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

        11 August 2022    

                    USS Indiana Sailor proposes on the pier after deployment                 
                GROTON, Conn. - Petty Officer 2nd Class Andrew Frable was away from his beloved for more than six months while deployed aboard USS Indiana (SSN 789). When he returned to her Wednesday, he asked her for a lifetime together.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Exhibit 10.1


 


Supplement
Agreement To The Acquisition Agreement


 


Contract
No: HB-2019-12-16


 


Transferor:
Hebei Tengsheng Paper Co.,Ltd (“Party A”)


Transferee:
Hebei Baoding Dongfang Paper Milling Co.,Ltd (“Party B”)


 


On
June 25, 2019, the two parties entered into The Acquisition Agreement, Contract No: HB-2019-06-25 (“The original agreement”).
Through friendly negotiation, the two parties hereby enter into the following Supplement Agreement:


 


		1.	Basic
                                         Information of Acquisition



 


The
basic conditions and relevant rights and obligations of The Original Agreement shall remain unchanged and valid.


 


		2.	Payment
                                         Terms 



 


		1)	By
                                         consensus and agreement of two parties, the payment shall be in cash.



 


		2)	The
                                         original payment term is extended. Party B shall pay all the payments off no later than
                                         December 31, 2021 unless further agreement reached. The acquisition shall be deemed completed
                                         upon full payment.



 


		3.	Others



 


		1)	The
                                         Supplement Agreement is an integral part of The Original Agreement. It is complementary
                                         to The Original Agreement with the same legal effect. In case of any conflict between
                                         the contents, the supplement Agreement shall prevail.



 


		2)	The
                                         Supplement Agreement shall come into force on the date of execution.



 


		3)	The
                                         Original Agreement and The Supplement Agreement may be amended, supplemented, modified
                                         or terminated upon mutual agreement. Such amendment, supplement or modification shall
                                         be made in writing and shall come into force on the date of execution.



 


(Signatures
follow)


 






     


     


    

 


(Below
is the signature page for the Supplement Agreement To The Acquisition Agreement)


 


Hebei
Tengsheng Paper Co.,Ltd 


 


Legal
Representative 


 


Entrusted
Representative 


 


Date:
December 16, 2019


 


Hebei
Baoding Dongfang Paper Milling Co.,Ltd


 


Legal
Representative 


 


Entrusted
Representative 


 


Date:
December 16, 2019
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment no.1 to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Arden Group, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report,
 Date:
    April 30, 2007

    
    
    /s/ BERNARD BRISKINSignature:
    
    Bernard BriskinTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Rock-TennCompany of our reports dated November 17, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Rock-Tenn Company, Rock-Tenn Company management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Rock-Tenn Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended September 30, 2006.(i) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-77237) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn Company 1993Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company 1993 EmployeeStock Option Plan, the Rock-TennCompany 1988 Stock Option Plan and the Rock-Tenn Company 1987 Stock Option Plan;(ii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-83304) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn Company 1993Employee Stock Option Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Rock-TennCompany Incentive Stock Option Plan, and the Rock-Tenn Company 1987 Stock Option Plan;(iii) the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-62338) of Rock-Tenn Company pertaining to theregistration of $300,000,000 of debt securities;(iv) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-104870) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn CompanySupplemental Retirement Savings Plan;(v) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113212) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn Company 1993Employee Stock Purchase Plan;(vi) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62346) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn Company 1993Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2000 Incentive Stock Plan, and the Rock-Tenn Company 2004Incentive Stock Plan;(vii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122745) pertaining to the Rock-Tenn Company 2004Incentive Stock Plan; and(viii) the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-133986) of Rock-Tenn Company pertaining to theregistration of $500,000,000 of debt securities, Preferred Stock andClass A Common Stock.                                                                                                                     Ernst & Young LLPAtlanta, Georgia
[Cite as State v. Hanley, 2017-Ohio-425.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 CLERMONT COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-07-054 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 2/6/2017 

 : 

ROBERT MICHAEL HANLEY, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 2016 CR 00122 

Vincent D. Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South 

Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee 

Christine D. Tailer, P.O. Box 14, Georgetown, Ohio 45121, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Robert Hanley, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 
Clermont CA2016-07-054 

predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11064]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AGENCY

[Notice 01-055]


Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before June 
4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and 
Budget; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Kaplan, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1372.
    Reports: None.
    Title: AST--Technology Utilization.
    OMB Number: 2700-0009.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: NASA is required to collect, and NASA contractors/
recipients performing research and development are required to actively 
search for, identify, and report promptly, all new technologies (i.e., 
``inventions, discoveries, improvements, and innovations'') resulting 
from work performed under such contracts and agreements.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 372.
    Responses Per Respondent: 2.5.
    Annual Responses: 930.
    Hours Per Request: \3/4\ to 1 hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 895.
    Frequency of Report: Annually.

David B. Nelson,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, Office of the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-11064 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, T. Kendall Hunt, certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|                                                              
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|August 3, 2012                                                



38
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

JOSE VELESACA (AND WIFE, MARCIOLINA 

VELESACA) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION OF 

AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

37 BENEFITS TRUST FUND, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 1545 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants BFP Tower C Co. LLC, BFP 

Tower C MM LLC, and WFP Retail Co. L.P. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as 

and for their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (CheckOff Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, 

hereby adopt the Brookfield Parties' Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated 

October 16, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-01545-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

October Ijt 2007 

Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee, LLP 

By~s/Wil$am ~T~'Le~iithl(~LJ~-9137) 

AftornevS for the Brookfield Parties 

Tvbio Recfor Street, 20.t", Floor 

NY 10006 ' ' 

(212) 363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-01545-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved off-track wagering Tribal-State compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall publish in the Federal Register, notice of approved 
Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming 
activities on Indian lands. The Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian 
Affairs (Management), Department of the Interior, through his delegated 
authority, has approved the Tribal-State Compact between the Absentee 
Shawnee Tribe and the State of Oklahoma, which was executed on March 
28, 2001.

DATES: This action is effective May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 
20240, (202) 219-4066.

    Dated: May 1, 2001.
James H. McDivitt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (Management).
[FR Doc. 01-11418 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11462]



[[Page 23311]]

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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice with respect to List of Countries Denying Fair Market 
Opportunities for Government-Funded Airport Construction Projects

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice with respect to a list of countries denying fair market 
opportunities for products and suppliers of the United States in 
airport construction procurements.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement 
Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade 
Representative (``USTR'') has determined not to include any countries 
on the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. 
products, supplies, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport 
construction projects.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Office of United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ellis, Director of Government 
Procurement Issues, (202) 395-3063; or Melida Hodgson, Associate 
General Counsel, (202) 395-3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 533 of the Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and 
Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223 
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (``the Act''), requires USTR to decide by 
May 1, 2001, whether any foreign countries have denied fair market 
opportunities to U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection 
with airport construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded 
in whole or in part by the governments of such countries. This first of 
such countries must be published in the Federal Register. For the 
purposes of the Act, USTR has decided not to include any countries on 
the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. 
products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport 
construction projects.

Robert B. Zoellick,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 01-11462 Filed 5-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2229

WILLIAM C. PRINGLE, SR.; LISA PRINGLE, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; WELLS FARGO BANK NA; BOB CAPES REALTORS; FANNIE MAE; FREDDIE MAC, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cv-04146-JFA)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Pringle, Sr., Lisa Pringle, Appellants Pro Se. Matthew Douglas Patterson, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Catharine Garbee Griffin, BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Preston Wood, ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William C. Pringle, Sr., and Lisa Pringle appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defend ants’ motions to dismiss, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment, and dismissing as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction and Defendant Bob Cape Realtors’ motion to sever. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pringle v. EMC Mortgage Corp. , No. 3:08-cv-04146-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### LITT, Respondent, v. EMERY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

July 27, 1894.)

Appeal from special term, Kings county. Application by Jonas Litt for mandamus to compel Z. Taylor Emery, M. D., as commissioner of the department of health of the city of Brooklyn, to restore petitioner to the position of meat inspector. Alexander H. Van Cott, for appellant. Blanchard, Gay *&*Phelps (Joseph G. Gay, of counsel), for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus, requiring the commissioner of the department of health of the city of Brooklyn to restore Jonas Litt to the position of meat inspector in that department. Our conclusion is that the order should be affirmed, on the opinion of the judge who made it.
Clear All

        14 February 2024    

                    Navy SEALs Forge Alliance with Cypriot Navy Underwater Demolition Team in Eastern Mediterranean                 
                In a constant demonstration of partnership in the Eastern Mediterranean, U.S. East Coast-based Naval Special Warfare Operators (SEALs) and Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen (SWCC) collaborated with Cypriot Navy Underwater Demolition Team (MYK) partners Jan. 22 – Feb. 14, 2024, refining their            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### PEOPLE v. SILVERMAN et al.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

June 4, 1894.)

Motion by Louis Silverman, principal, and Jacob Timble, surety, to vacate judgment entered on ;& forfeited recognizance.

No opinion. Motion granted.
#### In the Matter of Donna G., Respondent, v Gloria G., Appellant.

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered January 31, 1989, as, after a hearing, transferred custody of a 12-year-old child from her maternal grandmother to her mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Christina D., who is 12 years old, has been living with the respondent, her maternal grandmother, since she was an infant. Her mother, the petitioner, who is currently married and living with her husband and Christina’s half sister, seeks custody of Christina. The instant custody proceeding is one of several between the parties. The first was commenced in 1982.

The record supports a finding that the petitioner surrendered custody of Christina to the respondent. There is no indication that the petitioner showed any interest in the welfare of her daughter between the time that she relinquished custody until the time she first commenced custody proceedings, a period of approximately three years. Under *559these circumstances, an inquiry must be made as to whether the interests of Christina would best be served if her custody is awarded to her mother or if it is to remain with her grandmother *(Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543; *see, Matter of Male Infant L.,*61 NY2d 420).

It is apparent that the Family Court gave the proper weight to the evidence presented, used the appropriate determinative factors and properly found that it would be in Christina’s best interest to be in the custody of her mother *(see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167). Although not determinative, it is important to note that Christina expressed the clear, unequivocal and uncoerced desire to be with her mother, a factor that is some indication of what is in the child’s best interest *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173, *supra).*Moreover, it is apparent that Christina’s emotional and intellectual development would best be served by her residence in the relatively tranquil home environment of her mother and stepfather *(see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946, 947, *supra).*In particular, we note that the child’s psychotherapist, called as a witness by the grandmother, testified that the grandmother’s household was "particularly stressful”. These factors, when considered in the totality of the circumstances of this case, support the conclusion that custody with the petitioner would be in the best interest of Christina *(see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89). Accordingly, the determination of the Family Court should not be disturbed. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Spatt, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.