alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.34
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
          This Addendum (the “Addendum”) is made effective as of the 12th day ofDecember, 2003 and is intended to amend a certain Employment Agreement (the“Agreement”) by and between Erie Indemnity Company and Jeffrey A. Ludrofeffective as of May 9, 2002.
          WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of theCompany and its Shareholders to secure the continued employment of theExecutive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and
          WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of December9, 2003 has again agreed to extend the term of the Agreement for an additionalperiod of time as contained herein; and
          WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.
          NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree asfollows:
          1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect to the Term is hereby amendedby extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2007.
          2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full forceand effect.         ATTEST:       ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY               /s/ Jan R. Van Gorder By: /s/ F. William Hirt  Jan R. Van Gorder     F. William Hirt  Secretary     Chairman of the Board         WITNESS:                     /s/ Sheila M. Hirsch   /s/ Jeffrey A. Ludrof  Sheila M. Hirsch     Jeffrey A. Ludrof  Executive Secretary     5700 Stoneridge Drive        Fairview, PA 16415
23
EXHIBIT 21 

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT 

As of December 31, 2010 the active subsidiariesof the Company were: 

CMP Display Systems, Inc., a California corporation 

Composite Structures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Ducommun AeroStructures, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Ducommun Technologies,Inc., an Arizona corporation 

Ducommun Technologies (Thailand) Ltd., a Thailand corporation 

Ducommun AeroStructures Mexico, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Miltec Corporation, an Alabama corporation 

Ducommun AeroStructures New York, Inc., a New York corporation
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN

AIR QUALITY LarryGreene

MANAGEM~NT DISTRICT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

November 13, 2015

Gerardo Rios

Chief, Permits Office ~~g’% ~, 2015

U.S. EPA, Region IX, Mail Stop AIR-3

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

Subject: Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed limited approval

and limited disapproval of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 2,

Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review (Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280)

Dear Mr. Rios:

On August 28, 2015, the EPA proposed State Implementation Plan limited approval and limited

disapproval of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 2, Rule 2, New

Source Review (NSR rule)1. I am writing to correct BAAQMD statements regarding Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) New Source Review rule discussed in

the technical support document for EPA’s proposed rulemaking revisions2.

BAAQMD sent a letter to EPA3, erroneously stating that EPA Region IX is “changing its position”

regarding what is required for approval of districts NSR programs and erroneously stating that “in

many cases” SMAQMD rules allow potential to emit (PTE) to be utilized in the offset calculation

procedure for major modifications instead of actual emissions4.

SMAQMD Rule 214, Federal New Source Review was approved by EPA5 and while it does allow

major modifications to use potential to emit instead of actual emissions in offset calculations, it

does so only in very limited circumstances. EPA accurately concluded that these limitations are

reasonable restrictions. In fact, no sources have utilized the limited calculation procedure since

Rule 214 was adopted five years ago.

Sincerely,

Larry Greene

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

1 80 FR 52236, August 28, 2015.

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Technical Support Document, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan Bay Area Air Quality Management District, August, 19. 2015,

pp. 117-120.

~ Brian C. Bunger, Esq., letter to Nancy Marvel, Esq. (EPA Region 9), July 31, 2012.

~ Ibid, p. 1 and p.2.

~ 78 FR 53270, August 29, 2013.

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor I Sacramento, CA 95814-1908

916/874-4800 I 916/874-4899 fax

www.airquality.org
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17221]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on 
Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment will hold a meeting on July 17, 1998, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Friday, July 17, 1998-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business

    The Subcommittee will discuss issues in the Staff Requirements 
Memorandum dated April 20, 1998, regarding situation-specific cases 
where probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) results and insights have 
improved the existing regulatory system and specific areas in which 
PRA, when applied properly, can have a positive impact on the 
regulatory system. The purpose of this meeting is to gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate 
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, its consultants, and 
other interested persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/415-6885) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: June 23, 1998.
Sam Duraiswamy,
Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.
[FR Doc. 98-17221 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
No. 10-7707.

#### David Solomon King, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1159, 131 S. Ct. 961,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 165.

178 L. Ed. 2d 792,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Dalton Fraser Enterprises, Inc., Doing Business as Galloway Healthcare Employment Agency, Respondent, v Fairchild Properties, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[767 NYS2d 851]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Fairchild Properties, Inc., appeals (1) from a decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated September 25, 2002, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the same court entered October 1, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $30,136.35.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Fairchild Properties, Inc., and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

The Supreme Court erred in directing the entry of a judgment against the appellant. The appellant was not a signatory to the subject contract. The corporation that signed the contract was an entity separate from the appellant. The plaintiff did not adduce evidence sufficient to warrant disregarding the appellant’s separate incorporation under a corporate veil-piercing theory *(see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135 [1993]; *TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp.,*92 NY2d 335 [1998]). Accordingly, the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
i J

InThe Matter Of: PUERTO RICO 

## SERVED: OCTOBER22, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2013-1086 POLICE DEPARTMENT ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2011S0190181 Respondent



### ORDER CONTINUING THERULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
OnJuly 24, 2014, an Order Continuing the Ru1e 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Setting Deadlines for Show Cause Filings was filed. Among otherthings, this Order continued the Rule 161itigation Schedu1ing Conference to October 22,2014, at 10:00 a.m. On October 22, 2014, shortly after 10:00 a.m., the FAA attorney telephoned the Office of Hearings to inquire whether the Conference was being heldbecause there was no answer when he dialed the conference call number. The Office ofHearings attorney staffdetermined thatthe Conference had not been calendared and no court reporterhadbeen retained. The Office of Hearings attorney informedbothparties that the Conference would not be held as scheduled. Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(a)(1) and (6), and after reviewing all relevant casehtw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Rule 16 Litigation Schedu1ing Conference, setfor Wednesday, October 22, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Easterntime is continued. 2. The date and time ofany future Conference will be provided once a ruling has been issued onthe FAA's July 21,2014 Motionto Deem Admitted.

Attachment: Service List ·- /" :.

### DocketNo. FAA-2013-1086 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Mr. 

### Christopher R. 

### Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7. Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAJ<: 404-305-5223 Ms. NazihraM. Abdulrahman Soler Respondent's Counsel Office ofLegal Affairs P.O. Box 71200 San Juan, P.R. 00936 TEL: 787-793-1234 ext. 3067,2203 FAJ<: 787-781-7993 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 ONE COPY



### U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ<: 202-366-7536 Puerto Rico Police Department Respondent P.O. Box71200 SanJuan, PR00936

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# C_2015198EN.01003301.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA

(Case T-134/13) (1)

1

((REACH - Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern - Equivalent level of concern - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))

(2015/C 198/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy); and Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicants: New Japan Chemical (Osaka, Japan); and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem)

Interveners in support of the applicants:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA of 18 December 2012 concerning the inclusion of substances of very high concern in the list of candidate substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in so far as it concerns cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 201-604-9), cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 236-086-3) and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 238-009-9).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Commission, New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Commission, New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Texas Tax Solutions, LLC.,

 

 Appellant,

v.

City of El Paso,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00126-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014DTX0412)

O R D E R

On July 27, 2018 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order 

required the parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On August 2, 

2018 Appellees timely filed their objections. The Court finds Appellees’ objections persuasive.

Therefore the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension 

is lifted and the Record is now due in this Court on or before September 1, 2018. If no 

Reporter’s Record will be filed for this appeal then the Appellant’s brief shall be due in this 

Court thirty days after the Clerk’s Record is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2

nd day of August, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
### NUMBER 13
- 1 8
- 00 0 13
- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

MATTHEW PATRICK AGNEW , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas.



## ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the record and appellant’s amended brief. Appellant ’ s court appointed appellate counsel filed an amended Anders brief with this
Court on September 10 , 201 8

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Upon review of counsel’s Anders brief , we note the brief contains numerous formal and2

substantive defects , the brief does not meet Anders requirements, and the case has not been properly presented. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9. The brief here “ does not refer us to anything in this cold record which might arguably support the appeal; it does not discuss any of the evidence adduced at trial; it does not supply us with ready references to the record, nor does it supply us with any citation to legal authorities.” High v. State , 573
S.W.3d 807 , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); s ee In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). An Ander ’s brief should present a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See High , 573 S.W.3d at 812 ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, under the authority of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) and (b), we STRIKE appellant ’ s brief and ABATE this matter to allow counsel to redraw the brief. Appellant is hereby ORDERED to file an amended brief with this Court that complies with the above rules within fifteen days from the date of this order. In
accordance with Rule 38.1, the facts pertinent to the appeal and the issues and argument presented in the brief must be clear and concise , and the brief must be supported by
record references

. If counsel files an amended brief that fails to comply with this order of the Court , the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Anders guidelines, the n the Court will abate the appeal for appointment of new appellate counsel. See id. 38.9(a). We must proceed as necessary to protect appellant’s rights on appeal and to obtain a sati sfactory
submission of the case. This appeal will be reinstated upon the expiration of fifteen days3

from the date of this order, or the date that appellant ’ s amended brief is filed, whichever
occurs first.
It is so ordered.
PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed th e 25th day of June , 2019

.
**Exhibit 10-1.2**

 

**EXCERPT FROM THE**

**MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE**

**BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION**

**HELD ON JULY 28, 1997**

 

A regular meeting of the Board of Directors of Duke Energy Corporation washeld at 2:40 p.m. in the C. J. Blades Classroom Building, Lake Hickory Leadership Center, Lake Hickory, North Carolina, on Monday, July 28, 1997. 

 

The following members were present: 

 

Paul M. Anderson 

G. Alex Bernhardt, Sr.

Robert J. Brown 

W. A. Coley

William T. Esrey 

Ann M. Gray

Dennis R. Hendrix 

Harold S.Hook 

George Dean Johnson, Jr. 

W. W. Johnson 

A. Max Lennon 

Leo E. Linbeck, Jr. 

James G. Martin 

Buck Mickel 

Richard B. Priory 

Russell M. Robinson, II 

 

being all the members.

 

Mr. Richard B. Priory, the Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, presided over the meeting, and Mr. W. Edward Poe, Jr., the Secretary, acted as such. 

 

* * * * * * * 

 

The Chairman ofthe Compensation Committee, Mr. W. W. Johnson, reported the recommendation of the Compensation Committee that the 

 

Directors’ Charitable Giving Program be modified in several respects. After discussion, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED, That the Directors’ CharitableGiving Program be hereby amended to provide eligibility to inside directors who have attained age 62 and have at least ten years of service on the Duke Energy Board of Directors (including prior service on the Board of either Duke Power, PanEnergyor a predecessor of the two); to allow an eligible director to designate up to ten qualifying charitable organizations with a minimum gift of $100,000 per organization; and to provide that a beneficiary institution may be any nonprofit, nonreligiousorganization which under rules of the Internal Revenue Service will enable the Company to claim a tax deduction for the donation; and 

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the foregoing amendments be effective upon adoption, except that any existing designation by a retired director ofa recipient organization which would not be qualified under the revised provisions be honored, provided that Duke Energy will be eligible to claim a tax deduction for such donation.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of China Junlian Integrated Surveillance, Inc. (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  November 14, 2007 /s/ Yuan Gang Yuan Gang (Chief Executive Officer)  November 14, 2007 /s/ Wang Lei Wang Lei (Chief Financial Officer)
No. 10-116.

#### Grant County Black Sands Irrigation District, et al., Petitioners v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, et al.

562 U.S. 1134, 131 S. Ct. 897,

178 L. Ed. 2d 746,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 50.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

*747Same case below, 579 F.3d 1345.