alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7480]



[[Page 15793]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[TA-29,742 and TA-W-29,742A]


Sunnyside Coal Co., Sunnyside, Utah and Sunnyside Coal Co, 
Boulder, CO; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 18, 1994, applicable 
to all workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the 
Federal Register on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44193).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show worker 
separations in 1994 at the subject firm's headquarters in Boulder, 
Colorado.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
include the subject firm's workers at Boulder, Colorado.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,742 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Sunnyside Coal Company, Sunnyside, Utah and 
Boulder, Colorado who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after March 24, 1993 are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7480 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-21047

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC L. ROHDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-298-1

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

September 1, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric L. Rohden appeals from the judgment entered after he

pleaded guilty to receipt of a firearm while under an indictment.

Rohden argues that the district court erred at sentencing by

failing to treat five prior Texas drug convictions as related for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Having reviewed his

arguments, we conclude that Rohden cannot make the requisite

showing that the prior cases were consolidated. See United

States v. Huskey, 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998). Rohden’s

reliance on LaPorte v. Texas, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Crim. App.
No. 99-21047

-2-

1992) (en banc), is misplaced. See United States v. Fitzhugh,

984 F.2d 143, 147 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, because the

prior Texas convictions were unrelated for purposes of

sentencing, Rohden cannot show that the district court’s denial

of his motion for a downward departure was tainted by any legal

error. See § 2K2.1 cmt. 5.

AFFIRMED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 4 v. No. A-1-CA-35505 5 6 JASON PENDERGAST, 7 Defendant-Appellant. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 9 Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge 10 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Aarons Law Firm, PC 14 Stephen D. Aarons 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VIGIL, Judge. 192 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired 3

{2} AFFIRMED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

___________________________ 9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 10

___________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 12
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4630

Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Annual Cash Bonus Award Program



 Exhibit 10.01 

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2010 ANNUAL CASH BONUS AWARD PROGRAM 

On March 4, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Oceaneering International, Inc.
(the “Company”) approved the 2010 Annual Cash Bonus Award Programs (a) for Executive Officers of the Company and (b) for all other participating employees, each under the 2010 Incentive Plan of the Company. In the case of
Executive Officers, cash bonuses are based on the level of achievement of net income for the company in 2010 (“Net Income”) as compared to planned results approved by the Compensation Committee, as illustrated by the below graph which is
applicable to Executive Officers (100% of award). In the case of all other participating employees: (a) with respect to corporate employee participants, cash bonuses are based upon level of achievement as compared to planned results of:
(i) Net Income (80% of award) and (ii) Individual Goals (20% of award); (b) with respect to profit center executives, cash bonuses are based on the level of achievement as compared to planned results of: (i) Net Income (50% of
award), and (ii) goals of the executive’s profit center (50% of award), which profit center percentage amount is comprised of the level of achievement as compared to planned results of the following: operating income of the profit center
(70%), HSE goals (10%), objectives for the profit center (10%), and objectives for Continuous Quality Improvement (“CQI”) (10%); and (c) for all other participating employees, based upon the level of achievement as compared to planned
results of: (i) Net Income (25% of award), (ii) goals of the participant’s profit center (60%, which is comprised of the same elements as for profit center executives), and (iii) Individual Goals (15%). The Compensation Committee
has discretion to award a lower amount under the program than that amount which is otherwise determined under the terms of the program. 
 For
each participant under each of these programs, the maximum cash award achievable is a percentage approved by the Compensation Committee of the participant’s annual base salary (in US Dollars) as of March 1, 2010. A participant must be
employed by the Company or a subsidiary on the date the payment is made to receive a cash award.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 497 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To eliminate the COVID–19 vaccine mandate on health care 

providers furnishing items and services under certain 

Federal health care programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 497 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom for Health 

3 Care Workers Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING THE COVID–19 VACCINE MANDATE ON 

5 HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FURNISHING 

6 ITEMS AND SERVICES UNDER CERTAIN FED7 ERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS. 

8 The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

9 not implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the rule 

10 entitled ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus 

11 COVID–19 Health Care Staff Vaccination’’ published by 

12 the Department of Health and Human Services on No13 vember 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61555) and may not pro14 mulgate any substantially similar rule. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 31, 

2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14306-14307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6537]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Scientific Computing; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced 
Scientific Computing (#1185).
    Date and Time: April 5-6, 1995, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 1150, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. John Van Rosendale, Program Director, New 
Technologies Program, Suite 1122, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1962.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials. [[Page 14307]] 
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the New Technologies 
Program
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to 
the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6537 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**604 CA 14-01396**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

CHRISTOPHER CANESTARO AND SUSAN YENSAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

RAYMOUR AND FLANIGAN FURNITURE COMPANY AND RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (BENJAMIN ZUFFRANIERI, JR., OF COUNSEL), AND WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
HAHN & HESSEN LLP, NEW YORK CITY (JOHN P. AMATO OF COUNSEL), AND BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered April 4, 2014. The order granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      15,986,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,965,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (339,216)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,191,073
<PP&E>                                       5,292,703
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,335,248)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,617,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,327,875
<BONDS>                                        871,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,772
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,344,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,617,852
<SALES>                                     67,342,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,342,653
<CGS>                                       56,488,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               66,301,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,415,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (339,216)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,148,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,484,243
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,101,892
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,382,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,339,577
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
EX-10.1






AMENDMENT TO INVESTMENT AGREEMENT




This amendment (this “Amendment”), dated as of June 17, 2011, amends that certain Investment
Agreement, dated as of May 26, 2011 among First BanCorp (the “Company”), a Puerto Rico chartered
financial holding company, and Thomas H. Lee (Alternative) Fund VI, L.P. (the “Investor”).



1. Pursuant to Section 12.12 of the Agreement, the Company and the Investor hereby
agree to amend the Agreement by replacing the first sentence of Section 4.1 of the
Agreement in its entirety with the following:



“Unless the NYSE informs the Company that the NYSE rules (including Rule 312.03
of the listed company rules) do not require (whether because the NYSE requirement
has been satisfied by prior stockholder approvals, or because of an exception, a
waiver or otherwise) approval by the Company’s stockholders of the transactions that
are the subject of the Investor Agreements, by June 22, 2011, the Company will file
with the SEC a preliminary proxy statement relating to a stockholders meeting at
which the Company’s stockholders will be asked to approve the transactions that are
the subject of the Investor Agreements.”



2. Except as and to the extent expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in all respects and the provisions of Article 12 of the
Agreement shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to this Amendment.



3. This Amendment and all disputes arising out of or relating to this Amendment and the
subject matter hereof or the actions of the parties hereto in the negotiation, execution,
administration, performance or nonperformance, enforcement, interpretation, termination and
construction hereof and all matters based upon, arising out of or related to any of the foregoing
(whether based on contract, tort or otherwise), including all matters of construction, validity and
performance, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws, both
procedural and substantive, of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws
principles (whether of the State of New York or any other jurisdiction) that would apply the laws
of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York.



4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, some of which may be signed by
fewer than all the parties or may contain facsimile copies of pages signed by some of the parties.
Each of those counterparts will be deemed to be an original copy of this Agreement, but all of them
together will constitute one and the same agreement.



[Signature Page Follows]




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Investors have executed this Amendment,
intending to be legally bound by it, as of the day shown on the first page of this Amendment.




FIRST BANCORP




By: /s/ Lawrence Odell

Title: Lawrence Odell

General Counsel, EVP




1




INVESTOR:




THOMAS H. LEE (ALTERNATIVE) FUND VI, L.P.




By: THL Advisors (Alternative) VI, L.P., its
general partner




By: Thomas H. Lee Advisors (Alternative) VI,
Ltd., its general partner




By: /s/ Thomas M. Hagerty

Name: Thomas M. Hagerty

Title: Director





2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-116-000]


CNG Transmission Corp.; Notice of Filing of Storage Study

January 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 30, 1994, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG), in compliance with the Commission's requirement in CNG's 
restructuring proceeding in Docket No. RS92-14-000, filed a study 
entitled ``Storage After One Year Of Operations Under Restructured 
Services.'' The storage study identifies the various uses of CNG's 
retained working gas storage capacity during the first year of 
operations under Order No. 636.
    CNG states that it has served its filing upon affected firm service 
customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All motions or 
protests should be filed on or before January 27, 1995. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-620 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NUMBER 13-18-00276-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ZINA M. BURKETT

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Relator Zina M. Burkett filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 

seeking to compel the trial court to rule on a motion to enforce child support. The Court 

requests that the real party in interest, Jason A. Burkett, or any others whose interest 

would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this 

29th day of May, 2018.
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Karanya Marquise Dudley , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00050

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

22M0547CCL ). Memora ndum Opinion

delivered by Chief Justice Stevens

, Justice

van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note t hat the appellant, Karanya Marquise Dudley , has adequately indicated her

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 15, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Kevin P. Fitzgerald, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the
Annual Report of Ener1. Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Ener1, Inc.

|Date:  March __, 2004 | /s/ Kevin P. Fitzgerald
Kevin P. Fitzgerald
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,
Randall Paulfus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the
Annual Report of Ener1. Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Ener1, Inc.

|Date:  March 30, 2004 | /s/ Randall Paulfus              
Randall Paulfus
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------