alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: January 14, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2474]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ja99-35]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, February 1, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-955 Filed 1-12-99; 1:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX ========**

----
Ex-10.6



 






Exhibit 10.6




AMENDMENT TO

CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT, made the 17th day of August, 2005, by CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the
“Company”), a North Carolina corporation with its principal office at Concord, North
Carolina, and Michael Nash (“Employee”), an employee of the Company.



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have previously entered into a Change in Control
Agreement dated December 29, 1998 (the “Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide that any Compensation
payable to the Employee under the terms of the Agreement shall be paid in the form of a
single lump sum.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms contained herein, the Employee’s
employment with the Company, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Employee agree that the
Agreement shall be and hereby is amended by deleting Section IA and substituting therefor
the following:



“A. If a Change in Control (as defined in Section IA(iii) hereof) occurs and if, within
two years following the Change in Control, the employment of the Employee is terminated (A)
by the Company other than for Cause (as defined in Section IA(i) hereof), or (B) by the
Employee for Good Reason (as defined in Section IA(ii) hereof), an amount equal to the
Employee’s Compensation (as defined in Section IA(iv) hereof), less applicable withholdings,
shall be paid by the Company to the Employee in a single lump sum within 30 days of
termination of the Employee’s employment under circumstances entitling the Employee to
Compensation hereunder.”



Except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto effective as
of the day and year first above stated.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ RICHARD L. GARNER, JR.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	     Richard L. Garner, Jr.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ MICHAEL R. NASH
	 	(Seal)
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Michael R. Nash
	 	 






42
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

d0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140900

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140900 COA: 288798 Washtenaw CC: 08-000492-FC SHANNON FRENCH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Federal Register: August 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 44260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20au97-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 12, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-22158 Filed 8-18-97; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, 2016-Ohio-5914.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORD. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5914.] 

(No. 2011-2042—Submitted September 16, 2016—Decided September 22, 2016.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, George Cook Ford III, Attorney 

Registration No. 0011982, last known address in Norwalk, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 5, 2012, 

wherein the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended 

respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years with six months stayed 

on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and 

with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, 133 Ohio St.3d 

105, 2012-Ohio-3915, 976 N.E.2d 846. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

________________________
```

[Federal Register: March 1, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 12929]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01mr01-46]


[[Page 12929]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, March 9, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-5049 Filed 2-27-01; 11:04 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14607]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242-0280b; FRL-6991-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey 
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Monterey Bay 
Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the 
control of emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (Nox) and sulfur compounds. 
We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emissions 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATE: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revision 
at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Rule Development, 
24580 Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey, CA 93940-6536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office 
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local 
rule: MBUAPCD 404, Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides. In the Rules 
and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving this 
local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we 
believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse 
comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct 
final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this 
proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so 
anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not 
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further 
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 8, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-14607 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 566.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*McIlvaine et al., Trustees.

November 11, 1935.

*Solicitor General Reed*for petitioner.

*Mr. Clay Judson*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit grafted.
Mr. Roy A. Lavik 

Inspector General 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21 51 Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

March 27, 2013 

Subject: Report on the Quality Assessment Review of the Investigative Operations of the Office of 

Inspector General for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dear Mr. Lavik: 

We have reviewed the system of internal safeguards and management procedures for the investigative 

function of the Office of Inspector General for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 

effect for the period ending January 31, 2013. Our review was conducted in conformity with the Qualit

Standards for Investigations and the Quality Assessment Review Guidelines adopted by the Council of 

the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). 

y 

We reviewed compliance with the CFTC OIG's system of internal policies and procedures to the extent 

we considered appropriate. The review was conducted at the headquarters office in Washington, DC. 

Additionally, we reviewed the case file for the one investigation conducted by the CFTC OIG during the 

previous 12-month period. 

In our opinion, the system of internal safeguards and management procedures for the investigative 

function ofthe CFTC OIG in effect for the year ended January 31, 2013, is compliant with the quality 

standards adopted by CIGIE. These safeguards and procedures provide reasonable assurance of 

conforming with professional standards in the conduct of its investigations. 

We have attached your comments based on our draft report. 

#JJ~ Scott Wilson 

Inspector General 

Federal Trade Commission 
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 

Office of the 

Inspector General 

Scott Wilson, Inspector General 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-511 0 

Facsimile: (202) 418-5522 

March 26, 2013 

Subject: Draft Report on the Quality Assessment Review of the Investigative 

Operations of the OHice oflnspector General for the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

2~-:xr-- Dear Mr.Witsorr. 

Thank you for reviewing the system of internal safeguards and management procedures 

for the investigative function of my Office. We are pleased with the report, which concluded 

that the safeguards and procedures employed by my Office "provide reasonable assurance of 

conforming with professional standards in the conduct" of our investigations. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 418-5110. 

A. Roy Lavik 

Inspector General
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Globalstar Telecommunications Limited for the year ended
December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 482,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,679
<BONDS>                                        300,358    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   482,676
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 20, 2019 t0313

Order 

Clerk

March 20, 2019

157991 & (96)

In re CHURCHILL/BELINSKI, Minors. SC: 157991

COA: 337790

Clare CC Family Div: 

 16-000046-NA

_________________________________________/

By order of November 16, 2018, this Court directed the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application relating to the minor child, OTC. This Court also reversed 

the March 15, 2018 Court of Appeals judgment in part and vacated the Clare Circuit 

Court’s February 17, 2017 order of adjudication and March 15, 2017 order of disposition 

as they pertained to the minor children SLB and JWC. In lieu of oral argument on the 

application, the parties have now filed a joint motion to vacate the circuit court’s orders 

of adjudication and disposition and the Court of Appeals judgment as to the minor child, 

OTC, and to remand this case to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss without 

prejudice the petition against the respondent as to all three children. 

On order of the Court, the motion is GRANTED. We VACATE those parts of the 

March 15, 2018 Court of Appeals judgment and the Clare Circuit Court’s orders of 

adjudication and disposition pertaining to the minor child, OTC, and we REMAND this 

case to the Clare Circuit Court, which shall dismiss without prejudice the petition against 

the respondent as to all three children. 

The application for leave to appeal as it pertains to the minor child, OTC, is 

DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
# FCM Data September 2012

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF September 30,&KFF0000 &K0000002012FROM REPORTS FILED BY October 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002012	&P of &N
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: EDWARD A. COX JR. AND GEORGE F. FREY JR. 

CITATION: 1978 CFTC LEXIS 174; 1978 WL 10787 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-16; 192 

DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1978 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER GRANTING STAY 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 192 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: EDWARD A. COX, JR., AND GEORGE F. FREY, JR. 

CFTC Docket No. 75-16 

ORDER GRANTING STAY 

On February 23, 1978, respondents Edward A. Cox, Jr. and George F. Frey, Jr. 

filed an application for Interlocutory Commission review and a request for a 

stay pending appeal pursuant to Section 10.101 of the Commission's Rules of 

Practice. Respondents seek review of the February 22, 1978 order of 

Administrative Law Judge George H. Painter denying respondents' motions to 

disqualify Judge Painter and to stay the commencement of a hearing in this case 

which is presently scheduled to commence in Chicago, Illinois on February 28, 

1978. On February 24, 1978, the Division of Enforcement filed a response to the 

request for a stay. Noting its reluctance, given the "overly ripe" status of 

this case, the Division consented nonetheless. The Division also indicated that 

it was unable to prepare an adequate response to respondents' application for 

interlocutory review within the short time remaining before the commencement of 

the hearing. 

The Commission shares the Division's concern over the age of this case (which 

is predicated upon allegations of attempted manipulation and manipulation of the 

May 1971 wheat futures contract traded on the Chicago Board of Trade). However, 

the issues raised in respondents' application for interlocutory review are not 

susceptible 

of disposition before February 28, 1978, the date set for commencement of the 

hearing, especially in the absence of a response to the application by the 

Division. The timing of respondents' request, the nature of the issues raised, 

and the Division's consent to the stay lead us to conclude that respondents' 

request for a stay of the proceedings before Judge Painter should be granted. 

This will afford the Division an opportunity to respond to the application for 

interlocutory review in accordance with the time frame set forth in Section 

10.101(b)(3) and will provide an opportunity for a considered judgment by the 

Commission on the questions raised. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding is hereby stayed until 

further Older of the Commission, pending Commission consideration of 

respondents' application for Interlocutory review. 

By the Commission pursuant to Senior Commissioner Authority (Commissioner 

SEEVERS). 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Gary L. Seevers 

Senior Commissioner pursuant to 

17 C.F.R. § 140.11 

41 Fed. Reg. 28473 (July 12, 1976) 

Dated: February 24, 1978 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 3
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Rebecca R. Stover v. Keystone Builders, Inc., et al.

March 11, 1992

Case No. (Law) 107731

By Judge F. Bruce Bach

This matter is before the Court on defendant Fairfax County Water Authority’s (FCWA) Motion for Summary Judgment. Oral argument was heard on February 21, 1992. The Court took the matter under advisement.

FCWA has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming sovereign immunity. Stover claims that FCWA does not enjoy the sovereign immunity applied to counties because it is not an arm of the Commonwealth but a self-supporting corporation.

The issue is whether FCWA can be classified as an arm of the Commonwealth entitled to sovereign immunity. In *Prendergast*v. *Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority,*227 Va. 190 (1984), the Court held that the Park Authority, established under the Park Authorities Act, was not an arm of the Commonwealth enjoying sovereign immunity. The Court stated that:

> The correct approach is the one we have long employed in the Commonwealth: the attributes of the particular entity which seeks immunity must be examined to determine whether it is an “arm” of the Commonwealth.

*Id.*at 194. The Court used this approach in the earlier case of *VEPCO v. Hampton Redevelopment Authority,*217 Va. 30 (1976), where the Court held that a municipal housing authority, created under the Housing Authorities law, was not entitled to sovereign immunity for negligence in the operation and maintenance of a housing project under its control. In *Prendergast*and *VEPCO*the *197Court examined how the authority came into existence and, once in existence, how the authority was managed. The *Prendergast*Court did not, as FCWA suggests, deny the Park Authority immunity because of the status of the creating locality.

The Park Authorities Act (Code § 15.1-1228 *et seq.)*and the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Code § 15.1-1239 *et seq.)*provide for optional local activation and control, subject to statutory limitations. Indeed both Acts provide:

> Each authority created hereunder shall be deemed to be an instrumentality exercising public and essential governmental functions to provide for the public health and welfare .. .

Code §§ 15.1-1232 and 15.1-1250. The language used in the statutes enabling the creation of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and the Fairfax County Water Authority are virtually indistinguishable. As in *Prendergast,*FCWA was not directly created by the Commonwealth but is a creature of the County of Fairfax and is essentially subject to local control. Applying the “arm” of the Commonwealth test, the Motion for Summary Judgment based on sovereign immunity is denied.
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 of Biozone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roberto Prego-Novo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  May 23, 2011





/s/ Roberto Prego-NovoRoberto Prego-Novo

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)