alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22375]



[[Page 68448]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7995-6]


A&H Sales Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Settlement for Recovery of Past Response Costs.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has offered a cost recovery Settlement at the 
A&H Sales Superfund Site located in Tampa, Hillsborough County, 
Florida. EPA will consider comments on the settlement until December 
12, 2005. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement 
should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate 
the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. 
Copies of the proposed settlement is available from: Ms. Paula V. 
Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund 
Enforcement and Information Management Branch, Waste Management 
Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. (404) 562-
8887. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d092b1a4b3b8b5bcbfa2fea0b1a5bcb190b5a0b1feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="612300150209040d0e134f1100140d00210411004f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written or e-mail comments may be submitted to Paula V. Batchelor 
at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.

    Dated: October 24, 2005.
Rosalind H. Brown,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement and Information Management Branch, Waste 
Management Division.
[FR Doc. 05-22375 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### WALKER E. MORRISON (AMENDED TO MABEL MORRISON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WALKER E. MORRISON, DECEASED), PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLIAM H. RUSSELL COMPANY, OR WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued January 19, 1932

Decided April 8, 1932.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

Por the plaintiff-respondent, *Ward <& McGinnis.*

Por the defendant-appellant, *Nicholas Martini.*

Pee Curiam.

The plaintiff had judgment for $304.31 in the Passaic District Court. The case was tried before the court without a jury. The action was for salesman’s commissions alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff’s husband in his lifetime. The court allowed commissions at the rate of twenty-five per cent, on the gross sales. The plaintiff’s proofs showed that the deceased was to be paid twenty per cent, commissions on goods sold by him and an extra five per cent, was- to be paid for fair and honest dealing. However, the case is entirely barren of affirmative proof of fair and honest dealing; hence it was error to allow the extra five per cent, commission.

The plaintiff, as before indicated, sued in a representative capacity. She did not testify to any transaction with or *489statement by her intestate bearing upon the issues involved. 2 *Comp. 8tal., p.*2218. She did call the defendant to prove the contract and the amount due thereunder to her intestate, and did testify to a conversation which she had with the defendant after her husband’s death. This, however, did not open the door to the defendant to prove conversation which he claimed to have had with the deceased. Hence, the ruling by the learned trial judge upon evidence offered was correct.

We find no merit in the other points submitted.

The judgment below will be reversed so far forth as there is included therein commission for the extra five per cent., not proved to have been earned.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed in the sum of $70.14, the balance found after deducting from the recovery below five per cent, of the total sale receipts in question.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.86

                        FORM OF TRANSACTION BONUS LETTER

To:    [Name]
From:  Thomas C. Shull
Date:  November __, 2002

Dear _____,

This is to confirm that you shall be granted a transaction bonus equal to __%
of your annualized base salary upon the occurrence of a Change of Control.
"Change of Control" is defined in the Hanover Direct, Inc. Key Executive
Eighteen Month Compensation Continuation Plan effective as of April 25, 2001,
as amended (the "Plan"). This bonus, payable in one lump sum on the date of
closing of any transaction which constitutes a Change of Control, will be paid
to you only if you are actively employed by the Company on the date the Change
of Control occurs. Your voluntary termination or an involuntary termination for
cause will cancel this obligation, the transaction bonus becoming null and
void.

Any dispute arising from this Agreement will be settled through binding
arbitration, by an arbitrator mutually acceptable to the parties.

         HANOVER DIRECT, INC.                          Accepted by:

         By:_________________________________          _________________________
               Thomas C. Shull, Chairman,              [Name]
               President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:07-cr-00352-PAC     Document 11      Filed 08/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00352-PAC     Document 11      Filed 08/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### BOARD OF EDUCATION v. LAMM

No. 2 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 656.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 February 1970.
#### BEVERAGES, INC. v. CITY OF NEW BERN

No. 7 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 632.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 February 1970.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000052617
<NAME> IRWIN FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          41,456
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,196
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     16,937
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          52,616
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            52,949
<LOANS>                                        575,983
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,161,735
<DEPOSITS>                                     613,713
<SHORT-TERM>                                   359,513
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             56,383
<LONG-TERM>                                     19,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,965
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,161,735
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 37,858
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,617
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                23,374
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                64,849
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,469
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,894
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           35,486
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,774
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                117,405
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,135
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,135
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.67<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .05<F1>
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,772
<LOANS-PAST>                                       793
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,620
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,442
<RECOVERIES>                                       353
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,111
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,111
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,419
<FN>
<F1>information not in 1,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7425

MICHAEL EDWARD BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus H. L. BUNCH, individually and in his officialcapacity as Police Chief; J. L. SPEAR, individually and in official capacity as Police Lieutenant; MARK BYRUM, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; ALFREDSANDERLIN, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; JAMIE LACOMBE, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; MALCOLM MOURING, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; AUBREYNMI SAMPLE, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; RICKY KING, individually and in official capacity as Police Officer; ROGER JONES, individually and in official capacity as Police Sergeant; KEITH TEAGUE; ELIZABETH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ELIZABETH CITY; SAM KEITH, individually and in official capacity as Deputy, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-15-2-BO) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 9, 19992 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Neil Lewis, BAKER, JENKINS, JONES & DALY, P.A., Ahoskie, North Carolina; David Keith Teague, Danny Ray Glover, Jr., Elizabeth City, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Michael E. Brooks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights and state law claims complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. Bunch , No. CA-98-15-2-BO (E.D.N.C.Sept. 4, 1998). We deny Appellee Keith Teague’s motions for summary affirmance and damages and costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38. 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
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 69360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22579]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). The committee serves as a 
deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United States on 
technical, mission, and service issues related to the Electronic 
Records Archives (ERA). This includes, but is not limited to, advising 
and making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the 
development, implementation, and use of the ERA system.
    Date of Meeting: November 30, 2005.
    Time of Meeting: 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Place of Meeting: 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 
20408-0001.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Electronic 
Records Archives Program at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f7a6d7e316f6d70786d7e725f717e6d7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6a7d6e217f7d60687d6e624f616e7d6e21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    <bullet> Committee organization and rules.
    <bullet> Review of NARA's mission and activities in the electronic 
records arena.
    <bullet> Development of a plan of action for the committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of 
the United States/Chief of Staff; (301) 837-1600.

Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-22579 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Voice Control Systems, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-65842), pertaining to the Voice Control Systems, Inc.
1992 Stock Option Plan (formerly Scott Instruments Corporation 1992 Stock Option
Plan), of our report dated January 30, 1998, relating to the financial
statements of Voice Control Systems, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1997.




                                                      /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                      --------------------
                                                      BDO Seidman, LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 23, 1998


                                       25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1999
<CASH>                                           8,027
<SECURITIES>                                    35,017
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,732
<INVENTORY>                                    150,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               277,443
<PP&E>                                         181,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          179,422
<BONDS>                                        143,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,502
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   451,135
<SALES>                                      1,893,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,893,523
<CGS>                                        1,717,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,858,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,639
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. *PAUL*ALLEN TOOMES.

(Filed 1 May 1963.)

Automobiles § 59—

Testimony and physical evidence tending to establish that defendant was driving his car at an excessively high speed, resulting in the acci*387dent causing the death of the driver of the car with whioh he collided, held sufficient to be submitted to 'the jury in. this prosecution for manslaughter.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnston,*J.., September 3, 1962 Term RaNdolph Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon indictment which charged the defendant with the felony of manslaughter in the death of J. W. Campbell. The jury returned this verdict-.“Guilty of manslaughter and asks for mercy of the court.” From sentence of 18 months in prison, the defendant .appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Attorney General for the State.*

*Ottway Burton for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The State’s evidence tended to show that on February 24, 1962, at 8:30 p.m., J. W. Campbell, driving his 1952 Buick, attempted to turn west on State Highway No. 1510 at its T-intersectiom with TJ. S. Highway No. 220 near Randelman. At some point in the intersection, not clearly fixed by the evidence, the Oldsmobile driven by the defendant, Paul Allen Toomes, struck the Buick near the middle, sliced it into two approximately equal parts. The two sections came to rest more than 50 feet apart. Campbell’s dead body and his passenger, Miss Ketehum, seriously injured, were in the front section. Miss Ketehum was unable to recall anything connected with the accident.

The defendant's Oldsmobile was equipped with three two-barrel carburetors. The witnesses fixed its speed at the time of the accident at 70 to 90 miles per hour. The physical evidence fully sustained the estimates. The defendant did -not offer evidence.

After a careful review .of the record, we find

No error.
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
U.S. Department of Labor Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation
Washington, DC 20210

October 23, 2019

INDUSTRY NOTICE No. 174

TO: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS UNDER THE LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’
COMPENSATION ACT (LHWCASUBJECT: Consolidation of the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs (OWCP) Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (DLHWC) District Office
in Honolulu, HI with the District Office in San Francisco, CA

The DLHWC Honolulu District Office was physically closed effective October 1, 2019, and the Longshore
Fifteenth Compensation District has been consolidated into the Longshore Thirteenth Compensation District,
with the district office located in San Francisco, CA. This restructuring is made in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §
939(b) and 20 CFR § 702.102(a) and results in a more efficient allocation of limited resources within the
Longshore Program.

Prior to the physical closure of the Honolulu District Office, the case work transitioned to the San Francisco
District Office for maximum efficiency. Therefore, effective October 1, 2019, the Longshore Thirteenth
Compensation District in San Francisco, CA has jurisdiction over past and future cases under the LHWCA, and
its extensions, arising in the states California (north of the northern boundaries of the counties of San Luis,
Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino), Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and all areas west of the continents of North and
South America (excluding coastal islands) to 60 degrees east longitude (excluding Iran, Iraq and

Afghanistan). The physical address for the San Francisco District Office is provided below, but reference #4
and #5 for mailing instructions:

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation
90 7" Street, Suite 15-100
San Francisco, CA 94131-6716

1) All cases currently under the jurisdiction of the Honolulu District Office have been electronically or physically
transferred to the San Francisco District Office.

2) All cases previously created within Honolulu’s jurisdiction are now created with the assigned jurisdiction of
San Francisco.

3) Direct all telephone inquiries concerning cases previously under the jurisdiction of Honolulu to the San
Francisco District Office at (415) 625-7669 effective October 1, 2019.

4) Submit all forms for the creation of a new case to the DLHWC Case Create Fax Number (202) 513-6814,
or mail forms to the central mail receipt site at the address below. See Industry Notice No 166.

5) Send all case-specific mail to the DLHWC Central Mail Receipt site in Jacksonville at the following address:


U. S. Department of Labor
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation
400 West Bay Street, Suite 63A, Box 28
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Direct all questions concerning the processing of claims under this restructuring to the San Francisco District
Office at (415) 625-7669.

Dent Fig, A
DOUGLAS FITZGERALD

Director, Division of
Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MORALES-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50862.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Morales-Luna raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 23A

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We consent to the  incorporation in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 of  AutoInfo,  Inc.  for the  year  ended
December  31,  2004,  of our report  dated  February  11, 2005 on the  financial
statements of AutoInfo,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2004 by reference
to the  Registration  Statement  under  the  Securities  Act of 1933  (File  No.
33-34442) of AutoInfo, Inc.


                                 /s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
Shelton, Connecticut             Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
March  15, 2005