alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER L. SCRUGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-033 RLM

v. )

)

NURSE WEST, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The court referred the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to Magistrate

Judge Michael G. Gotsch. On June 2, 2017, he issued a report and recommendation, in

which he recommended that the motion be denied. The parties were informed that they

had fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation to file

any written objections. More than fourteen days have passed and no party filed any

objection. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the

failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge a report

and recommendation).

For these reasons, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF 67) of

the magistrate judge, and DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 61). 

SO ORDERED

ENTERED: June 28, 2017. /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
# L_2008162EN.01003001.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 162/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/30

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 5 June 2008

on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2008/469/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (‘the Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (‘the Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Greece submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by forest fires in August 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Greece submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by forest fires in August 2007.

| (5) | Slovenia submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding in September 2007, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Slovenia submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding in September 2007,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 98 023 212 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 5 June 2008.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

J. LENARČIČ

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. Agreement as last amended by Decision 2008/371/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 128, 16.5.2008, p. 8).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
[No. 15765-2-III.

Division Three.

September 25, 1997.]

#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, *Respondent,*v. Manuel Briones, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 94-2-01376-8, Robert N. Hackett, J., entered April 29, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Brown, J.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Bioenergy Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR Homepage
                    About BER
                        Mission Statement
                                    Strategic Goals
                                    Specialized Research ResourcesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Bioenergy Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  Researchers Enlist Sturdy Yeast to Help Make Cost-Effective EthanolAug 03, 2022Microbe with Taste for Stale Bread Finds Its CallingMay 19, 2020Boosting Butanol's Role in the Biofuel WorldNov 14, 2014Studies Steadily Advance Cellulosic Ethanol ProspectsOct 14, 2014Using Tree Tannins to Target Manure OdorJun 16, 2014


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**Exhibit21**

J.L. Halsey Corporation

SUBSIDIARIES
| **Subsidiary**              | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|-----------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| Commodore Resources, Inc.   |       | Nevada                            |
| NC Holdings, Inc.           |       | Nevada                            |
| Admiral Management Company  |       | Delaware                          |
| Lyris Technologies, Inc.    |       | Delaware                          |
| Uptilt, Inc.                |       | Delaware                          |
| ClickTracks Analytics, Inc. |       | California                        |
| Hot Banana Software, Inc.   |       | Ontario, Canada                   |

 

----
#### BROWN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Charles W. Brown against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 1121; 43 N. Y. Supp. 1151; and 44 N. Y. Supp. 1112.
BGC-2014 10K_EX 10.6.1




GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE OFFICER SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN


AMENDMENT #1


WHEREAS, the General Cable Corporation Executive Officer Severance Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) is maintained by GK Technologies, Incorporated (the “Company”) for the benefit of certain senior executives of the General Cable Corporation (“GCC”) and its adopting affiliates;
WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended by a written instrument executed by the President of the Company and approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of GCC; and
WHEREAS, GCC and the Company desire to amend the Plan to provide that, effective as of August 1, 2014, no additional employees shall be eligible to participate in the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan shall be hereby amended effective as of August 1, 2014 as follows:
		
	1.
	A new Section 2.03 shall be added to the Plan which shall state the following:


“No Additional Eligible Employees.  Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, an employee of GCC or an Affiliate who is hired, or first promoted, into a position of Executive Vice President or above on or after August 1, 2014 shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan.”


		
	2.
	Except as set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


		
	3.
	Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the President of the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the 19th day of December, 2014.
                	
			
	GK TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED 

	 
	 
	 

	By
	/s/ Gregory B. Kenny  

	 
	Gregory B. Kenny

	 
	President





1
[No. 39359-6-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### Gregory H. Kirsch, et al., *Appellants,*v. The Department of Natural Resources, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 96-2-00349-5, Stanley K. Bruhn, J., entered August 15, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL EUGENE HOLLOMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00246-WO-1; 1:18-cv00390-WO-LPA)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Eugene Holloman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7670 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Eugene Holloman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Holloman’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Holloman’s informal brief,

we conclude that Holloman has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see 

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7670 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.51 1 3 15






Exhibit 10.51


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2008)
WHEREAS, Advance Auto Parts, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (the “Company”), sponsors the Advance Auto Parts, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) to allow eligible Team Members to elect to defer the receipt and taxation of a portion of their compensation; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Company to amend the Plan clarify that a Participant’s election to extend the commencement of payment from the Participant’s account under the Plan may be revoked prior to the election deadline.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Section 5.8(d) of the Plan is amended to read as prescribed below, effective as of January 1, 2014.
Section 5.8    Extension of Specified Time Deferral Period.  Section 3.5(b) of the Plan permits a Participant to select a Deferral Period of a stated period of calendar years (i.e., a “Specified Time Deferral Period”).  In this connection, a Participant shall be permitted to extend a Specified Time Deferral Period with respect to a Deferral Account, subject to the conditions set forth below.
*    *    *
‎(d)‎    Any election to extend a Specified Time Deferral Period must be made at least 12 months ‎prior to the designated payment date (as prescribed in Section 5.5(a)) for the first ‎scheduled payment from the applicable Deferral Account.‎  A deferral extension election may be modified or revoked prior to such deadline date.  If not modified or revoked, the election will generally become irrevocable as of such deadline date.
*    *    *
Pursuant to the authority granted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Advance Auto Parts, Inc., the undersigned hereby executes this Advance Auto Parts, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan on behalf of Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 




ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.


By:____________________________________    
Tammy M. Finley
Senior Vice President, Human Resources




Dated: __________________________, 2014
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ANTHONY WAYNE CORPORATION, ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1406

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ELCO INDUSTRIES, INC., ELCO TEXTRON, )

INC. F/K/A ELCO INDUSTRIES, )

TINNERMAN PALNUT, INC., and )

A. RAYMOND TINNERMAN )

MANUFACTURING, INC. )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS ELCO INDUSTRIES, INC.’S AND ELCO TEXTRON, INC.’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Elco Industries, Inc.

and Elco Textron, Inc. (collectively “Elco Industries”) move to dismiss all of Plaintiff Anthony

Wayne Corporation’s Amended Complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted. Elco Industries has filed simultaneously with this Motion a Memorandum in Support

of Defendants Elco Industries, Inc.’s and Elco Textron, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss.

WHEREFORE, Elco Industries requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for all other

appropriate relief.

case 3:13-cv-01406-PPS-CAN document 33 filed 05/08/14 page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Frank J. Deveau_________________

Frank J. Deveau, Atty. No. 4692-49

Michael D. Chambers, Atty. No. 21573-06

Melissa A. Gardner, Atty. No. 29920-49

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

One Indiana Square, Suite 3500

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Phone: (317) 713-3500

Fax: (317) 713-3699

Attorneys for Defendant Elco Textron, Inc.

and Defendant Elco Industries, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 8, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of

record.

s/ Frank J. Deveau__

2121791.2

case 3:13-cv-01406-PPS-CAN document 33 filed 05/08/14 page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KEVIN FULMORE, SR., 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D23-650

LT Case No. 2008-CF-027949-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed May 16, 2023

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County, 

Samuel Bookhardt, Judge.

Kevin Fulmore, Sr., Mayo, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., SOUD and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-128582 and333-136151) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-155804, No. 333-134924, No. 333-103977and 333-125445), of Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd., of our report dated February 27,2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

Hamilton, Bermuda

February 27,2009

 

----
[No. 38652-2-I.

Division One.

September 29, 1997.]

#### Howard G. McKinnon, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 93-2-05719-7, Paul D. Hansen, J., entered April 18, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Troy Woodbury,  Jr., the Chief  Financial  Officer of Wegener  Corporation
(the "Company"),  in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  hereby certify that, to the
best of my  knowledge,  the  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the
quarter ended  February 28, 2003 (the  "Report")  filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission:

     o    fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                        /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.

                                        NAME:  C. TROY WOODBURY, JR.
                                        TITLE: TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER)
                                        DATE:  APRIL 10, 2003
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2016039DE.01006301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.2.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 39/63 |

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2008/120/EG des Rates vom 18. Dezember 2008 über Mindestanforderungen für den Schutz von Schweinen (kodifizierte Fassung)

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 47 vom 18. Februar 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_047_R_TOC)
)

Seite 10, Anhang I Kapitel I Nummer 3:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „— | Zugang zu einem größen- und temperaturmäßig angemessenem Liegebereich haben, ...“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „— | Zugang zu einem physisch und temperaturmäßig angenehmen Liegebereich haben, ...“ |

---
# C_2008070EN.01000901.xml

| 15.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4945 — Arcelor/OFZ)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 70/04)

On 25 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4945. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4945. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                        Certification of CFO 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 10Q of Information Resources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Andrew G. Balbirer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Andrew G. Balbirer
------------------------------------
Andrew G. Balbirer
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### FERGUSON v. R. H. SELLERS CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by John Ferguson, Jr., against the R. H. Sellers Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See', also, supra.