alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02221]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Monday, February 
8, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., in the Auditorium (L-002) at the Commission's 
headquarters building, to hear oral argument in an appeal from an 
initial decision of an administrative law judge by the Respondent, 
Bernerd Young (``Young''), former chief compliance officer of Stanford 
Group Company (``SGC''). The law judge found that Young was a cause of 
violations by SGC of the antifraud provisions of Section 206(2) of the 
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 through false and misleading statements 
and omissions in marketing materials for ``certificates of deposit'' 
issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd., an affiliate of SGC. In 
addition, the law judge found that Young violated Section 17(a) of the 
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with statements 
designed to ``attack'' concerns raised about the certificates of 
deposit and to ``forestall redemptions and continue sales.'' The law 
judge further found that Young aided and abetted and caused violations 
of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Exchange Act Section 
15(c)(1), and Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2) in connection with 
these misrepresentations and omissions.
    Based on her findings, the law judge issued a cease-and-desist 
order against Young; barred him from associating with a broker, dealer, 
investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, 
transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating 
organization; and prohibited him from serving or acting in certain 
capacities with respect to an investment company. The law judge also 
ordered Young to pay $591,992.46 in disgorgement, with prejudgment 
interest, and assessed a third-tier civil penalty of $260,000.
    Young appealed the law judge's findings of violation and the 
sanctions imposed. The issues likely to be considered at oral argument 
include, among other things, whether Young violated the antifraud 
provisions as alleged and, if so, the extent to which he should be 
sanctioned for those violations.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 1, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02221 Filed 2-2-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02270]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9025-4]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
    Filed 01/25/2016 Through 01/29/2016.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20160022, Draft, USFS, OR, Magone Project, Comment Period Ends: 
03/21/2016, Contact: Sasha Fertig 541-575-3061
EIS No. 20160023, Draft, FHWA, UT, I-80 and State Street Interchange, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2016, Contact: Bryan Dillon 801-955-3517
EIS No. 20160024, Draft, USA, AZ, Proposed Tailings Storage Facility, 
Ray Mine, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/ 2016, Contact: Michael Langley 
602-230-6953
EIS No. 20160025, Final, USFS, MT, North and West Big Hole Allotment 
Management Plans, Review Period Ends: 03/07/2016, Contact: Jessica 
Dhaemers 406-689-3243
EIS No. 20160026, Draft, USFS, CO, Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2016, Contact: Matthew Ehrman 970-945-3212
EIS No. 20160027, Final, USFS, MT, Blackfoot Travel Plan (Non-Winter), 
Review Period Ends: 03/07/2016, Contact: Erin Fryer 406-495-3863

    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-02270 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<CIK>         0001059137
<NAME>         SIERRA HOLDINGS GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                              2478
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    2478
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      2478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              25602  
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           10077
<OTHER-SE>                                        (33201)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        2478
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   20590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (20590)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (20590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (20590)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31084]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32823]


John C. Nolan--Continuance in Control Exemption--Lancaster 
Northern Railway

    John C. Nolan (Nolan) has filed a notice of exemption to continue 
in control of Lancaster Northern Railway (LANO), upon LANO becoming a 
class III rail carrier.
    LANO, a noncarrier, has concurrently filed a notice of exemption in 
Finance Docket No. 32822, Lancaster Northern Railway--Acquisition and 
Operation Exemption--Line of Consolidated Rail Corporation, in which 
LANO seeks to acquire and operate approximately 12.90 miles of rail 
line owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), known as the 
Akron Secondary Track LC 20-0337, between the connection with Conrail 
at approximately milepost 0.05 at Sinking Spring, Berks County, PA, and 
the end of the track at Stevens at approximately milepost 12.94, in 
Lancaster County, PA. The parties intended to consummate the proposed 
transaction on November 30, 1995.
    Nolan also controls, through stock ownership, two other 
nonconnecting class III rail carriers that operate in Pennsylvania: 
East Penn Railways, Inc., and Bristol Industrial Terminal Railway. 
Nolan states that: (1) The railroads do not connect with each other nor 
do they belong to any family of lines to which they connect; (2) the 
involved transaction is not a part of a series of anticipated 
transactions that would connect the railroads with each other or any 
railroad within its corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not 
involve a class I carrier. The transaction is therefore exempt from the 
prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343. See 49 CFR 
1180.2(d)(2).
    As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees affected 
by the transaction will be protected by the conditions set forth in New 
York Dock Ry.--Control--Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979).
    Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be 
filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not 
automatically stay the transaction. Pleadings must be filed with the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, Office of the Secretary, Case Control 
Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20423 <SUP>1 and 
served on: John K. Fiorilla, 390 George Street, P.O. Box 1185, New 
Brunswick, NJ 08903.

    \1\ Legislation to sunset the Commission on December 31, 1995, 
and transfer remaining functions is now under consideration in 
Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings should 
continue to use the current name and address.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Decided: December 14, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31084 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B6.5: Starting in 2026, provide a 5 percent uniform PIA increase 20 years after benefit eligibility. Phase in the PIA increase at 1 percent per year from the 16th through 20th years after eligibility. The full PIA increase is equal to 5 percent of the PIA of a worker assumed to have career-average earnings equal to the SSA average wage index.  Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
#### A. E. WHITFIELD and Wife, MARY ELLEN WHITFIELD, v. LOUIS HARVARD and Wife, ROSA HARVARD.

(Filed 28 September, 1955.)

Appeal by defendants from *Parker, J.,*at February, 1955, Civil Term of Sampson Superior Court.

*650Motion in the cause by defendants to set aside a consent judgment for want of consent thereto.

The court below found as a fact that the defendants consented to the judgment and overruled the motion.

From the order entered in accordance with the foregoing ruling, the defendants appeal. ''

*Wright T. Dixon, Jr., for defendants, appellants.*

*Woodrow H. Peterson and David J. Turlington, Jr., for plaintiffs, appellees.*

PeR Cueiam.

Our examination of the record discloses that the crucial finding of consent is supported by the evidence. This works an affirmance of the order.

Affirmed.

WiNBORNE and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
# IV.B1

# IV.B2

# IV.B3

http://oactweb/TR/2017/lr4b3.html

# IV.B4

# V.A1

# V.A2

# V.A3

# V.A4

# V.A5

# V.B1

# V.B2

# V.C4

# V.C5

# V.C7

# VI.G2

http://oactweb/TR/2018_testing/lr6g2.html

# VI.G4

# VI.G5

# VI.G6

# VI.G7

# VI.G8

# VI.G9

# VI.G10
#### WILLIAM A. H. HOWLAND v. AMBER JUSTIZ STITZER, Now Remarried and Known as MRS. SHERMAN HAWES, JR., and FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY IN ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, a Corporation.

(Filed 21 September, 1955.)

Appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant First National Bank and Trust Company in Asheville, North Carolina, from *Nettles, J.,*January Term, 1955, of BuNCOMbe.

This is an action which was instituted in the Superior Court of Buncombe County, North Carolina, on 24 January, 1952, for the purpose of having the court declare the separation agreement entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant Mrs. Sherman Hawes, Jr. (formerly Mrs. Howland), on 2 April, 1947, null and void.

A previous action involving the same agreement was dismissed by this Court at the Spring Term, 1950. See 231 N.C. 528, 58 S.E. 2d 104. An appeal in the present action was heard at the Fall Term, 1952, and the opinion of the Court on that appeal is reported in 236 N.C. 230, 72 S.E. 2d 583. The case was again appealed to this Court at the Fall Term, 1954, and the opinion disposing of the appeal is reported in 240 N.C. 689, 84 S.E. 2d 167.

When this cause came on for hearing at the January Term, 1955, in the Superior Court of Buncombe County, the defendant Amber Justiz Stitzer, now Mrs. Sherman Hawes, Jr., moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was allowed, and from the judgment entered the plaintiff and the corporate defendant appeal, assigning error.

*William J. Cocke for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Adams & Adams for defendant, appellant.*

*David H. Armstrong for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment entered in the court below is in accord with the opinion of this Court handed down at the Fall Term, 1954, referred to above. Furthermore, we find nothing in the judgment entered which is in conflict with the terms of the separation agreement involved, and which we have heretofore held to be a valid and enforceable contract between the parties thereto.

The judgment of the court below, in all respects, is

Affirmed.

WiNBOENE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### STATE v. ALVIE M. COBB.

(Filed 29 April, 1959.)

1. Criminal Law § 103—

“Míe act of -the court in submitting 'to tbe jury only one count in the bill of indictment has the effect of a directed verdict of not guilty on the other count contained therein.

2. Criminal Law § 79—

Where defendant aiptly moves to suppress evidence on the ground that it was illegally procured, and the State is permitted to introduce in evidence, over defendant’s objection, whisky found during a search of defendant’s home, and the iStote does not introduce the search warrant in -evidence, or any evidence that ithe warrant w>as lost, or as to its coil tents, or -that it was duly issued, a new trial must be awarded.

Appeal by defendían! from *Johnston, J.,*December Term 1958 of RANDOLPH.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment with two- counts. The first count charges the unlawful .possession of -alcoholic beverages upon which the taxes imposed by the law© of Congress -o-f the United States or by (the lawls of this State have not been paid, a violation of G.S. 18-48. The second count charges the unlawful -possession of illicit -liquors for ©ale, ta violation of G.S. 18-50.

Plea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty as to- -the first count — no mention in verdict 'as to second count.

From a sentence of imprisonment, defendant appeals.

*Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Hammond ■& Walker and Coltrane & Gavin for defendant, appellant.*

Per Cueiam.

If.appears from the Judgejs’.charge to the jury that defendant’s wife was changed in a separate bill of indictment with a violation of G.S. 18-48 — it does not -appear as to whether or not she w>as charged with a violation of G.S. 18-50 —, and’ that the two bills of indictment were consolidated for trial. It clearly -appears from the *235Judge’s charge ¡that he submitted only the first •count in defendant’s Ibill of indictment to the jury. This had the effect of a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the -second count in the defendant’s bill of -indictment. *S. v. Love,*236 N.C. 344, 72 S.E. 2d 737. The Record does not show the jury’s verdict as to defendant’s wife.

Before pleading to -the bill of indictment, the defendant moved to ¡suppress the evidence on the ground that -it was illegally procuredi The eourt denied the motion, 'and defendant excepted. Defendant then pleaded Not Guilty. The search warrant was not introduced in evidence, nor was any evidence introduced that it was lost. There was no evidence as to its contents. There was no evidence that it was duly issued. There was no evidence as to who issued it. The Court permitted the State, over the defendant’s objection and exception, to introduce in evidence a jar containing whisky, which whisky was found during the search ¡of defendant’s home. Defendant ¡assigns this as error. The Attorney General, with his usual frankness, -concedes error.

The verdict and judgment are vacated, -and a new trial on the first count in the bill of indictment is ¡awarded, on authority of *S. v. McMilliam,*243 N.C. 771, 92 S.E. 2d 202.

New Trial.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31255]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]


Northeast Utilities, Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; 
Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, has taken action with regard to a Petition dated January 8, 
1995, by Mr. Anthony J. Ross. The Petition pertains to Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
    In the Petition, the Petitioner raised concerns regarding the 
Millstone station site paging and site siren evacuation alarm system at 
Millstone Unit 1. The Petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) institute at least three sanctions against 
his department manager and institute sanctions against the Petitioner's 
coworker and maintenance first-line supervisor for engaging in 
deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5. As grounds for this 
request, the Petitioner alleged that on numerous occasions since 
January 1994, his department manager had instructed the Petitioner's 
coworkers to shut off or turn down the volume on the site paging and 
site siren evacuation alarm system in the Unit 1 maintenance shop, and 
the Petitioner's first-line supervisor and coworker had complied with 
this request, in violation of Technical Specification 6.8.1 and NUREG-
0654.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 
determined to deny the Petition. The reasons for this denial are 
explained in the ``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-
95-23), the complete text of which follows this notice and is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local 
public document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three 
Rivers Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, 
CT 06360.
    A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the 
Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided by this 
regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the 
Commission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Commission, on 
its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision in that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-31255 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



This 10th day of March, 2005.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ R. Daniel Blanton        
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)
|                             
|/s/ Ronald L. Thigpen        
|Chief Operating Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



147
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name of Entity

State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or OrganizationMultilink Technology Corporation Israel Ltd.


IsraelMultilink Technology GmbH


GermanyVitesse International Holdings, SRL


BarbadosVitesse International, Inc.


BarbadosVitesse Manufacturing & Development Corporation


DelawareVitesse Semiconductor Canada Corporation


CanadaVitesse Semiconductor Corporation A/S


DenmarkVitesse Semiconductor GmbH & Co. KG


GermanyVitesse Semiconductor Japan Corporation


JapanVitesse Semiconductor S.r.l.


ItalyVitesse Semiconductor Sales Corporation


DelawareVitesse Semiconductor (India) PVT Ltd


IndiaVitesse Semiconductor (India) Beteilig & Verw.GmbH


Germany


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3927-1 Filed: 09/18/19 Entered: 09/18/19 13:48:35 Page 1

of 2
COMPENSATION BY PROFESSIONAL 

JULY 1, 2019 THROUGH JULY 31, 2019 

The attorneys and paraprofessionals who rendered legal services in these Chapter 11 Cases from 

July 1, 2019 through July 31, 2019 (the “Fee Period”) are: 

NAME OF 

PROFESSIONAL: POSITION 

YEAR 

ADMITTED 

HOURLY

RATE 

TOTAL

HOURS

BILLED 

TOTAL 

COMPENSATION 

Tobias S. Keller Partner 1990 800 23.8 $19,040 

Peter J. Benvenutti Partner 1974 800 77 $61,600 

Jane Kim Partner 20031 650 39.6 $25,740 

Keith A. McDaniels Of Counsel 1997 600 .3 $180 

Dara L. Silveira Associate 2010 400 54.3 $21,720 

Thomas B. Rupp Associate 2011 400 88.3 $35,320 

Jacob Bodden Paralegal Trainee N/A 150 92.9 $13,935 

Total Professionals: 376.2 $177,535 

1 Member of the California Bar since 2014 

 PROFESSIONALS 

TOTALS: 

BLENDED RATE 

(rounded to nearest 

dollar) 

TOTAL HOURS 

BILLED 

TOTAL 

COMPENSATION 

Partners and Counsel 757 140.7 $106,560 

Associates 400 142.6 $57,040 

Blended Attorney Rate 577 283.3 $163,600 

Paraprofessionals and other non-legal staff 150 92.9 $13,935 

Total Fees Incurred 472 376.2 $177,535 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3927-1 Filed: 09/18/19 Entered: 09/18/19 13:48:35 Page 2

of 2