alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.3



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

RULES
13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a),

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I,
Daniel Strauss, certify that:



| | 1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of GlassBridge Enterprises, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | Based
    on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
    to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
    to the period covered by this report.
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| |    | Date:
    April 30, 2020                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



| | /s/
    Daniel Strauss           
| | ---------------------------------
| | Daniel
    Strauss               
| | Chief
    Executive Officer      
| | (Principal
    executive officer)
GENERAL BERG: 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07526 'I?~"v~\\! .. m ~ 

August 16, 1968 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111III 14000758720 

In late March, you will recall, Colonel Bumm proposed to US a 

scheme for handling the deferment actions at EKC. His scheme would 

have included 

1. a general letter covering EK's position written by an 

appropriate high-level DOD official (the DDR&E) and 

addressed to the New York State Selective Service Director --

transmitted to EK via a covert channel - - then forwarded 

overtly by EK to the State Director under a covering EK letter. 

2. a statement by EK, then, in each request to a local board 

on behalf of an individual applicant. 

With regard to the latter. EK was "assuringlt us that they would "continue 

to request a deferment only when we believe it is justified by program re - . 

quirements and the national interest. tI t 

r 

This would have been very easy for us to do, had it not been for our ! 

concern that the "only when we (EK) believe it is justified" condition would 

not be objectively and prudently applied. 

We (you, Captain Koch and I) felt that we should insist on a more objective appraisal of the "criticality" of the services of such individuals and 

the requirement that we here review and you personally sign only those that 

met the "criteria" we would establish as a guideline. 

Captain (Ret) Koch and I have. since, written three criteria which we 

fee l will insure that we are only asked to sponsor those individuals who are 

clearly essential to program accomplishment. I have attached a draft of 

the criteria along with a couple of procedural caveats for your review. 

I propose, with your approval, to send them to Colonel Bumm as the basis 

for his establishing with EK a mechanism for the review and processing of 

such requests. 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07526
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 28, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01151-CR

SAMUEL FRANCO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-41032-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Whitehill

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151151F.U05
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SAMUEL FRANCO, Appellant

No. 05-15-01151-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-41032-M.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Lang, Evans, and Whitehill.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 28th day of September, 2015.
GHGReportingSubPartWPotentialImpactsImpactedFacilities NumberofFacilitiesCostForAdditionalAnnualInspectionCostForOpticalScanning/InfraredCamerasCostForAdditionalAdministration/RecordRetentionCostInspectionduringNormalCyclesCostforUsingExistingLeakDetcectionEquipmentCityGateStationsStateA4 162$64,500$N/AStateB91 3,686$387,000$N/AStateC179 7,251$129,000$N/AStateD38 1,539$129,000$N/AStateE0‐$‐$N/AStateF0‐$‐$N/ASubtotal12,639$709,500$DistrictRegulatorStationsatPipelineStateA0StateBStateC150 6,077$129,000$StateD97 3,929$64,500$StateE100 4,051$64,500$StateF50 2,026$64,500$Subtotal16,082$322,500$DistrictRegulatorStationsStateA792 32,084$193,500$1FTE‐$60,000StateB1654 67,004$774,000$1FTE‐$60,000StateC880 35,649$193,500$.5FTE‐$30,000StateD238 9,641$193,500$.5FTE‐$30,000StateE1836 74,376$967,500$.5FTE‐$30,000StateF936 37,917$967,500$.5FTE‐$30,000Subtotal256,671$3,289,500$IndustrialsMeters/ServedbytransmisionpipelineImpactedFacilities NumberofFacilitiesCostForAdditionalAnnualInspectionCostForOpticalScanning/InfraredCamerasCostForAdditionalAdministration/RecordRetentionCostInspectionduringNormalCyclesCostforUsingExistingLeakDetcectionEquipmentStateA9 729$N/AStateB77 6,239$N/AStateC10 810$N/AStateD6 486$N/AStateE8 648$N/AStateF0 N/AImpactedFacilities NumberofFacilitiesCostForAdditionalAnnualInspectionCostForOpticalScanning/InfraredCamerasCostForAdditionalAdministration/RecordRetentionCostInspectionduringNormalCyclesCostforUsingExistingLeakDetcectionEquipmentSubtotal8,912$AllotherIndustrialMetersStateA342 17,318$129,000$StateB749 37,927$193,500$StateC77 3,899$64,500$StateD205 10,381$129,000$StateE598 30,281$193,500$StateF110 5,570$64,500$Subtotal105,377$774,000$CommercialM&RStationsStateA7,000 212,678$1FTE‐$60,000StateB7458 226,593$1FTE‐$60,000StateC1730 52,562$StateD614 18,655$StateE7026 213,467$.5FTE‐$30,000StateF1530 46,485$Subtotal770,439$ResidentialCustomerStateA755000StateB1350000StateC235000StateD111000StateE442673StateF1047112,340,242$10,191,000$$390,000ImpactedFacilities NumberofFacilitiesCostForAdditionalAnnualInspectionCostForOpticalScanning/InfraredCamerasCostForAdditionalAdministration/RecordRetentionCostInspectionduringNormalCyclesCostforUsingExistingLeakDetcectionEquipmentCostAnalysis DriveTimeInspect/Document1stTimeInspect/Document2ndTimeScannersNeededCitygate/DRS 0 60$30$IndustrialonTrans 60 60$30$Industrial25 60$30$Commercial 15 30$15$CostforOpticalScanners $64,000 1per4,000Commercial
December 20 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF L .M.W., L.M.W., J.M.L ., J.B.L., A.M.L., A .R.P. AKA B.G.L., CHILDREN

NO. 14

- 12

- 00781

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating pare ntal rights signed August 1 6 , 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order this decision certified below for observance.

We fu rther order the mandate be issued immediately.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc. 

~->"-·'~;:,.-~-..::-- _,;-~.-v·-.c- -::--.~---::-- -- - ~--=~~= -- .o_-~---- ~ -~--- --

RECEIVED 

SEP 12 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0472, Case No. 2011-EA-210081 -o __________________________ t;y 

C) 

JOINT PROPOSED DISCQVERY PLAN ..£') 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, and Respondent, Heloair, 

Inc., by counsel, hereby jointly file a proposed discovery plan as follows: 

(l) Deadline for filing written discovery requests- November 1, 2012; 

(2) Deadline for filing responses to written discovery requests - within 35 days 

of service of discovery requests; 

(3) Deadline for filing motion to compel -within 10 days of the due date for 

responding to the discovery requests at issue; 

"'""".;;....._··::...--:-'"-~ -----~----~------~----- ·--.- ---_;:--,-, --- -~----- .. -.--::- .-~-

(4) Deadline for taking depositions- Januazy-f2o13;~~ -

(5) Deadline for exchange of witness list (including summary of anticipated 

testimony of each witnesses) and exhibit list (including providing copies of 

listed exhibits)- January 15, 2013; 

( 6) Deadline for filing of dispositive motions - February 1, 2013; 

(7) Deadline for filing reply to dispositive motion- within 10 days of the motion; 
(8) Deadline for filing counter-reply with respect to the dispositive motion -

within 5 days of the reply); 

(9) Hearing in Richmond, VA- Apri19-10, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

"·-. ~~-~,~-~- ~w,~--AUi:e£lR.JohnSOOr]r,. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Attorney 

ZoohmyM~ Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

Date: September 7, 2012 

G.-Butler, III,Esq.,:.Counsel-for Respondent- _ ---- --~-~ __ 

:ANDS ANDERSON, PC 

Bank of America Center 

1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 

Richmond, VA 23219 

FAX: (804)783-7291 

718 995-5699 

Date: September 7, 2012 
~:-;=o~---:-;-- -------

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Joint Proposed Discovery Plan has been sent this 

date via first class mail and telefax to the following: 

John G. Butler, III, Esq. 

SANDS ANDERSON, PC 

Bank of America Center 

1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 

Richmond, VA 23219 

FAX: (804)783-7}9_!_ __ ----~- _________________ --,-------- -------- - - -~ 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportatation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Joint Proposed Discovery Plan has been sent this 

date via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 20 14 

Date: September 7, 2012 

--------------------- _, _____ ---------------------~ ----

.0~ ~oks Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

3
# C_2004300EN.01000502.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC - ‘Quantity of waste’ - Exemption from permit requirement)

(2004/C 300/09)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 March 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to fix, in the Decree of 5 February 1998 relating to the identification of non-hazardous waste subject to simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and 33 of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, maximum quantities of waste by type of waste which may be recovered under the permit exemption scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to fix, in the Decree of 5 February 1998 relating to the identification of non-hazardous waste subject to simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and 33 of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, maximum quantities of waste by type of waste which may be recovered under the permit exemption scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to define precisely the types of waste relating to technical standards 5.9 and 7.8 of Annex 1 to that decree, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 3 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to define precisely the types of waste relating to technical standards 5.9 and 7.8 of Annex 1 to that decree, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 3 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders each party to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.

1

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1229 

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit a plan to implement recommendations to improve interactions between the Department of Energy 

and National Laboratories. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2015 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit a plan to 

implement recommendations to improve interactions between the Department of Energy and National Laboratories. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLAN TO IMPROVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN 

4 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL 

5 LABORATORIES. 

6 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the 

8 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the SenVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:00 May 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1229.IS S1229

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1229 IS

1 ate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 

2 House of Representatives a plan to implement rec3 ommendations made by the Commission to Review the Ef4 fectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories estab5 lished under section 319 of the Energy and Water Devel6 opment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 

7 (Public Law 113–76; 128 Stat. 178) to improve inter8 actions between the Department of Energy and the Na9 tional Laboratories of the Department. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices 

# Order

June 10, 2016

153115

153117

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153115

COA: 323642

Kent CC: 14

- 003216

- FH

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153117

COA: 323643

Kent CC: 14

- 003215

- FH

TODD RANDOLPH VAN DOORNE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 8, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

address ing: (1) whether the knock

- and

- talk procedures employed by the law enforcement

officers violated the general public’s implied license to approach the defendants’

residences and constituted unconstitutional searches in violation of the Fourth

Amendment, se e Florida v Jardines , 569 US ___; 133 S Ct 1409, 1416 n 3, 1422; 185 L

Ed 2d 495 (2013); (2) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers “objectively

reveals a purpose to conduct a search” to obtain evidence without the necessity of

obtaining a war rant, id . at 1417; and (3) whether the conduct of the law enforcement

officers was coercive, see United States v Spotted Elk , 548 F3d 641, 655 (CA 8, 2008).

The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 10, 2016

s0607 2

Cle rk The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issue s presented in the s e case s may move the Court

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae

regarding these two cases should be filed in People v Frederick (Docket No. 1 53115)

only and served on the parties in both cases.
EXHIBIT 10.14

                            MERRILL LYNCH LETTERHEAD




                                                             June 30, 2004



Mr. Floyd Warkol/President
KSW Mechanical Services Inc.
37-16 23rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11101

RE:  WCMA LINE OF CREDIT NO. 862-07W54 ("WCMA LINE OF CREDIT")

Dear Mr. Warkol,

It is the understanding of Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services Inc.
("MLBFS") that KSW Mechanical Services Inc. ("Customer") is seeking alternative
financing for the WCMA Line of Credit with other lenders, and intends to fully
repay any obligations to MLBFS and discontinue the WCMA Line of Credit by August
31, 2004. Pursuant to that understanding, this letter will serve to advise you
that MLBFS has approved a temporary renewal of the WCMA Line of Credit until
August 31, 2004. In connection with this extension, a $2,000.00 fee will be
charged to WCMA Account No. 862-07W54. On August 31, 2004, MLBFS will, without
any further action of the parties, discontinue the WCMA Line of Credit and
downgrade Customer's WCMA Account No. 862-07W54 to a WCMA cash account.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (312) 499-3234.

Very truly yours,

Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services Inc.



By:   /s/ Matthew Pfeifer
     ------------------------
     Matthew Pfeifer
     Senior Credit Manager



cc:  Diane Lipman
     Anthony Luppino
· ..... 

--I 

I: / I 

-I 

ss·s 

/" ! 

:?_- -- ---

. h.,-- _ \1..:>\\ \'. 'ra. ~+- /_ .. -"-'-

\...; Approved for Rel8a"se':2018/02/01 C05'1Q1951 11II111/I111111111I/11!~IU!!YJ~/JI/I1/1111l11ll1iI1/I11 

3 1 MAR 1967 

MEMO:;::(ANDUM FOR: BSO/SAFSS 

ATTENTION -Mr. Mazza 

S·UBJECT :;:ndusL:ial BYEMAN Manual 

REFE.i~ENCE BYE-52217-67 

1. Regarding subject reference and yom: suggestion of 

the preparation of an Industrial B YEMAN Manual. 

2. The SSC is highly in favor of such a manual as it 

will attempt to give certain guidelines for the benefit of all 

Project Di:"'ec"tors where a "grayll area has existed for many 

yeal~s. Only this week certain discrepancies have been called 

to my attention and this Center has taken steps to correct these 

long ove:;:,due p:robler:.'ls. 

3, It is suggested that a wo:rking group prepare the 

Manual in order that problem.s that exist for all various Project 

Director s n"'~ight be given ample consideration in the preparation 

of such a mar~ual. 

4. It is pointed out that the Manual should not be in 

conflict with the National Indust:rial Secu:rity Manual, but will be 

an irnp:;:'oVe:i.Tlent ove:;:, the existing Manual for cover and 

compartrDentatio:"1 sake. 

5. This o:'::£ice will wholeheartedly rende:r all the suppo:rt 

:::;ossible in the veutu:re and will delegate a member of this Center 

·~v as sist a~'ld coorci.i:;1.a.te tl"1e ¥anual. 

AC/SSC 

~~C2J~~' 

i t:XCi~:t~~ .:,i::~i~'~~~"ti; ~_: G~,::.:2~,j~.:,~J~ '" 

.. " 

Approved for Releas~:~018/02/01 C05101951 ____________________________________ ~~L_ __________ __ 

-

-
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(d)

[LOGO]                          INTERTAN, INC.

                         [LETTERHEAD OF INTERTAN, INC.]

February 19, 2001

Mr. Jeffrey A. Losch
3300 Highway # 7
Suite 904
Concord, ON
L4K 4M3

Dear Jeff:

       Re: Clarification to Feb 15, 2000 Amendment to Employment Letter

     Your employment letter dated February 23, 1999 was amended by a letter
agreement dated February 15, 2000 (the "Amending Letter Agreement").  By way of
clarification to the Amending Letter Agreement, we wish to confirm that the term
"change of control" used therein will be deemed to have occurred if any of the
events described in Sections 8.5 (a), (b) or (c) of InterTAN, Inc.'s Deferred
Compensation Plan, as amended, takes place.



                                                         Sincerely,
                                                         InterTAN, Inc.


                                                         /s/ Brian E. Levy

                                                         By: Brian E. Levy
                                                             President and Chief
                                                             Executive Officer
June 18, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT PRIMO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00794

- CV V.

SCOTT ROTHENBERG , Appellee

__________________ ______________
We o rder that the court’s former judgment of April 28, 2015

, be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this court’s memora ndum opinion of April 28, 2015, withdrawn.

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appe llee, Scott Rothenberg, signed June 10, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected t he record and find error in the judgment. We therefore AFFIRM
the trial court’s judgment in part with respect to the trial court’s grant of a no

evidence summary judgment

. We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment in part with respect to the trial court’s imposition of death penalty sanctions. We
REMAN D the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent wit h this court’ s opinion.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.