alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31509-31510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Rescinding the Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact 
Statement: Prince George's County, MD

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the Notice of Intent for preparing an 
Environmental Impact Statement that was issued on June 11, 2008, for a 
proposed roadway improvement project in Prince George's County, 
Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeanette Mar, Environmental 
Program Manager, FHWA, DelMar Division, 10 S. Howard Street, Suite 
2450, Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone: (410) 779-7152, e-mail address 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bc1eeeae5eeffffeea5c6eaf9cbefe4ffa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c56797d727968687932517d6e5c787368327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Maryland 
State Highway Administration (SHA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland Department of the 
Environment, and University of Maryland, is rescinding the NOI to 
prepare an EIS for roadway improvements which would address mobility 
and safety for travelers to and from the University of Maryland (UM) 
Campus from I-95/I-495 and points north, while providing enhanced 
access

[[Page 31510]]

to the university. The NOI is being rescinded because the project is no 
longer funded for study.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulation 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this 
program.)


    Issued on: May 27, 2010.
Jeanette Mar,
Environmental Program Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-13295 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Bryant P. Bynum, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keystone Automotive Operations,
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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 15, 2005



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ BRYANT P. BYNUM         
|    |  | Bryant P. Bynum             
|    |  | Executive Vice President and
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
Cite as 2016 Ark. 299



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-16-588 LARRY LAVELL JONES APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered September 8, 2016 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM Appellant Larry Lavell Jones entered a plea of guilty to the charges of rape and criminal attempt to commit murder in the first degree as a habitual offender. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and sixty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. An appeal from the judgment has been lodged in this court. Jones is represented on appeal by Mark S. Fraiser. Fraiser now asks to be relieved as counsel on the ground that he is ineligible for compensation for services as appellate counsel. Arkansas Code Annotated § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2007) provides that persons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided with a state-funded secretary are eligible to seek compensation for appellate work. Counsel affirms that he is a full-time public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary. Under these circumstances, he is not entitled to payment for services in this appeal, and his request to be relieved is well-founded. See Craigg v. State , 2012 Ark. 95 (per curiam). We therefore grant Fraiser’s motion to be
**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**

|   | */s/Gary                Corsi                                        * |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Gary                Corsi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | Vice                President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | August                11, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
#### Eliza Dering, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.;

Merwin, J., not sitting.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**CERTIFICATIONI, Kevin Murphy, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SteelCloud, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: September 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Kevin Murphy    Name:  Kevin Murphy    Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### JENNIE MOSELEY MURRAY v. F. M. PLYLER et al.

(Filed 1 May, 1940.)

Insurance § 48 — Complaint held to allege indemnity contract under which no liability attaches to insurer prior to final judgment against insux>ed.

Where the complaint alleges that defendant insured’s taxicab was covered by a policy obligating defendant insurer to pay any final judgment recovered against insured on account of injuries resulting from the operation of the cab, the facts alleged disclose that the insurance contract is an indemnity bond, notwithstanding plaintiff’s characterization of the policy as a “liability contract,” and no liability thereunder is imposed upon insurer prior to final judgment against insured, and defendant insurer’s demurrer should have been sustained in plaintiff’s action to establish liability for personal injuries sustained as the result of the alleged negligent operation of the cab.

Appeal by defendants from *Johnston, Special Judge,*at Special Term, 8 January, 1940, of MeckleNbueg.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Plaintiff alleges that on 12 August, 1939, while crossing "West Trade Street in the city of Charlotte, she was injured by the negligent operation of a taxicab, driven at the time by E. M. Plyler as agent and employee of W. S. Croft, trading as White Hood Cab Company. She further alleges that pursuant to an ordinance of the city of Charlotte, the operator procured from the Pennsylvania Casualty Company “a policy of liability insurance” and duly deposited the same with the city clerk, “which said policy obligated the defendant, Pennsylvania Casualty Company, to pay any final judgment recovered against the defendant, W. S. Croft, ... on account of injuries . . . resulting from the operation of the taxicab,” etc.

The policy is not made a part of the complaint, while the city ordinance is.

*495The Pennsylvania Casualty Company interposed a demurrer on the ground (1) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it, and (2) that, if a cause of action be stated, there is a misjoinder of parties and causes. The other defendants moved to strike from the complaint all references to casualty insurance. The demurrer was overruled and the motions to strike denied. From these rulings the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*McDougle & Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Gover <& Covington and Hugh L. Lobdell for defendants, appellants.*

Stacy, C. J.

As no final judgment has been recovered against the operator of the taxicab which injured the plaintiff, the obligation of the Pennsylvania Casualty Company “to pay any final judgment recovered against the defendant, *~W.*S. Croft,” etc., as alleged in the complaint, has not yet arisen. Hence, the ruling on the demurrer will be reversed on authority of *Petty v. Lemons, ante,*492, with observation similar to the one there made that the plaintiff may apply to the court below under C. S., 515, for leave to amend her complaint, if so advised.

Reversed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6181

CLINTON RATLIFF,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, West Virginia

Division of Corrections; EVELYN SEIFERT,

Warden, Northern Regional Jail & Correctional

Facility; ROBERT KNIGHT, Correctional Officer,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (5:05-cv-00052-FPS)

Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 20, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Cameron Petty, Stephanie

Ann Jones, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia;

Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF

CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia; David L. Wyant, BAILEY &

WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Ratliff appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986

(2000) as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b)

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find that the appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Ratliff v. Rubenstein, No.

5:05-cv-00052-FPS (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 13, 2006). 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Reese Baglole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Madrona Ventures
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     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 annual report
          is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies 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; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
6th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.8**

 

FINAL

RSU

(Director)

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION

2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD

(Effective as of April 14, 2008)

 

This AMENDMENTNO. 1 TO THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN RESTRICTEDSTOCK UNIT AWARD (the Amendment”) is hereby adopted and approved by the Boardof Directors of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”) as of the dateset forth above.

 

Pursuant tothe authority granted under Section 3.1(g) of the Northwest AirlinesCorporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors ofthe Company hereby amends the Plan’s Restricted Stock Unit Award (the “RSU”) asfollows:

 

1.                             Amendmentof RSU.  Section 2 of the RSU ishereby amended by deleting the final sentence therein in its entirety andreplacing it with the following:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Company has notreceived all such required approvals on or before the date of the meeting ofthe Company’s stockholders that next follows the Grant Date (the “StockholderMeeting”), then the Award shall be cancelled immediately and the Company shallhave no further obligations hereunder.”

 

2.                             Amendment of theRSU.  Section 3.1 of the Awardis hereby amended: by deleting “One installment equal to 33.33% of the Awardupon May 31, 2008” and replacing it with the following: “One installmentequal to 33.33% of the Award upon the later of (a) May 31, 2008, and (b) thedate of the Stockholder Meeting.”

 

3.                             Amendment of RSU.  Section 3.3 of the RSU is deleted in itsentirety and hereby replaced with the following:

 

“*Change of Control*: Notwithstanding anyother provision of the Terms and Conditions, in the event of a Change inControl while Grantee is a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, 100% ofthe Restricted Stock Units shall vest (to the extent not previously vested).”

 

4.                             Definitions.Except as otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized 

 

----

 

terms used butnot defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Northwest AirlinesCorporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan or the RSU.

 

                                Adoptedby the Board of Directors of Northwest Airlines Corporation on April 14,2008.

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit E

Below is a summary of the primary staffing of these cases during the Compensation Period. The 

Debtors are aware of the complexities of these cases, the many issues that need to be addressed, the 

various disciplines involved, and that staffing needs are dynamic based on a number of factors, many of 

which are unpredictable, including the activities of other parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases. Core 

teams of Business, Finance and Restructuring, Corporate, Tax, and Litigation attorneys were 

supplemented with additional resources as necessary to meet client needs under the changing 

circumstances of these Chapter 11 Cases.

CATEGORY OF 

TIMEKEEPER

NUMBER OF CORE TIMEKEEPERS WORKING 

ON MATTER DURING FEE PERIOD

AVERAGE HOURLY 

RATE

Partner 11 $1,400.00

Counsel 3 $1,062.50

Associate 24 $833.57.00

Paraprofessionals and 

Other Non-Legal Staff 2 $330.00

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4739-5 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 16:36:57 Page 1

of 1
Slip Op. 09-76 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

____________________________________ 

: 

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND : 

COMPANY, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : Before: WALLACH, Judge 

: Court No.: 05-00592 

v. : 

: 

UNITED STATES, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

____________________________________: 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

In accordance with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit in Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 561 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009), it is 

hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the imported item at issue in this case is 

properly classified under Heading 3825, Subheading 3825.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (2002); and it is further 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a final summary judgment be, and hereby 

is, entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 

_/s/ Evan J. Wallach______ 

Evan J. Wallach, Judge 

Dated: July 22, 2009 

New York, New York
ex10_3.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.3

 




Employer: Dong guan CHDITN printing co. ltd

Employee: Mr liu, ruisheng

Job duty:

Executive officier/ chairman: making development, operation, investment strategy and financial management, budgets; making prodution and sale plan

Working periods: since april 1. 2007 to march 31 2010





Salary: RMB35000 per month.





Sign date: April 1, 2007
#### In the Matter of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Respondent, v Eland Motor Car Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 13, 1995;

decided March 21, 1996

Motion for clarification denied. This Court’s decision made clear that the exact amount of the garage owner’s lien was *1003never determined by the courts below and that such a determination must be made upon remand. *[See,*85 NY2d 725.]