alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT B 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2435-2 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:32:24 Page 1

of 3
COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

001 First Day Administration Motions 0 $0 

002 Omnibus & Miscellaneous Court Appearances 13.7 $9,385 

003 Legal Research 2 $800 

004 General Case Administration 174.3 $55,130 

005 Automatic Stay Proceedings 91.7 $66,525 

006 Initial Debtor Interview, Meeting of Creditors, Creditor Inquiries 18.6 $12,085 

007 Professional Retention and Compensation – Keller & Benvenutti 28.3 $14,160 

008 Professional Retention and Compensation – Other Professionals 39.8 $21,355 

009 Financing and Cash Collateral 1.8 $1,170 

010 DIP Lenders – Communication and Negotiations 0 $0 

011 Creditors Committees – Communication & Negotiations 0 $0 

012 Tort Committees – Communication & Negotiation 1.6 $1,160 

013 US Trustee – Communications & Negotiation .7 $455 

014 Employee Matters 18.6 $11,915 

015 Supplier Issues 22.7 $12,905 

016 General Asset Analysis and Recovery .1 $80 

017 Sale or Use of Property - Motions 10.3 $6,140 

018 Executory Contract Issues 20.4 $11,405 

019 Tax Issues 0 $0 

020 Regulatory Issues 0 $0 

021 Plan – Advice, Strategy and Negotiation 2.7 $2,010 

022 Plan Disclosure Statements – Preparation of Documents 0 $0 

023 Plan Confirmation 0 $0 

024 Plan Implementation and Transition 0 $0 

025 FERC Adversary Proceeding 10.9 $8,520 

026 Wildfire Litigation 4 $2,560 

027 Claims Review 1.4 $1,120 

028 Claim Disputes and Resolution 9 $5,500 

029 Avoidance Action Analysis 0 $0 

030 Non-working Travel 1.3 $390 

031 [Expenses – See Expense Summary] 0 $0 

032 USDC Probation Compliance and Monitoring 13.9 $8,995 

033 Equity Committee 0 $0 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2435-2 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:32:24 Page 2

of 3
 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

034 Third Party Injunction Action (PERA) 13.1 $8,785 

035 Government Relations and Communications 0 $0 

036 Miscellaneous Litigation Issues and Advice 13.6 $8,700 

TOTAL 514.5 $271,250 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2435-2 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:32:24 Page 3

of 3
#### William Stephen and another, Appellants, v. James H. Hughes, Respondent.

—Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered before another referee, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0410

IN THE MATTER OF 

L.S.A.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant, K.V., is granted an 

extension of time until November 13, 2024, to prepare, serve, and file the 

Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 17 2024

09/17/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0410
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3328 Filed: 07/31/19 Entered: 07/31/19 16:56:35 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3328 Filed: 07/31/19 Entered: 07/31/19 16:56:35 Page 2 of

3
(;+,%,7$

1RWLFH3DUWLHV6HUYLFH/LVW

6HUYHGDVVHWIRUWKEHORZ

^Z/Wd/KE ED EKd/ED Z^^ D/>

Dd,KK&

^Zs/

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ tĞŝů͕'ŽƚƐŚĂůΘDĂŶŐĞƐ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ<ĂƌŽƚŬŝŶ͕ZĂĐŚĂĞů&ŽƵƐƚ͕:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ>ŝŽƵ͕DĂƚƚŚĞǁ'ŽƌĞŶ

ϳςϳ&ŝĨƚŚǀĞŶƵĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϭρϯͲϬϭϭε

ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶ͘ŬĂƌŽƚŬŝŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵƌĂĐŚĂĞů͘ĨŽƵƐƚΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵũĞƐƐŝĐĂ͘ůŝŽƵΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵŵĂƚƚŚĞǁ͘ŐŽƌĞŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ <ĞůůĞƌΘĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ>>W ƚƚŶ͗dŽďŝĂƐ<ĞůůĞƌ͕:ĂŶĞ<ŝŵ

ςρϬĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭεϬϬ

^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬΘ

ƚŬĞůůĞƌΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵũŬŝŵΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ĞďƚŽƌƐ

W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŶĞƚ>ŽĚƵĐĂ

ϳϳĞĂůĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚW͘K͘ŽdžϳϳϬϬϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬρ &ŝƌƐƚůĂƐƐDĂŝů

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ

ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŵĞƐ>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌ͕ƐƋ͘ΘdŝŵŽƚŚLJ>ĂĨƌĞĚĚŝ͕ƐƋ

κρϬ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞǀĞŶƵĞρƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϬρͲϬϭρϯ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬϮ

:ĂŵĞƐ͘>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀƚŝŵŽƚŚLJ͘Ɛ͘ůĂĨĨƌĞĚŝΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀ

ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗ĞŶŶŝƐ&͘ƵŶŶĞ͕^ĂŵƵĞů͘<ŚĂůŝů

ρρ,ƵĚƐŽŶzĂƌĚƐEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϬϬϭͲϮϭςϯ

ĚĚƵŶŶĞΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵƐŬŚĂůŝůΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗WĂƵů^͘ƌŽŶnjŽŶ͕'ƌĞŐŽƌLJ͘ƌĂLJ͕dŚŽŵĂƐZ͘<ƌĞůůĞƌ

ϮϬϮεĞŶƚƵƌLJWĂƌŬ͕ϯϯƌĚ&ůŽŽƌ>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕εϬϬςϳ

WĂƌŽŶnjŽŶΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ'ďƌĂLJΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵd<ƌĞůůĞƌΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ƚƚŶ͗ƌƵĐĞ͘DĂƌŬĞůů

ρκϭE͘&ĂŝƌďĂŶŬƐŽƵƌƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϮϬϬŚŝĐĂŐŽ͕/>ςϬςϭϭͲϯϳϭϬ

ďĂŵĞdžĂŵƉŐĞΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵƉŐĞΛůĞŐĂůĚĞĐŽĚĞƌ͘ĐŽŵƚƌĂĐĞLJƌŐĂůůĞŐŽƐΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3328 Filed: 07/31/19 Entered: 07/31/19 16:56:35 Page 3 of

3
#### George F. Driscoll, Respondent, v. James Carroll, as Trustee, etc., Appellant.

Motion denied on condition that the appellant perfect his appeal, place the case upon the next calendar and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Jenks, P: J., Thomas, *Gaxr,*Woodward and Rich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JMC Group,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q
filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000746425
<NAME> JMC GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            4881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      127
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5300
<PP&E>                                            1509
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                        6357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6686
<SALES>                                           1004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1669
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    365
<INCOME-TAX>                                       144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
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 June 17, 2009

0610 

# Order

June 17, 2009

138269

J.T. HUEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Diann Huey, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138269 COA: 282136 Wayne CC: 07-701469-NF ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and JEMMIE L. RUFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0047-10-1 PER CURIAM MAY 18, 2010 MICHAEL ROGER MASTERSON

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Patricia C. Arrighi; PennStuart, on brief), for appellants. (Philip J. Geib; Ph ilip J. Geib, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

United Parcel Service, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corporation (employer) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Comm ission concluding Michael Roger Masterson (claimant) experienced a change in circumstances whereby his current back injuries required the commission to terminate an award of temporary total disability benefits resulting from his October 13, 2002 workplace injury and establish an aw ard of temporary total disability benefits for a disability related to his August 27, 2007 workplace injury. Employer contends the commission was without authority to terminat e the 2002 award because the deputy commissioner failed to address the issue in an evidentiary hearing. Employer also contends the commission erred in terminating the 2002 award instead of vacating the entire awar d based upon new medical

evidence. We have reviewed the record and th e commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Masterson v. United Pa rcel Service, Inc. , VWC File Nos. 212-13-72, 235-46-46

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - (Dec. 16, 2009). We dispense with oral argumen t and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officers of Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertify that to their knowledge and in their respective capacities that theCompany’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which this certification isattached (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: May 6, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY S. MARUCCI                 |
|------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Name:  | Anthony S. Marucci                     |
|                   |   | Title: | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                   |   |   |                                   |
| Date: May 6, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ AVERY W. CATLIN                    |
|                   |   | Name:  | Avery W. Catlin                        |
|                   |   | Title: | Senior Vice President  and             |
|                   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer                |

 

 

This certification shallnot be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Exchange Act. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CelldexTherapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

          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 on Form 10-QSB of Applied DNA
Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gerhard H. Wehr, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                                   /s/ Gerhard H. Wehr
                                                       -----------
                                                       Gerhard H. Wehr
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

Date:  February 18, 2004
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 1

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 2

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 3

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 4

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 5

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 6

of 6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6701

JIMMY TINSLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-119-R)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Tinsley v. Angelone, No. CA-96-119-R (W.D. VA. Apr. 14, 1997). See

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)

(No. 96-6298). 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.

DISMISSED
#### O. HENRY MOORE v. G. L. TIDWELL et al.

(Filed 25 June, 1927.)

Appeal and Error — Motion to Retain Cause in Superior Court to Correct Amount of Judgment.

Where the Supreme Court, on appeal, has allowed a motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence after having fixed a time in which the parties may file their affidavit in support of the motion and *per contra,*the Court will not thereafter allow a motion retaining the case on its docket for the purpose of correcting the amount of the judgment. *Teeter v. Express Co.,*172 N. C., 620, cited and approved.'

*187MotioN by plaintiff that the judgment of this Court, entered 10 June, 1927, awarding a new trial for newly discovered evidence, be recalled before it is certified to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, and that the judgment of $15,000, rendered in this cause against L. B. Cress and J. F. Lowder, from which they appealed, be credited with $3,500, the amount paid plaintiff by L. F. Barnard and the Eoyal Blue Transportation Company, together with interest thereon from date of payment, 11 August, 1926, the plaintiff now agreeing to remit said amount.

*GarsweTl & Ervin and John M. Robinson for plaintiff.*

*Hartsell & Hartsell and Preston & Ross for defendant.*

Pee Curiam.

Prior to the call of this case for argument, which comes from the Fourteenth District, the appealing defendants duly notified plaintiff of their intention to renew the motion, originally made in the Superior Court, for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. With respect to this motion, the following order was entered 28 April, 1927, and notice thereof duly given to counsel on both sides:

> “Motion continued until 24 May, 1927, with leave to both parties to file additional affidavits, if so advised. Appellants shall file their affidavits by 18 May, 1927, and appellees shall have until 24 May, 1927, to file counter affidavits, if so advised.”

This order could have but one meaning, *i. e.,*that the Court would hear the motion and determine it on the showing made by the time set.

After carefully considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendants in support of their motion and the counter brief filed by plaintiff, the Court was constrained to allow said motion, it appearing that the showing made by appellants was sufficient to meet the requirements laid down in *Johnson v. R. R.,*163 N. C., p. 453, for the granting of new trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Without expressing any opinion as to the nature of the instrument executed by the plaintiff to L. F. Barnard and the Eoyal Blue Transportation Company (as it is not properly before us for consideration), it would seem, from the facts now appearing, that the Court made no mistake in ordering a new trial of the cause.

The motion of plaintiff comes too late. It must, be denied on authority of *Teeter v. Express Co.,*172 N. C., 620.

Motion denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FAYE ZHENXING ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC 

### OF CHINA Defendant(s). Civil Case No. 08-2228 (RJL)

ORDER Forthe reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 

### ()-**I~** day ofJanuary 2010, hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and it is furtherORDERED thatplaintiff's Motion for DefaultJudgment [# 3] is DISMISSED as moot. This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

### SO ORDERED. \

# ~~ON United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30782-30783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1683]


Reorganization/Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 20; Hampton Roads, 
VA, Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Virginia Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 
20, submitted an application to the Board for authority to reorganize 
and expand its zone to modify and expand Site 3, to remove acreage from 
Site 8, to modify Site 9, and to add six new sites (proposed Sites 19-
24) in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, area within the Norfolk Customs and 
Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 19-2009, filed 4/28/09);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (74 FR 20927, 5/6/09) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal, with respect 
to Sites 3, 8 and 9 and Sites 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24, is in the public 
interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize and expand FTZ 20 is approved in part 
(with respect to Sites 3, 8 and 9 and Sites 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24), 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.28, to the Board's

[[Page 30783]]

standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose 
zone project, and to sunset provisions that would terminate authority 
on May 31, 2013, for existing Sites 1-18 and 25 (including the 
additions to Sites 3 and 9) and on May 31, 2015, for Sites 19, 21, 22, 
23 and 24 where no activity has occurred under FTZ procedures before 
those dates.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of May, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13206 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
##### 



Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of the end of
the period covered by this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could 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 controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
  August 15, 2005
 /s/ C. R. CloutierChief Executive Officer