alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9562]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,683]


Amphenol Aerospace, Sidney, New York; 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 February 23, 1995 applicable 
to the workers engaged in employment related to the production of 
electrical connectors at the subject firm.
    The certification notice will soon be published in the Federal 
Register.
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The findings show that a 
coverage overlap exists between this certification and TA-W-27,901 
issued on January 26, 1993 for workers of the same worker group in 
Sidney, New York.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the subject certification 
to reflect the proper coverage.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,683 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Amphenol Aerospace, Sidney, New York engaged in 
employment related to the production of electrical connectors who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
January 26, 1995 are eligibile to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-9562 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20095-20096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9963]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Turning Resolutions into Results: Building the Legacy of the 1995 
White House Conference on Aging

AGENCY: White House Conference on Aging, AoA, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of deadline.

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

SUMMARY: The February 28, 1995 edition of the Federal Register (Vol. 
60, No. 39) announces two categories of post-Conference activities 
devised to ensure the implementation of resolutions announced at the 
1995 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA). First, organizations may 
sponsor post-Conference events under the auspices of the White House 
Conference on Aging, provided that they meet requirements set forth in 
Part VI of the February 28 Federal Register. These requirements include 
submitting a letter of intent describing the event to the Executive 
Director of the WHCoA for approval. Second, individuals and 
organizations may submit public comments that address the practical 
aspects of resolution implementation.
    This notice announces an extension of the deadlines for these 
activities. In [[Page 20096]] regard to post-Conference events, letters 
of intent may be submitted until June 30, 1995. Reports from these 
events and public comments will now be accepted until November 15, 
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Goldmeier, White House Conference on Aging, 501 School Street, 
SW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024-2755, phone (202) 245-7116.

    Dated: April 18, 1995.
Fernando M. Torres-Gil,
Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 95-9963 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4130-02-M
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5579 

To provide that certain changes to the Manual of Military Decorations and 

Awards shall have no force or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide that certain changes to the Manual of Military 

Decorations and Awards shall have no force or effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserve Military Rec5 ognition Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUN IN 

7 JOINT PERSONAL MILITARY DECORATION CI8 TATIONS. 

9 Changes to Figure 3 (regarding opening sentences for 

10 joint personal military decoration citations of the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:34 Sep 21, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5579.IH H5579

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5579 IH

1 ment of Defense) of the Manual of Military Decorations 

2 and Awards: DoD Joint Decorations and Awards (Depart3 ment of Defense Manual 1348.33, Vol. 4 (December 21, 

4 2016)) that became effective on August 7, 2023, and re5 quires the use of the gender-neutral pronoun ‘‘themself’’ 

6 in joint personal military decoration citations of the De7 partment of Defense, shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Wendy NICHOLS, Claimant/Appellant, v. SECREST ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC., Employer/Respondent.

No. 62578.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 20, 1993.

*438George J. Miller, the Miller Law Firm, Fenton, for claimant/appellant.

Jeffrey Estes, Private Atty., Richmond Heights, William R. Gallagher, Private Atty., St. Louis, for employer/respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) reversing the award of the Administrative Law Judge and denying her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm. The Commission’s order is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Report of SmartPay Express, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Benny Lee, Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and 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 result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Benny
Lee


Benny
Lee


Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





May 15,
2008
#### Kenneth SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 187-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 10, 1989.

William W. Vance, Bryan, for appellant.

Bill Turner, Dist. Atty., Michael Hum-mell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bryan, and Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MILLER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by the jury of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed by the court at five days in county jail.

On direct appeal, the First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed appellant’s conviction holding, in a published opinion, *Schultz v. State,*725 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App.1987), that appellant was not entitled to an attorney under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution during the breathalyzer test. Thereafter, this Court granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to review the Court of Appeals decision.

Since granting this petition we have handed down *Forte v. State,*759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) in which we held that a defendant has no state constitutional right to have counsel present at a chemical sobriety test, therefore reaching the same result as the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals judgment.

CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ.,

dissent for the reasons stated in *Forte v. State,*759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), and for the further reason that appellant was subjected to custodial interrogation after invoking his right to counsel.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1699** 

In re: KENNETH D. BEVERLY Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 3:05

- cr - 00526

- HEH

- 1)

Submitted : September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kenneth D. Beverly, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Kenneth D. Beverly petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his various motions attacking his convictions . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review

of the district court’s do cket reveals that the district court recently denied or dismissed the motions **.** Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Beverly ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. To the extent Beverly seeks to directly challenge his convi ction, such relief i s not available by way of a mandamus petition. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                                THE GEON COMPANY
                                  SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Jurisdiction of
Name                                                                        Incorporation
----                                                                       ---------------
<S>                                                                             <C>
1997 Chlor-Alkali Venture Inc.                                                  Alabama
The Geon Company Australia Limited                                              Australia
Auseon Limited                                                                  Australia
Australian Vinyls Corporation (1)                                               Australia
Flexible Products Company of Australasia, PTY, Ltd.                             Australia
Geon Canada Inc.                                                                Canada
Synergistics Industries Limited                                                 Canada (4)
LP Holdings, Inc.                                                               Canada
Synergistics Industries (CO), Inc.                                              Colorado (5)
Geon Development Inc.                                                           Delaware
Synergistics Chemicals Inc.                                                     Delaware (5)
La Porte Chemicals Corp.                                                        Delaware
Lincoln & Southern Railroad Company                                             Delaware
Polymer Diagnostics Inc.                                                        Delaware
Sunbelt Chlor-Alkali Partnership (2)                                            Delaware (3)
Synergistics Industries (NJ), Inc.                                              Delaware (5) 
Wilflex, Inc.                                                                   Delaware (6)
Geon Engineering Vinyls Limited                                                 England
Hydro Geon (2)                                                                  England (3)
Adchem, Inc.                                                                    Georgia (6)
SPC Geon PTE LTD. (2)                                                           Singapore
Synergistics Industries (TX), Inc.                                              Texas
Inversiones The Geon Company de Venezuela C.A.                                  Venezuela
Plast-O-Meric, Inc.                                                             Wisconsin
</TABLE>

Notes:
(1) Owned 37.4% by the Company

(2) Owned 50% by the Company.

(3) Partnership

(4) Effective 1/1/99, this entity was merged into Geon Canada Inc.

(5) These U.S. Synergistics companies were merged into the parent (The Geon
    Company) effective 1/1/99. 

(6) Adchem, Inc. and Wilflex, Inc., were merged into Plast-O-Meric, Inc. 
    effective 1/1/99.
Exhibit 99.15

Press Release

INTERPOOL, PAY CASH DIVIDEND ON COMMON STOCK

PRINCETON, N.J., December 15, 2003 - Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX)
announced today that it will pay a cash dividend of $.0625 cents per share for
the fourth quarter of 2003. The dividend will be payable on January 15, 2004 to
shareholders of record on January 2, 2004. The aggregate amount of the dividend
is expected to be approximately $1,700,000. The amount of the quarterly dividend
is based on an indicated annualized dividend rate of 25 cents per share.

Interpool is one of the world's leading suppliers of equipment
and services to the transportation industry. It is the world's largest lessor of
intermodal container chassis and a world-leading lessor of cargo containers used
in international trade.

Contact: Interpool, Inc.

Richard W. Gross
(609) 452-8900
www.interpool.com
**Exhibit 13.1**

**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2004 of Acergy S.A. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tom Ehret, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 30, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Acergy S.A. and will be retained by Acergy S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Daniel M. PRESCOTT, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. 66634.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 1, 1995.

Gerald M. Dunne, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rodney P. Massman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Driver appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a trial de novo revoking his license for driving while intoxicated. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting *295forth the facts and reasons for this order, We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
2010 Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 

2010 Executive Bonus Plan 

NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan – 2010 

ELIGIBILITY 

All Full-Time Regular and Part-Time Regular (minimum 30 hours per week during the Bonus Plan period) Executives hired prior to
October 1, 2010 except for those Executives eligible under a separate incentive based compensation plan such as the Incentive Compensation Plan. Executives hired between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2010 will be eligible for a
pro-rated bonus based on the percentage of the year worked. Individuals must be a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any payment. Any accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due
to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis. 
 BONUS POOL

 The total amount to be paid to all employees NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan 2010 will be determined at the sole discretion of
the Board of Directors (the “Board”) at the first meeting of the Board in 2011, as recommended by the Compensation Committee. 

COMPONENTS 

The Executive Bonus will be based entirely (100%) on Corporate Performance and Individual Performance. 

1. Corporate Performance: Payment of any bonus will be dependent on the accomplishment of the major corporate
Milestones as determined by the Board. Milestones shall be weighted as determined by the Board. 
 NOTE: Failure
to accomplish each of the Milestones could result in no bonus payment under this plan for 2010 or may result in a reduced bonus allocation. It will be at the sole discretion of the Board to determine whether any or all of the bonus is to be paid.

 TIMING OF PAYOUT 

The Bonus plan will be paid as soon as practical in the following year after the Board has determined the bonus pool. Individuals must be
a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any bonus payment. Individuals not employed by NeurogesX at the time of the bonus payout will not be eligible or entitled to any in full or pro rata bonus payment. Any
accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis. 







 MAXIMUM PAYOUT 

The maximum payout will be established each year for that plan year. For 2010 the maximum bonus payout (100% of both the Corporate and
Individual Performance components) will be as follows: 
  

			
	 LEVEL
	 	 BONUS

	 CEO
	 	50% of Salary
	 EVP
	 	35% of Salary
	 Sr. VP (reporting directly to the CEO)
	 	30% of Salary
	 Sr. VP (not reporting directly to the CEO)
	 	25% of Salary
	 VP (not reporting directly to the CEO)
	 	20% of Salary
#### Sterling CUMMINGS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63282.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 7, 1993.

Elizabeth Haines, St. Louis, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sterling Cummings, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgments of conviction which movant sought to vacate were for forgery, stealing from a person, and the fraudulent use of a credit device. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years, seven years, and one year.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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








In
connection with the quarterly report of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo
J. Di Lorenzo, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive 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, as amended; and(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:  May
14, 2008





/s/ Angelo J. Di LorenzoAngelo
      J. Di LorenzoVice
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting**

The Company’s management isresponsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer, and effected by the Company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that: 1) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detailaccurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company; 2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with InternationalFinancial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of the management and the directors of the company; and 3) provide reasonable assuranceregarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements. 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectivenessto future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. 

The Company’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at November 30, 2009. In making thisassessment, the Company’s management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control—Integrated Framework. 

Based on its assessment, management believes that, as at November 30, 2009, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective, based onthose criteria. 

Deloitte LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in thisannual report on Form 20-F and, as part of the audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: February 17, 2010