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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3134 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fluopicolide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fluopicolide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUOPICOLIDE. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2,6-Dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5- 

(trifluoro-methyl)-2- 

pyridinyl]methyl]benzamide 

(fluopicolide) (CAS No. 

239110–15–7) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.39.21) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3134 IS

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ). A cc o rd in g ly, R o w lan d ’s r e que s tf oror a l a r gum e nti s de ni e d.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR L E NE D. R OWL AN D, P et i t i on er , v. UN I T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T ME NT OF L A B O R ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s. N o. 10- 70428 L A B R N o. 08- 108 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the D e partm e ntof

L abor S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A rlen e D . R o w lan dp etit io n s p ro se fo r r ev iew o f th e D ep ar tm en t o f L ab o r’s A dm i ni strat i ve R evi ew B oard (“ A R B ”) order di sm i ss i ng her w hi st l e- bl ow er c o m p la in t u n d e rth e S a rb a n e s - O x le yA c t o f 2 0 0 2 ( “S O X ” ) , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 1 4 A .



# FI LED MA R 05 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 70428 2 W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 1 5 1 4 A ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) a n d4 9 U . S. C. § 42121( b) ( 4) . W e r e vi e w the A R B ’ s de c i s i on pur s uantt o the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve P roce du re A ctand w i l l re vers e onl y i f the deci si on i s “ arbi trary , capri ci ou s, an abuse of di sc re t i on , or otherw i se no ti n acc ordance w i th l aw . ” C o p p in g e r -M

a r tin v . So lis , 627 F . 3d 745, 748 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( c i t a t i on and i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt e d) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on. T he A R B di d note rrbydi s m i s s i ng R ow l and’ s c om pl a i ntbe c aus e R ow l a nd f a ile dto r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rP ru d e n tia l E q u ity G roup , L L C ’ s f

i l i ng of a l aw sui tt o con fi rm an arbi trat i on aw ar d con st i tut ed an a d v e r s e a c tio n u n d e rth e S O X . See 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 4A (a ) ( S O X w hi st l e- bl ow er p r o v is io n ) ; V

an A s dale v . I

nt ’ l G am es T

e c h. , 577 F . 3d 989, 996 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (e l em ent s of pri m a f

ac i e c as e und erS O X w hi st l e- bl ow erprov i si on ). R ow l and’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. R o w l an d ’ s req u estfo r j u d i ci al n o t i ce i s d en i edas u n n ecessary b ecau se r e s ponde nt s ha ve i nc l ude d the ne c e s s arypa rt s of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d i n the e x c e rp ts o f

r e c o r d . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Unassociated Document





Exhibit 4.8.78 - Document List - ELECTRIC CATALOGUE 2




 








	  	  	
Drawing List

	
Page 2

	
Total 3


	
Building


Owner

	
Shenyang Sunshine Pharmaceutical


Company Limited

	
Design No.

	  	
Project No.

	  
	
Project Title

	  	
Sub-project Title

	  	
Design Item

	
Electrical Instrument


	
Drawing No.

	
Drawing Title

	
Size

	
Remark


	  	
INSTRUMENT AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	  	  
	
D558-E-31

	
DESIGN DESCRIPTION OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL SYSTEM

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-32

	
AUTOMATIC CONTROL NETWORK DIAGRAM

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-33

	
K1X SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-34

	
K11 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-35

	
K12 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-36

	
K13 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-37

	
K14 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-38

	
K15 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-39

	
K2X-1 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-310

	
K2X-2 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-311

	
K21 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-312

	
K22 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-313

	
K23 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-314

	
K24 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-315

	
K3X SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-316

	
K31 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-317

	
K32 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-318

	
K33 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-319

	
K34 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-320

	
K41 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-321

	
K51 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-322

	
K52 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-323

	
K61 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-324

	
K62 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-325

	
K71 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-326

	
L1 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF COLD WATER AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-327

	
L2 SHCEMATIC DIAGRAM OF COLD WATER AUTOMATIC CONTROL

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-328

	
PLA OF MONITORING POINT IN THE FIRST FLOOR

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-329

	
PLA OF MONITORING POINT IN THE SECOND FLOOR

	
A1

	  
	
D558-E-330

	
AUTOMATIC CONTROLWIRING DIAGRAM (PLCP-1) 1

	
A1

	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Project


Principal

	  	
Checked by

	  	
Authorized by

	  	
Date

	
2009.05.15
ex10-11e.htm


Exhibit 10.11E


THIRD AMENDMENT OF


JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION


EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PROGRAM


PART II UNION HOURLY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PLAN







WHEREAS, John Bean Technologies Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the John Bean Technologies Corporation Employees’ Retirement Program Part II Union Hourly Employees’ Retirement Plan (the “Plan”);







WHEREAS, the Company now deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan in certain respects;







WHEREAS, this Third Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment;







NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to the Company under Section 11.1 Plan Amendment or Termination of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects:







·           Effective September 1, 2011, Section 1-6 of Supplemental 1 of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the last sentence thereto with the following which shall read as follows:







With respect to a Termination Date occurring on or after October 9, 2000, but before September 1, 2008, a Participant’s Normal Retirement Benefit shall be equal to the greater of the Prior Formula Accrued Benefit, if any, and the product of the benefit rate of $30.00 multiplied by the Participant’s Years of Credited Service.  With respect to a Termination Date occurring on or after September 1, 2008, but before September 1, 2011, a Participant’s Normal Retirement Benefit shall be equal to the greater of the Prior Formula Accrued Benefit, if any, and the product of the benefit rate of $31.50 multiplied by the Participant’s Years of Credited
Service.  With respect to a Termination Date occurring on or after September 1, 2011, a Participant’s Normal Retirement Benefit shall be equal to the greater of the Prior Formula Accrued Benefit, if any, and the product of the benefit rate of $33.00 multiplied by the Participant’s Years of Credited Service.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative this _______ day of ________________, 2011.







JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION












By: ________________________________________________


Its: ________________________________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APRIL E. DIGGS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING

INC., Its Successors and/or Assigns,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 55709

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv

- 02583

- AG

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24 , 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

April E. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

motion to vacate the judgment in her action alleging violation s of the Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”) and state l aw. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 6 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55709

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Fid. Nat. Fin., Inc. v. Friedman , 803

F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). W e affirm.

The district court properly deni ed Diggs’s motion to vacate the judgment

under Rule 60(b)(4) because Diggs failed to establish that the judgment was void.

See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 270

- 71 (2010)

(explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been

erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a

judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a

violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be

heard” (citatio ns omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2900 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2900

             To suspend temporarily the duty on bis-phenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on bis-phenol.

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

SECTION 1. BIS-PHENOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      4,4'-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Sulfonyldiphenol                                                   31/2015.......
                        (CAS No. 80-09-1)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        2930.90.29)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months ended             Six Months ended
                                                          June 30,                      June 30,
                                                   1999            1998            1999            1998
                                                   ----            ----            ----            ----

<S>                                             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income                                      $  548,034      $  418,956      $  751,548      $  862,243
                                                ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Weighted average number of common
 and common equivalent shares:

Weighted average common shares outstanding       2,611,792       2,411,267       2,530,672       2,410,966

Shares issued from assumed exercise of
  common stock equivalents(1)                           --          96,432              --          96,998
                                                ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding           2,611,792       2,507,699       2,530,672       2,507,964
                                                ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Earnings per share:
        Basic                                   $      .21      $      .17      $      .30      $      .36
                                                ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

        Diluted                                 $      .21      $      .17      $      .30      $      .34
                                                ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========
</TABLE>



(1)      Common stock under options excluded from the computation of earnings
         per share were 2,853 and 5,009 shares, respectively, because they were
         antidilutive.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIA YANIRA MENDOZAGALDAMEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72428 

Agency No. A209-231-490 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Emilia Yanira Mendoza-Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 

application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72428 

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 

F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the 

BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part 

the petition for review. 

The agency did not err in finding that Mendoza-Galdamez failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, 

“[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who

share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) 

socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 

I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Mendoza-Galdamez does not articulate any 

challenge to the agency’s finding in her opening brief. Thus, MendozaGaldamez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

The BIA did not err in declining to consider Mendoza-Galdamez’s 

arguments regarding family as a social group that were raised for the first time to 

the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019).

We lack jurisdiction to review Mendoza-Galdamez’s contention that the IJ 

violated her due process rights because she failed to raise it below. See Barron v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review 
3 18-72428 

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Compressors

Air booster compressor Selective catalytic reduction

Pumps

Autogas pump Propane de

Applications

(405) 946-5576 Request for Quote Search...

What Is A Gas Gathering System? The gas from a natural gas well is collected using gathering lines that are usually 18” in diameter (medium size) steel pipes that carry unodorpressure of approximately 715 psi and are typically buried four feet underground. Similar to a tree branch type pattern, gas gathering lines c

lines and move it to a central collecting point such as a gas processing facility, storage tanks awaiting movement to the main pipeline, or marquality of the gas is not good enough to be sent to the main pipeline, the gas is fed to a gas processing plant. 

How Does A Gas Gathering System Work? A gas gathering system works on the principle of gas moving from a higher pressure to a lower pressure. A reciprocating compressor is used 

differential in pressures by pulling the gas from the wells and pushing it into the gathering system. The compressor is driven by an electric moavailable or a gas fired engine using a small amount of gas from the feed lines. 

Why Is A Reciprocating Gas Compressor A Good Choice? Corken reciprocating gas compressors work well for this application especially on higher pressure applications where screw or rotary vane 

as effective. Shale gas wells particularly need compression to make them work. Those wells tend to produce at a high rate initially but drop o

necessary to employ compressors on those wells to keep them producing at an acceptable rate. Compressor Recommendations... Corken offers a complete line of oil-free compressors in vertical and horizontal versions. Depending on your flow requirements, we recomm

ductile iron construction with PTFE elastomers and iron-lead gaskets. A D-Style (double packed) oil-free compressor is recommended; howe

packed oil-free compressor is recommended when there is H2S in the gas mix. MC1002 corrosion and wear-resistant coating may be needegas in the mixture. Individual users may have specific requirements indigenous to their application.

> Gas gathering Gas Gathering

Home About Products Technologies Industries Literature Resources Contact

http://www.corken.com/gas_gathering
Gas gathering

Landfill gas recovery

Tank car unloadingVapor recovery

Fuel oil delivery truckPropane transport

Selective ca

Home About Products Technologies Industries Literature Resources Contact Sitemap Webmaster Privacy Policy

Corken, Inc.A Unit of IDEX Corporation3805 N.W. 36th Street,Oklahoma City, OK 73112 U.S.A. 

Phone: (405) 946-5576Fax: (405) 948-7343 

© 2014, Corken. All rights reserved

http://www.corken.com/gas_gathering
**1**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA

- 22
- 0173 KARL KNUCHEL WEBSTER CRIST **Karl Knuchel, P.C.**  101 North E Street P.O. Box 953 Livingston, MT 59047 Telephone: 406/222

- 0135 Email: karl@knuchelpc.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDAN TS / APPELLANTS

**____________________________________________________** KELLI JONES (F/K/A KELLI ) PARKER) , ) ) ) Petitioner /Appellee , ) and ) ) KEVIN PARKER and STACY ) SNAVELY , ) ) **ORDER GRANTING** Respondent s /Appellant s . ) **EXTENSION** Appeal from Cause No. DR 09

- 106 in the Sixth Judicial District Court of

Montana, Park County, Judge Brenda Gilbert 07/05/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0173**2**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Karl Knuchel Karl Knuchel, P.C. 101 North E Street, P.O. Box 953 Livingston, MT 59047 (406) 222

- 0135 karl@knuchelpc.com Counsel for Respondents and Appellants

Kevin Brown Paoli & Brown, P.C. 116 West Callender Livingston, MT 59047 (406) 222

- 4420 kevin@paolibrown.com Counsel for Petitioner and Appellee

UPON review of the Unopposed Motion for Second Extension of Time to File Opening Brief by counsel for the Respondents/Appellants herein and good cause appearin g therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time to file Appellant’s Opening Brief is extended to the 11 th day of August
.

**ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW**

cc: Karl Knuchel Kevin Brown

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 5 2022
Third Amendment to the 1991 Directors Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 1991 DIRECTORS’ STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 The State Auto Financial Corporation 1991 Directors’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended in the
following particulars: 
  

	§1.	Definitions  

 All capitalized terms used in this
amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan. 
  

	§2.	No Stock Option Repricing without Shareholder Approval 

 The exercise price per Share of any Option granted under the Plan shall not be changed or modified after the time such Option has been granted unless such change or modification is made with a the prior approval of the Company’s
shareholders. 
  

	§3.	Effective Date; Construction 

 The effective date of
this amendment is March 7, 2008, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall
control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 74 (Monday, April 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8912]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,691]


Group Dekko, Inc., Murray Plant, Murray, IA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 27, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of the workers at Group 
Dekko, Inc., Murray Plant, Murray, Iowa.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-8912 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P