alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9500]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Proposed Advisory Circular; Turbine Engine Windmilling and Rotor 
Locking

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed advisory circulars and 
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of an Advisory Circular 
(AC), which combines, No's. 33.74 and 33.92, Turbine Engine Windmilling 
and Rotor Locking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the proposed AC to the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Attn: Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 
Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803-5299.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Golinski, Engine and Propeller 
Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
MA, 01803-5299, telephone (617) 238-7119, fax (617) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Comments Invited

    A copy of the subject AC may be obtained by contacting the person 
named above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Interested persons 
are invited to comment on the proposed AC, and submit such written 
data, views, or arguments as they desire. Commenters must identify the 
subject of the AC, and submit comments in duplicate to the address 
specified above. All communications received on or before the closing 
date for comments will be considered by the Engine and Propeller 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service before issuance of the 
final AC.

Background

    This AC is on the subjects of turbine engine windmilling and rotor 
locking tests that were identified as areas where differences existed 
between the Joint Aviation Requirements-Engines, and part 33 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations. A study group composed of representatives 
of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Joint Aviation Authorities, 
Transport Canada and the Aviation Industry worked to produce a set of 
improved and harmonized requirements. These requirements have been 
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on 
March 6, 1995.
    This advisory circular, published under the authority granted to 
the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 
1423, provides guidance for these proposed requirements.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 7, 1995.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9500 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Margaret GORDON, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lawrence HERRON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63670.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 22, 1994.

Lori Koch, Goffstein, Kraus, Sherman, Seigel & Weinberg, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Richard C. Homire, Homire & Wilkes, P.C., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a negligence action for property damage resulting from an automobile collision. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and no error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,358,842
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,121,708
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 30,702,190
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,542,486
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,602,088
<LOANS>                                    108,814,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,511,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             153,421,103
<DEPOSITS>                                 135,101,386
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,390,044
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            707,929
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       363,108
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,157,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             153,421,103
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,471,235
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,543,369
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               198,218
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            11,212,822
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,838,505
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,860,325
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,352,497
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  519,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (5,650)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,065,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,645,971
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,645,971
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,825,212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.38
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,061,182
<LOANS-PAST>                                   755,516
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,061,182
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,366,006
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  428,493
<RECOVERIES>                                    54,110
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,511,123
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,511,123
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        133,000


</TABLE>
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 Annual
Report of American Realty Investors, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Daniel J. Moos,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company (Principal Executive Officer) and Gene S. Bertcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer), do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report
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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2010 |  | /s/    DANIEL J.
MOOS                                                                                             
|                      |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                
|                      | 
|Dated: March 31, 2010 |  | /s/    GENE S.
BERTCHER                                                                                           
|                      |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 353-354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-101]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. FR-4007-D-01]


Delegation of Concurrent Authority to the Deputy Secretary

AGENCY: Office of The Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of delegation of concurrent authority.

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

[[Page 354]]


SUMMARY: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is delegating 
to the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dwight P. 
Robinson, concurrently with the Secretary, the power and authority 
vested in or delegated or assigned to the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, with the exception of the power to sue and be sued.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sam E. Hutchinson, Associate General Counsel for Human Resources Law, 
Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Room 10242, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 
708-0888. (This is not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Section 7(d) of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development may delegate any of the Secretary's 
functions, powers and duties to such officers and employees of the 
Department as the Secretary may designate, and may authorize successive 
redelegations of such functions, powers and duties as determined to be 
necessary or appropriate. In the delegation of authority issued today, 
the Secretary is delegating to the Deputy Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, Dwight P. Robinson, all the power and authority 
vested in or delegated or assigned to the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary, 
with the exception of the power to sue and be sued.
    Accordingly, the Secretary delegates as follows:

Section A. Authority Delegated

    The Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dwight P. 
Robinson, is hereby authorized, concurrently with the Secretary, to 
exercise all the power and authority vested in or delegated or assigned 
to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Section B. Authority Excepted

    There is excepted from the authority delegated under Section the 
authority to sue and be sued.

Section C. Delegation of Concurrent Authority Superseded

    The Delegation of Concurrent Authority to the President, Government 
National Mortgage Association, published in the Federal Register on 
February 13, 1995, at 60 FR 8250, is hereby superseded.

    Authority: Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).

    Dated: December 28, 1995.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
[FR Doc. 96-101 Filed 1-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-M
**Exhibit 10.10**

 

LEASE AMENDMENT NO. 1

 

WHEREAS, Station Casinos, Inc. (“Lessee”) andTexas Gambling Hall & Hotel, Inc. (“Landlord”) have entered in aGround Lease and Sublease dated June 1, 1995 (the “Lease”);

 

AND WHEREAS, Lessee subsequently assigned its interestin the Lease to Texas Station, Inc. (“Tenant”) in an Assignment,Assumption and Consent Agreement dated July 6, 1995;

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Lessee agreed and intended asof such date that the appraised value of the lease be the higher of the fairmarket value of the land or the present value of lease payments;

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Leasee received advice fromCarlsmith, Ball, Wichman, Case & Ichiki that the lease language is notinconsistent with that intent; and

 

WHEREAS, in connection with Landlord’s accommodatingrequests for asset transfers needed by Lessee and Tenant for its gaming licenseneeds, Landlord expressed a desire to memorialize the intent by amending theLease;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to the Lease agree toamend the Lease by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph I.2. in Article Ithereof as follows:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the market value ofthe Landlord’s interest shall not be deemed to be lower than the present valueof the income stream remaining on the Lease.”

 

By executing below, the parties agree to thisAmendment No. 1 to the Lease this 23rd day of December, 1996.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Glenn C. Christenson                               |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Texas Station, Inc.                               |
|   |   |                                                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ W. J. Bullard                                      |   |
|   |   | Texas Gambling Hall &* *Hotel, Inc. |
|        |        |                                                        |        |  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7653
EDISON CHAVIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MORRIS BEDSOLE; ANN CAM PBELL; EARL BUTLER, a/k/a Moose; DAN FORD; MORRIS SIMPSON, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-700-5-BR) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Edison Chavis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Bobby Grey Deaver, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Larry James McGlothlin, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Douglas Edward Canders, CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chavis v. Bedsole , No. CA-95-700-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
SCPW-20-0000385

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

KRISTOPHER KEALOHA, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE FA#AUUGA TO#OTO#O, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NOS. 1CPC-18-0001728 and 1CPC-19-0000390)

ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Kristopher Kealoha’s

amended petition for writ of mandamus, filed on August 3, 2020,

and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate

that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief from this

court or that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. 

Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to an extraordinary writ. 

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000385

25-AUG-2020

01:06 PM
(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress

adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended petition for writ

of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 25, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

2
Summary of Named Executive Officer Compensation



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Summary of Unitrin, Inc. 
 Named Executive Officer Compensation - 2006 
  

											
	 Name and Title
	  	 2006 Base Salary
 ($)
	  	 2005 Bonus
 ($)(1)
	  	 2006 Stock
 Option Grant
 (#)(2)
	  	2006 Restricted
Stock Grant
(#)(3)
	 Richard C. Vie
 Chairman
	  	$	1,000,000	  	$	605,000	  	100,000	  	—  
	 Donald G. Southwell
 President & Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	900,000	  	 	499,125	  	100,000	  	—  
	 Eric J. Draut
 Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	650,000	  	 	363,000	  	50,000	  	20,000
	 Scott Renwick
 Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	  	 	450,000	  	 	248,050	  	25,000	  	—  
	 Richard Roeske
 Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer
	  	 	260,000	  	 	70,000	  	15,000	  	15,000



	(1)	Cash bonus for 2005 payable in 2006. 


	(2)	Number of shares of the Company’s common stock subject to the options granted pursuant to the 1997 or 2002 Stock Option Plan. 


	(3)	Number of shares of the Company’s common stock granted pursuant to the 2005 Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Unit Plan. Such shares are subject to forfeiture and other
restrictions pursuant to the Plan until vesting upon the fourth anniversary of the grant date. 

 As of
September 1, 2006
Exhibit
32.1




Certifications
Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “report”) of Sydys Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Kenneth J. Koock, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(1)
            the
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            the
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/
Kenneth J. Koock


Kenneth
J. Koock


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








Date:  October
1, 2009
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement  - Joseph Curtin



 Exhibit 10.9 

EXECUTION COPY 

AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

Dated as of January 25, 2007 

Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Original Agreement”), dated as of the
Effective Date as defined therein, by and between Tube City IMS Corporation (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Joseph Curtin (the “Executive”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meanings given to them in the Original Agreement. 
 For good and valuable consideration (including the promises set
forth herein), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, each of the Company and Executive intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment. 

  

	 	a.	The second sentence of Section 1. of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: “The number of shares of
Restricted Stock shall be equal to 16.66% of the total number of shares reserved for issuance under the Restricted Stock Plan on the Effective Date, which shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the total number of shares of common stock of
Buyer outstanding upon the Closing, and such Restricted Stock shall be granted pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Restricted Stock Plan and a Restricted Stock Agreement (as defined in the Restricted Stock Plan).”


  

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. Except as modified hereby, the provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain unmodified, and, subject to the amendments contained herein, the
Original Agreement is hereby confirmed as having been validly executed and delivered by each of the undersigned and as being in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts which together shall constitute one
instrument, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of New York, without reference to or giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws provision or rule that would cause the application of the
domestic substantive laws of any other jurisdiction. 

 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank]








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	TUBE CITY IMS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Title:   Vice President
		
		 	/s/ Joseph Curtin
		 	Joseph Curtin


 [Signature Page to

 Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 OCTOBER 19, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12554

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00145-CR-1-WSD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NATTU JULIAN VALLADAREZ,

a.k.a. Cholo,

a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez,

a.k.a. Ramiro Ramirez-Perez,

JOSE ALFREDO CRUZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 19, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Alan Glickman, appointed counsel for Nattu Julian Valladarez in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct.

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Nevertheless, Valladarez’s judgment indicated that he violated 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956(B)(i) and (B)(ii). Those sections, however, do not exist. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956. Instead, it appears that the district court committed a clerical error and

intended to cite § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm

Valladarez’s convictions and sentences, but we remand the case to the district court

for the limited purpose of allowing the court to correct the clerical error in

Valladarez’s judgment. See United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53 (11th

Cir. 1999) (vacating and remanding for the limited purpose of correcting clerical

error in the defendant’s judgment).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.

2