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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CEQUELLA S. WHITT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-223-PPS-RBC

)

AW HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ANTHONY )

WAYNE SERVICES, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Roger B. Cosbey, recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff Cequella Whitt’s complaint for failure

to prosecute her claim and failure to comply with court orders [DE 32]. 

Whitt filed her complaint on July 29, 2013, alleging pregnancy discrimination and

retaliation [DE 1]. Whitt was represented by counsel at the time, and, through her counsel, she

amended her complaint and participated in a pretrial conference in November 2013 [DE 17, DE

22]. In December 2013, Whitt’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw [DE 23]. Judge Cosbey set

the matter for a hearing, instructing Whitt to be present in person, but Whitt failed to appear [DE

27; DE 28]. Judge Cosbey then granted the motion to withdraw and set the matter for a further

scheduling conference on February 28, 2014 [DE 29]. He ordered Whitt to be present in person

for the hearing and advised her that he could impose sanctions, including the dismissal of her

case, if she failed to appear. Id. Again, Whitt did not show up [DE 31]. In response, Judge

Cosbey issued a show cause order, giving Whitt until March 10, 2014 to explain why sanctions

should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(A). Id. Whitt did not file

a response, so, on March 11, 2014, Judge Cosbey issued a Report and Recommendation that
Whitt's case be dismissed for her “disregard for this Court’s orders and apparent disinterest in

pursuing this case”[DE 32 at 1]. Whitt has not responded or filed objections to the Report, as

she was instructed to do pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) [DE 32 at 4].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a court has discretion to dismiss an

action for failure to prosecute "when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or

when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing." Gabriel v. Hamlin , 514 F.3d 734,

736-37 (7th Cir. 2008). In addition, Rule 16(f) provides that a court, on its own motion, may

“issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party . . . fails

to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference . . . ” Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) authorizes the

court to dismiss an action, in whole or in part, as a sanction. Despite ample warnings, Whitt has

continued to fail to comply with court orders and appears to have abandoned her case. After a

review of the record, I accept Judge Cosbey’s recommendations and find that Whitt has failed to

prosecute her claim and to comply with court orders. Dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge's Recommendation [DE 32] is ACCEPTED, and the

matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 7, 2014

 s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of Record of Decision.

# SUMMARY:

On June 3, 2021, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement B-21 Main Operating Base (MOB) 1 Beddown at Dyess AFB, Texas or Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Ms. Julianne Turko, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, JBSA-Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236-9853, (210) 295-3777,                         *julianne.turko.1@us.af.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The DAF will beddown the B-21 MOB 1 under the USAF Global Strike Command at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. The B-21 MOB 1 beddown will include construction, demolition, and renovation of various facilities and infrastructure projects on Ellsworth AFB, including the construction of a Weapons Generation Facility (WGF) at the South WGF Site location. The DAF decision documented in the ROD was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, inputs from Native American Tribes, members of the public, and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on March 19, 2021 through a Notice of Availability in the                     **Federal Register**                     (Volume 86, Number 52, pages 14908-14909) with a waiting period that ended on April 19, 2021.                

Authority:                         This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,                         *et seq.*) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).                    

Adriane Paris,

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-12724 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
# C_2008254EN.01000101.xml

| 7.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5305 — Strabag/DeTe Immobilien)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 254/01)

On 25 September 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 German 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 32008M5305. 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 32008M5305. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Shomo, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), entered on March 31, 1983, unanimously affirmed, and defendant’s request for permission to file a supplemental brief in response to the respondent’s brief, and for other relief, denied in its entirety. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Milonas, JJ.
Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of City National Bancshares Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls or procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal
control; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:   May 12, 2008
    /s/Louis E. Prezeau(Signature)Louis E. Prezeau
Chief Executive Officer and President 17
PFS - 12.31.2014 EX 10.24






                                                                                                                               EXHIBIT 10.24




Written Description of Provident Financial Services, Inc.’s 
2015 Annual Cash Incentive Plan
    




2015 Cash Incentive Compensation Plan.  On January 29, 2015, the Company’s Board of Directors, on the recommendation of its Compensation Committee, approved an annual performance-based incentive plan for the payment of incentive cash compensation to certain officers and employees of The Provident Bank, the Company’s wholly owned savings bank subsidiary (the “Plan”), including senior executive officers.  The Plan provides for cash incentive payments based primarily on the Company’s 2015 financial performance compared with certain targets (the “Corporate Targets”).  Incentive Payments based on the Company’s 2015 financial performance may be made if the Company meets or exceeds 90% of any of the Corporate Targets (“Threshold”).  
For senior executive officers (including the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer), 100% of the incentive payment that may be made under the Plan will be based on the Company’s 2015 performance using the following Corporate Targets that relate to the Company’s business plan and strategic objectives: (i) earnings per share (weighted 40%); (ii) net income (weighted 40%); and (iii) efficiency ratio (weighted 20%).   
For other officers and employees eligible to participate in the Plan, a portion of the incentive payment that may be made under the Plan will be based on the Company’s 2015 performance using the same Corporate Targets.  A portion of the incentive payment will also be based on individual performance against personal goals and objectives, and may be paid whether or not Corporate Targets have been met.  
Incentive payments will be a percentage of the employee’s base salary.  Using estimated 2015 base salary levels and the current number of employees that could participate in the Plan (520 persons), the total cash incentive payments that may be made for 2015 would range from approximately $1.8 million at the Threshold level up to $13.3 million at the Maximum level.
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
| /s/                Antonio E. Turgeon                                   |   |   |        |
| Antonio                E. TurgeonChief                Executive Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                                         |   |   |        |
| February                14, 2007                                        |   |   |   |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
| /s/                Michael Handelman                                    |   |   |   |
| Michael                HandelmanChief                Financial Officer  |   |   |   |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
| February                14, 2007                                        |   |   |   |

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALFAYS LEE LANDIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2622

[March 7, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. 432015CF000626B, 432015CF000828A,

432015CF000830A and 432015CF000832A.

Alfays Lee Landis, Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NationalMercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of and forthe periods covered in the report.
|                       | /s/ DAVID R. BROWN      |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                       | David R. Brown          |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |
|                       |                    |
|                       |                    |
| Date: October 2, 2006 |                    |

 

----
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
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs







**Corn and Soybean Research Unit** USDA Corn and Soybean Research Unit group photo 2019 Corn and Soybean Virus Team


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
Exhibit 99.1
 DEBT COVENANT COMPLIANCE
AS OF JANUARY 31, 2010
 Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA:
 (in 000s)
    
    LTM(i)
    
    
    Q4 FY09
    
    
    Q1 FY10
    
    
    Q2 FY10
    
    
    Q3 FY10Net Loss
    
    $
    (13,067
    )
    
    $
    (4,471
    )
    
    $
    (8,546
    )
    
    $
    697
    
    
    $
    (747
    )Add Back:Depreciation and Amortization
    
    
    5,211
    
    
    
    1,133
    
    
    
    1,232
    
    
    
    1,361
    
    
    
    1,485Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
    
    
    (4,603
    )
    
    
    (1,950
    )
    
    
    (606
    )
    
    
    (923
    )
    
    
    (1,124
    )Interest Charges
    
    
    2,849
    
    
    
    943
    
    
    
    964
    
    
    
    474
    
    
    
    468Non-Cash Charges
    
    
    4,019
    
    
    
    1,492
    
    
    
    163
    
    
    
    622
    
    
    
    1,742Allowable Add backs Pursuant to Credit Facility Agreement, as amended
    
    
    10,054
    
    
    
    4,336
    
    
    
    5,698
    
    
    
    71
    
    
    
    (51
    )Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
    
    $
    4,463
    
    
    $
    1,483
    
    
    $
    (1,095
    )
    
    $
    2,302
    
    
    $
    1,773I. Consolidated Leverage RatioA. Total Long-Term Obligations and Notes Payable (ii)
    
    $
    5,602B. Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
    
    $
    4,463C. Consolidated Leverage Ratio (Line I.A ÷ Line I.B)
    
    
    1.26Maximum Permitted
    
    3.5x to 1II. Liquidity TestBook Value of Consolidated Accounts Receivable at 65%
    
    $
    23,958Book Value of Consolidated Inventory at 40%
    
    $
    8,812A.
    
    $
    32,770B. Total Long-Term Obligations and Notes Payable (ii)
    
    $
    5,602(Line II.A) must be greater than (Line II. B)
    
    YesIII. Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (i)A. Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA1 Consolidated Net Income
    
    $
    (13,067
    )2 Consolidated Interest Charges
    
    $
    2,8493 Provision for income taxes
    
    $
    (4,603
    )4 Depreciation expenses
    
    $
    4,8315 Amortization expenses
    
    $
    3806 Non-recurring non-cash reductions of Consolidated Net Income
    
    $
    4,0197 Allowable Add backs Pursuant to Credit Facility Agreement, as amended
    
    $
    10,0548 Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Lines III.A.1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7)
    
    $
    4,463B. Cash payments for taxes
    
    $
    547C. Maintenance Capital Expenditures
    
    $
    2,000D. Consolidated Interest Charges (except non-cash interest)
    
    $
    974E. Current portion of other long term debt (iii)
    
    $
    54F. Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio ((Line III.A.8 - Line III.B
 Line III.C) / (Line III.D + Line III.E)
    
    
    1.9Minimum required
    
    1.2x to 1
  
 (i)
    
    Last Twelve Months (Most Recent Four Fiscal Quarters)(ii)
    
    Includes letters of credit of $3.4 million and excludes subordinated debt(iii)
    
    Represents current portion of other long-term debt as of January 31, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Efrain Torres, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered August 11, 1983, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender.

Judgment affirmed.

On this appeal defendant argues that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to ascertain whether his plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. The issue was not preserved for review because defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment in the court of first instance *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). In any case, the plea colloquy was sufficient *{see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9,16). Defendant’s other contention is that the determination of his status for sentencing was erroneous, because the underlying prior conviction failed to meet the constitutional standards set forth in *Boykin v Alabama*(395 US 238). The plea minutes of the prior conviction, as well as defendant’s testimony during the persistent felony offender hearing, support a finding that the prior guilty plea was properly accepted *(see, People v Harris, supra).*Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
[No. 37870-8-I.

Division One.

September 2, 1997.]

#### Janet M. Moore, *Respondent,*v. John R. Higgenbottom, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-3-08658-5, Stephen M. Gaddis, J. Pro Tern., entered November 21, 1995. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Coleman and Grosse, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13813]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  86 FR 32993, June 
23, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, June 24, 
2021 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 
24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13813 Filed 6-24-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P