alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1975]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 106 Under Alternative Site 
Framework Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 
CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of 
zones;
    Whereas, the Port Authority of Greater Oklahoma City, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 106, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ 
Docket B-57-2014, docketed 08-12-2014) for authority to expand the zone 
under the ASF to include a new magnet site (proposed Site 18) in 
Shawnee, Oklahoma, adjacent to the Oklahoma City Customs and Border 
Protection port of entry;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 48117, 08-15-2014) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 106 under the ASF is approved, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 
400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the 
zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would 
terminate authority for Site 18 if not activated within the initial 
seven years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
ATTEST: Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08457 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Alternative Perspective on OptimumDOE DesignsNov. 1, 2011Prepared by: Carlos GaytanProlec GE1Summary of Structure of DOE Engineering AnalysisDefinition of Product ClassesMV Liquid FilledMV and LV Dry TypeMVandLVDryTypeIdentification of Design Lines and Representative Units5 DL’s for MV Liquid Filled5 DL’s for MV and 3 DL’s for LV Dry TypeTechnical Design InputsBroad range of A&B factor combinations for a complete set of efficiency levelsBroadrangeofA&BfactorcombinationsforacompletesetofefficiencylevelsCore and Winding Material combinationsEstimate of Material Prices from 2006-2010 data plus markupsIncluded consideration for labor costsIncludedconsiderationforlaborcostsOutput of Engineering AnalysisFor each Design Line: Charts with plots of full database of designs for each2Powering reliable solutions for youcombination of core and winding materialsExample of Engineering Analysis Results$3,500$4,000dEL 0dEL1dEL2dEL3dEL4dEL5dEL6$3,000

P rice ($)$2,500

a cturer SellingM5_CuAl_dgw_shM3_AlAl_dgw_shM3_CuAl_dgw_shM2 AlAl dgw sh$2,000

Manuf aM2_AlAl_dgw_shM2_CuAl_dgw_shZDMH_AlAl_dgw_shZDMH_CuCu_dgw_shSA1_AlAl_dgw_shSA1 CuCu dgw sh$1,50099.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60%Efficiency at 50% Load, Temperature CorrectedSA1_CuCu_dgw_shCSLsCf f O(S )3Chartfor DL1from DOE Engineering Analysis(Sep.’11), with all thedesigns developed by DOE for this DL. This representation makes itdifficult to discern the competitiveness of each of the core materials.Simplified Cost Efficiency Charts50 kVA Single Phase (DL1)DOE Min Price by Efficiency Level$3,300$2 700$2,900$3,100$2,300$2,500$2,700

O E Minium PriceM3M2ZDMHSA1$1,700$1,900$2,100

D OC f$1,500dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 dEL6DOE Efficiency Level4ThisChart uses the same data as the previousfor DL1, but only showsthe lowest price designs by core material for each Efficiency Level. Such achart clearly shows the trend of competitiveness of each core material.Simplified Cost Efficiency Charts25 kVA Single Phase (DL2)DOE Min Price by Efficiency Level$2,500$2,100$2,300$1 500$1,700$1,900

M inimum PriceM3M2ZDMH$1,100$1,300$1,500

DOE MSA1$700$900dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 dEL6 dEL75DOE Efficiency LevelThis Chart for DL2 (25 kVA) showing only most competitive designs(lowest price) for each Efficiency Level, by core material.Simplified Cost Efficiency Charts150 kVAThree PhaseDOE Min Price by Efficiency Level$8,000$8,750$9,500$6,500$7,250

E Minimum PriceM3M2ZDMHSA1$4,250$5,000$5,750

DO$3,500dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 dEL6 dEL7DOE Efficiency Level6This Chart is for DL4. It clearly depicts the relationship between price andEfficiency Level by Core Material. This provides a more understandablepicture of the relationship between price and core material for each ELSimplified Cost Efficiency Charts1500 kVA Three Phase (DL5) DOE Min Price by Efficiency Level$50,000$40 000$45,000$35,000$40,000

O E Min PriceM3M2ZDMHSA1$25 000$30,000

D O$20,000$25,000dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4 dEL5 dEL67DOE Efficiency LevelThis final Chart is for DL5, and shows the lowest price design for eachEfficiency Level by core material
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# DATES AND TIMES:

March 27, 2015, at 3 p.m.

# PLACE:

Washington DC, via Teleconference.

# STATUS: 

Committee Votes to Close March 27, 2015, Meeting: By telephone vote on March 27, 2015, members of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service met and voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Committee determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

# MATTERS CONSIDERED:

## Friday, March 27, 2015, at 3 p.m.

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Financial Matters.

3. Pricing.

# GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: 

The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary, Board of Governors.

[FR Doc. 2015-08241 Filed 4-7-15; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 99.1

                FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION
                 DECLARES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND


NEW YORK, NY:  March 6, 2006 - Financial Federal Corporation
(NYSE: FIF) today announced its Board of Directors declared a $0.10
per share quarterly dividend on its common stock.  The dividend is
payable April 28, 2006 to stockholders of record at the close of
business on March 27, 2006.  The dividend rate is the same as the
prior quarter (adjusting for the 3-for-2 stock split effective
January 31, 2006).


Financial Federal Corporation is an independent financial services
company specializing in financing industrial and commercial equipment
through installment sales and leasing programs for dealers,
manufacturers and end users nationwide.  For more information,
please visit the Company's website at www.financialfederal.com.


CONTACT:  Steven F. Groth, Chief Financial Officer
          (212) 599-8000
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 00388

- CV

Style: National Oilwell Varco, LP

v

. Flowserve Corporation, Flowserve US Inc. and Flowserve S. de R.L. de C.V. (fo rmerly

Flowserve S.A. de C.V.)

Date motion filed * : August 22 , 201 3

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 19, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: September 11, 2013

Date Requested: November 11, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 11, 2013

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant appellant additional motions to extend

time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: August 27, 2013
13935

#### CAROLINA LIFE INS. CO. *ET AL.*v. ARROWSMITH

(176 S. E., 728)

*176*Mr. Preston B. Thames,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Royall &• Wright; McBachin & Townsend, Will-cox, Hardee & Wallace, Samuel Want*and *Melvin Hyman,*for respondents,

November 2, 1934.

*177The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

A careful study of the record and the decree of Judge Dennis makes it evident that he has given thorough consideration to, and has made a correct disposition of the issues involved in this appeal.

Wherefore, the exceptions thereto áre overruled, and the decree is affirmed.

Let it be reported.

Messrs. Justices Stabler and Carter and Mr. Acting Associate Justice C. T. Graydon concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Dennis R. Alexander certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |     |                                                        | 
|------------------------ |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                         |  |     |                                                        | 
|Date:  November 14, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ Dennis R. Alexander                                | 
|                         |  |     | Dennis R. Alexander                                    | 
|                         |  |     | Principal Executive Office and Chief Financial Officer





i
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19695-19696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08322]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as Amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

NAME: Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences 
(#1171).

DATE/TIME: May 13, 2015; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., May 14, 2015; 9:00 
a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

PLACE: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford I, 
Room 110, Arlington, VA 22230.

TYPE OF MEETING: Open.

CONTACT PERSON:  Dr. Deborah Olster, Office of the Assistant Director, 
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 905, Arlington, 
Virginia 22230, 703-292-8700.

SUMMARY OF MINUTES: May be obtained from contact person listed above.

PURPOSE OF MEETING: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation on major goals and policies pertaining to 
Social, Behavioral

[[Page 19696]]

and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) programs and activities.

Agenda

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

SBE Directorate Update
NSF Public Access Plan: Today's Data, Tomorrow's Discoveries
Report from SBE AC Subcommittee on Replicability in Science
SBE 2020 Themes/ Rebuilding the Mosaic
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
Statistical Sciences at NSF (StatsNSF) Subcommittee Update
Science of Broadening Participation

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Meeting with NSF Leadership
Decision-Making under Uncertainty/Risk and Resilience
Agenda and Dates for Future Meetings, Assignments and Concluding 
Remarks

    Dated: April 7, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08322 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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.

November 25, 2013

t1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147546

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147546

COA: 309243

Calhoun CC: 2011

- 001132

- FH

DEON LAMONT JOHNSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00103

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K .E.B., A

CHILD

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

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

After review o f the reporter’s record of the trial court’s July 29, 2011

abatement hearing and pursuant to appellant’s statement on record that he no

longer wishes to continue this appeal, i t is the court = s opinion that we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a )(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 11, 2011

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Exhibit 10.91

 

Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

This Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into effective as of January 28, 2013 between Move, Inc. (the “Company”) and James S. Caulfield (“Executive”).

 

In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the continued employment of Executive by the Company, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.              The parties acknowledge that effective as of April 2, 2012, Executive’s annual base salary was increased to $300,000.

 

2.              Executive’s bonus potential shall be amended such that he will be entitled to participate in the Company’s 2012 and subsequent executive bonus plans, as adopted in the Company’s sole discretion, with the potential to earn up to a target bonus amount equal to 50% of his annual base salary if certain performance targets are met, and if such performance objectives are significantly exceeded he may receive a bonus in excess of his target bonus, up to a maximum of 100% of his annual base salary.

 

3.              Notwithstanding any changes to the Executive’s base salary and target bonus percentage, the parties agree that the cash severance payment and cash bonus payment amount under the Executive Retention and Severance Agreement between Executive and the Company dated October 5, 2006, as amended (the “Retention Agreement”), shall not be reduced, in the aggregate, by any such changes (i.e., such payments shall be calculated using the Executive’s prior base pay and prior target bonus potential to the extent that any such prior base pay and prior target bonus potential render a payment amount, in the aggregate, greater than if such payment was calculated using Executive’s then current base pay and target bonus).

 

4.              Provided that Executive complies with Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Retention Agreement, the Company agrees that in the event of Executive’s Termination Upon Change of Control or Termination in Absence of Change of Control (as defined in the Retention Agreement), any stock options granted, restricted stock units granted and/or restricted stock issued by the Company to Executive subsequent to the date of the Retention Agreement shall vest; provided, however that with respect to stock options granted on or after June 15, 2011, the period to exercise any such options shall be ninety (90) days following the end of the transition period (if any) or ninety (90) days following termination of employment if the Company requests no transition period, or any longer exercise period provided under the terms of the applicable incentive plan under which such options were granted.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.

 

	
MOVE, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   Steven H. Berkowitz
    	
 
    
	
Its:   
    	
CEO
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   James S. Caulfield
    	
 
    
	
James   S. Caulfield
Exhibit 10.2





Exhibit 10.2




CONSOLIDATED GRAPHICS, INC.




AMENDED AND RESTATED LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN



First Amendment



Consolidated Graphics, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Corporation”), having established the
Consolidated Graphics, Inc. Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan as adopted by the Board
of Directors (“Board”) on June 30, 2008 (the “Plan”), and having reserved the right under
Section 11 thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of the date approved
by the Board of Directors and the holders of a majority of shares of Common Stock present, or
represented, and entitled to vote at a meeting of the Corporation’s shareholders, as follows:



A. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 7 is amended to read as follows:




“The number of Awards that may be granted in the form of a
stock appreciation right or stock award as described in subparagraph
(b) below shall not exceed an aggregate of 112,500 underlying shares
of Common Stock issuable pursuant to such Award.”



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	As approved by the Board of Directors of
 Consolidated
Graphics, Inc. on June 29, 2009	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
Joe R. Davis
 	 
	 	Joe R. Davis 	 
	 	Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer
#### John H. Nolan, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

*1.*Consent of counsel that should the jury agree that night, they might return a sealed verdict to the clerk and disperse, cannot be construed to extend to a verdict found on the next day.

2. It was the legal right of the defendant to be present when the verdict was rendered, and had a motion to set aside such verdict been made on the ground of his absence, it should have been granted.

3. It has never been the practice of the courts of this State to require the fact of the defendant’s presence at the time of the rendition of the verdict, to be entered on the record, and made a part thereof. The absence of such entry is therefore no ground for arresting the judgment.

Criminal law. Verdict. Practice in the Superior Court. Eecord. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. November Special Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

A. P. Adams*;*S. B. Adams; Henry B. Tompkins, for plaintiff in error.

Albert E. Lamar, solicitor general, for the state.

Warner, Chief Justice.

1. The defendant was indicted for'.the offense of murder, and on the trial thereof, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. ■ When the jury were out the night before the verdict was returned, the defendant’s counsel consented that if the jury should agree that night they could return a sealed verdict to'the clerk and disperse. The jury did hot agree upon a verdict that night, but on the *next*day brought in their verdict, which was received in the absence of the defendant and his counsel. The defendant made a motion in arrest of judgment on that ground, which motion was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted. The consent of the counsel cannot fairly- be construed to extend to the next day, especially in a criminal case;

*138
      2. That it was the legal right-of the defendant to have been present when the verdict was rendered by the jury, we entertain no doubt, and if a motion had been made to set aside the verdict on the ground of his absence, that motion should have been granted by the court. The defendant, however, did not make a motion to set aside the verdict, but made a motion in arrest of judgment. The 4629th section of the Code declares that no motion in arrest of judgment shall be sustained for any matter not affecting the real merits of the offense charged in the indictment. A motion in arrest of judgment is predicated on some.defect which appears on the tace of the record or pleadings.

3. It has never been the practice of the courts of this state, so far as we know or are advised, to require that the fact of the defendant’s presence at the time of the rendition of the verdict, should be entered on the record, and made a part thereof. If the defendant is not present when the verdict is rendered, that is a fact *extrinsic*of the record, and may be shown on a motion to set aside the verdict for that reason.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3868 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,5(or 1,8)- 

diamino-2-bromo-4,8(or 4,5)-dihydroxy-. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 

1,5(or 1,8)-diamino-2-bromo-4,8(or 4,5)-dihydroxy-. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 9,10-ANTHRACENEDIONE, 1,5(OR 1,8)-DIAMINO-2- 

4 BROMO-4,8(OR 4,5)-DIHYDROXY-. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,5(or 

1,8)-diamino-2-bromo-4,8(or 

4,5)-dihydroxy-. (CAS No. 

68134–65–6) (provided for in 

subheading 2921.59.80) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3868 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS