might be altered to sucii an

extent that the Government would find that the overall satellite

reconnaissance program would significantly jump in cost because

the NRO efficiency likely would be eroded. Second, should the

Government attempt to employ reconnaissance satellites in the

tactical/operational support area, it would have to be accomplished very carefully in order that the benign environment for

traditional satellite reconnaissance degraded.

i lAIVO.,1 VIA

BYEMAN

CON rRo4 sysTr m

CI AIIIPPICO inveaum I IPXLV/Pf r RON

CILMICINAL Oral ASINFICATIC116 IICHCOULI or -TepSECRH—

131CCUTIVIC °ODIN 11612 ClICNAPTION CAT!.

SONY occuuswv ON IMP Da T

coPnlioLvanternal

COPY tn. COPIES

PAM. 1 OF 1 PAGES
#### Baker, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Greve and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *L. P. Fox*of Chilton.

For the respondents: *George M. Goggins*of Chilton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.