alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1223]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force


USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The Theater Air Defense Independent Review Team of the USAF 
Scientific Advisory Board will meet on 9-10 February 1995 at Los 
Angeles AFB, CA from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to evaluate the Airborne Laser 
Program Data for the Theater Air Defense COEA submission.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-8845.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-1223 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26827-26828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12323]



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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

36 CFR Part 1258

RIN 3095-AA63


Reproduction Services; Fee Schedule

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is 
adopting as a final rule the interim final rule on NARA reproduction 
fees. The interim rule corrected addresses and removed certain 
photographic reproductions and fees from the published fee schedule. 
This rule will affect Federal agencies and members of the public who 
order reproductions from NARA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is March 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Hadyka or Nancy Allard on 
(301)713-6730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 30, 1995, NARA issued an interim 
final rule. The effective date of the interim final rule was March 6, 
1995. No comments were received during the 60-day comment period 
provided by the interim rule. Therefore, we are confirming in this 
final rule the correction of addresses and removal of published fees 
for certain reproductions in 36 CFR part 1258.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 of September 30, [[Page 26828]] 1993 and has not 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby certified that this rule 
will not have a significant impact on small entities.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1258

    Archives and records.

PART 1258--FEES

    Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 36 CFR part 1258 which 
was published at 60 FR 5579 on January 30, 1995, is adopted as a final 
rule without change.

    Dated: May 11, 1995.
Trudy Huskamp Peterson,
Acting Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 95-12323 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
Exhibit 10.26


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE


 CHS 401(K) SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN


January 1, 2004


WHEREAS, CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously established and currently
maintains the CHS 401(k) Supplemental Savings Plan (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the catch-up contributions
have been added to the Community Health Systems, Inc. 401(k) Plan as of January
1, 2004; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to
amend the Plan to exclude catch-up contributions from the contributions
considered under Section 4.B. of the Plan, effective as of  January 1, 2004; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of
the Company has approved of such amendment;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.             Section 4.B. of the
Plan is amended to read as follows:


Participant Contributions to Accounts.  For each Plan Year, each Participant may
elect to defer on a payroll-by-payroll basis Compensation that would have been
received in the Plan Year, but for the deferral election, up to a maximum
deferral of 6% of Compensation, less the maximum percentage or other portion of
the Participant’s Compensation that could be deferred by the Participant for
such Plan Year under the Retirement Plan (without regard to catch-up
contributions).


2.             The changes made by
this Second Amendment to the Plan shall be effective January 1, 2004.


 


 

















 


EXECUTED this ___ day of December,
2004, effective as of January 1, 2004.


	
  CHS/COMMUNITY
  HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
ADDENDUM DATED OCTOBER 31, 2003 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (ROTHBERG)



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
  
 

 
  
 Interoffice Memorandum

  

			
	 To:
	  	Personnel File
	 From:
	  	 Jonathan M. Rothberg, CEO and President

	Date:	  	 October 31, 2003

	 Re:   
	  	 Addendum to Employment Agreement


  

  
 I, Jonathan M. Rothberg, (“the Executive”) signed an Employment Agreement (“the Agreement”) with my employer, CuraGen
Corporation (“the Company”), on or about April 1, 2002. The Agreement provides that it shall be renewed on an annual basis unless either the Company or the Executive notifies the other party of his/her/its intent not to renew the Agreement
on or before October 31 (Section 2A. Term). 
  
 The Executive and the Company have
agreed to modify the terms of that Agreement as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 	(Section 2 Term.) 

  
 There shall be no one year term of employment and either the Executive or CuraGen may terminate employment with or without cause and with or without
notice. 
  

	 	2.	 	(Section 6. Disability or Death) 

  
 The Agreement provides that the Company may terminate the Agreement upon the Executive’s death or disability. 
  

	 	3.	 	(Section 10. Termination) 

  
 The Agreement provides that CuraGen may terminate the Agreement for performance reasons or for cause. 
  

	 	4.	 	(Section 10E and Section 12A. Benefits Upon Termination) 

  
 If the Company terminates the Executive’s employment because of performance reasons (as defined in Agreement), disability or death, or without cause,
the Executive or his/her estate shall receive benefits. The benefits are: (i) salary continuation at the salary the Executive was receiving at the time of termination; and (ii) the Executive’s continued participation (or in the case of death
the Executive’s family’s continued participation) in any employee health and welfare benefit to which the Executive was a participant prior to his termination on the same basis as the Executive had participated as an employee. The salary
continuation and continued participation in any health and welfare benefit plan shall be for twelve months from the date of termination of the Executive’s employment. Other than under Section 12 in the event of a Change of Control, the
Executive shall not be entitled to more than twelve (12) months of salary continuation and continued participation in any health or welfare benefit plan if the Executive’s employment is terminated for (1) performance reasons; (2) death; (3)
disability; or (4) without cause. 
  
 Unless explicitly changed in this Addendum,
all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

	
	
	/s/    Jonathan M. Rothberg
	

	Jonathan M. Rothberg


	
	
	/s/    Robert E. Patricelli
	

	Robert E. Patricelli
**R E P O R T   O N   A S S E S S M E N T   O F   C O M P L I A N C E   W I T H****1 1 2 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( v i ) ,    1 1 2 2 ( d ) ( 4 ) ( x i )   a n d    1 1 2 2 ( d ) ( 4 ) ( x i i )****o f   R E G U L A T I O N   A B   S E R V I C I N G   C R I T E R I A****F O R   T H E   R E P O R T I N G   P E R I O D****J A N U A R Y   1 ,   2 0 0 7   T O   D E C E M B E R   3 1 ,   2 0 0 7**American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") (collectively, the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing  activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities  transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "P latform Transactions"). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with 1122(d)(4)(xii). The Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period. **American Security Insurance Company Standard Guaranty Insurance Company TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.**(formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.") /s/ John Frobose By: John Frobose Senior Vice President Date: February 19, 2008
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION(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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended March 31, 2004 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the “Company”)as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) onthe date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski,President and Director of the Company, certify, that:**

 

**(1)****                                 ****the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and**

**(2)****                                 ****the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.**

 
| April 28, 2004 | /S/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI |   |
|---------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                | Walter E. Skowronski     |
|                | President and Director   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BoeingCapital Corporation and will be retained by Boeing Capital Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Michael Chandler WOLFE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         379,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               475,682
<PP&E>                                       8,774,620
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,845,985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,404,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          218,428
<BONDS>                                      6,357,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,171,115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,404,317
<SALES>                                      1,006,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,013,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  525,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               371,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (230,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (230,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (230,019)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (20.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (20.55)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

LETTER FROM INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIALINFORMATION

 

 

LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENTFOR REVIEW REPORT

 

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of

Boeing Capital Corporation

Seattle, Washington

 

We have made a review, in accordance with standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of theunaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation andsubsidiaries for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2004and 2003, as indicated in our report dated July 27, 2004 (which reportincluded an explanatory paragraph regarding a discontinued operation); becausewe did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above,which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2004, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-55846 and 333-83208 of Boeing Capital Corporation on Form S-3.

 

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Seattle, Washington           |
| July 27, 2004            |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA HARDCASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00777-VC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has been advised by the Notice of Settlement filed on August 24, 2017 that the 

parties have resolved this case. (Re: Dkt. No. 25). Therefore, it is ORDERED that this case is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. All deadlines and hearings in the case are vacated. Any 

pending motions are moot.

The parties retain the right to reopen this action within 60 days of this Order if the 

settlement is not consummated. If a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on 

opposing counsel within 60 days, the dismissal will be with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
Jonathan Huey LAWRENCE, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-8115.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

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






EXHIBIT 10.34

 

AGREEMENT 




This Agreement is made and dated as of March 31, 2003, between Cavalry Bancorp, Inc. ("Company"), Cavalry Banking ("Bank") and Edward Elam ("Director"). 




1.     Director hereby resigns as a director of the Company. Director acknowledges that his term of office as a director of Bank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, expired as of December 31, 2002. 




2.     Director hereby acknowledges receipt of payment of $10,000 as full and final satisfaction of any and all benefit payments or other amounts due or to become due pursuant to the Director Supplemental Retirement Plan Agreement ("Retirement Agreement") dated July 25, 2002, between Bank and Director, and neither Bank nor Company shall have any further liability under the Retirement Agreement or any other liability to Director in respect of his service as a director of Bank or Company. 




3.     Director and Company acknowledge and agree that Director holds stock options pursuant to the following schedule: 





	
 

 

Grant Date 
	
 
	
 

Options Granted 
	
 
	
 

Vested % at 3/31/03 
	
 
	
 

Vested Options at 3/31/03 
	
 
	
Options Ceasing

 to Vest at 3/31/03 

	


		


		


		


		



	
January 3, 2001 
	
 
	
8,077 
	
 
	
40% 
	
 
	
3,231 
	
 
	
4,846 

	
July 26, 2001 
	
 
	
8,077 
	
 
	
20% 
	
 
	
1,615 
	
 
	
6,462 

	
September 17, 2001 
	
 
	
16,151 
	
 
	
20% 
	
 
	
3,230 
	
 
	
12,922 







Director and Company acknowledge that Director’s vested options are exercisable until March 31, 2005 (following which time they will be void and of no further force and effect), and all unvested options are void and of no further effect from and after the date hereof. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 

 

 


	 	 	 
	 	
	 
 	 
 	 
 
		  	/s/Edward Elam
	 	



	 	Edward Elam




	 	 	 
	 	CAVALRY BANCORP, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
		By:  	 
	 	



	 	William S. Jones, EVP


	 	 	 
	 	CAVALRY BANKING
	 
 	 
 	 
 
		By:  	 
	 	



	 	William S. Jones, EVP
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN HENR

Y R YSKAM P, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-73059

Ta x C t. No. 8888-13 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. John He nry

R y ska m p a ppe a ls pro se from

the Tax C ourt’ s orde r dism issing his pe tition c ha lle n ging theC om m issione r of Inte rna l R e ve nue ’ s de te rm ination of tax de fic i e n c y

for tax y e ar 2010 for fa ilure to prose c ute . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7482(a )(1). W e re v ie w for an a buse of disc re tion, N

oli v
. 

# FIL ED JUN 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C

omm’r , 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th C ir. 1988), a nd we a ffirm . The Ta x C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing R y ska m p’ s pe tition for fa ilure to prose c ute be c a use R y ska m p fa ile d to a

ppe ar for tria l twic e and fa ile d to offe r any

e xc use for his a

bse nc e . Se e id . (noting “ dism i ssa l for fa ilure prope rly to prose c ute will norm a lly arise whe re a

pa rty fa ils to a ppe ar a t tria l” ); Ede lson v
. C omm’r , 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th C ir. 1987) (no a b use of disc re tion in dism issing pe tition where taxpa

y e r fa ile d to produc e re c ords, fa ile d to e nte r into a stipula tion of fa c ts, a nd fa ile d to a

ppe ar for tria l); se e also T.C . R . 123(b) (Tax C ourt m ay dism iss a c a se and e nte r a de c ision a ga inst a pe t itione r whe re the pe titione r fa ils to prose c ute or proc e e d a s re q uire d by the Tax C ourt), T.C . R . 149(a ) (Ta x C ourt m ay dism iss a c a se for fa ilure to prose c ute whe re the pe titione r’ s a bse nc e from

tria l is une xc use d). W e re je c t a s m e ritle ss R

y ska m p’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the Tax C ourt ille ga lly transfe rre d the a c tion to the Appe a ls Offic e . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 7 3 0 5 9 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not prec e dent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-40987

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LOUIS TYRONE GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-5-2

November 6, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Louis Tyrone Green appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distri bute cocai ne

base. He asserts that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not recommend-2-

at sentencing that his federal sentence run concurrent to any pending state sentences arising out of

the same facts giving rise to the federal prosecution.

While we review the question of whether the Government breached the plea agreement de

novo

, because Green did not obj ect t o the Government’s failure at sentencing, review is for plain

error. S ee U.S. v. Reeves

, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to establish plain error under

F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 52(b), a party must demonstrate (1) there was an error; (2) the error was clear and

obvious; and (3) the error affected the substantial rights of the appellant. U .S. v. Cerverizzo

, 74 F.3d

629, 631 (5th Cir. 1996). Assuming, a rguendo

, th at t he Go vernment’s failure to recommend

concurrent sentences was a clear and ob vio us error, Green still can not establish that this error

substantially affected his rights. First, at the time of sentencing, Green had no state sentence pending.

Second, after Green pleaded guilty and was sentenced in state court, the district court amended its

judgment to order that Green’s federal term of imprisonment run concurrent to his state term. As the

Government’s failure did not affect the outcom e of the proceeding, Green has failed to establish plain

error. S ee U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (stating that in most cases, in order to affect

substantial rights an error must affect the outcome of the proceeding).

Therefore, Green’s guilty-plea conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Aafia SIDDIQUI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9651.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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