alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,632]

                    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 1, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Luxmovera, dba Uplinkearth, Somerset, New Jersey.                          ( print page 46042)    

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of August 2008.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18162 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES CLIFFORD DENTON,

Petitioner, 

v.

C. ZYCH,

Respondent.

______________________________/ 

Case Number: 09-13581

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND 

DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner James Clifford Denton

(Petitioner) is a federal prisoner. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has calculated

Petitioner’s projected release date as November 16, 2010. Petitioner filed the instant

petition claiming that the BOP has wrongfully denied him participation in a Residential

Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. 

Respondent filed a response, contending that the petition should be dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of merit. The magistrate judge

issued a report and recommendation (MJRR) recommending that the petition be denied

for lack of merit because Petitioner has no liberty interest in participation in the RDAP. 
2

Neither party has objected to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has

passed.

II.

The parties' failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives

any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees

with the magistrate judge that the petition must be denied for lack of merit. Accordingly,

the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of the Court. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 

This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to James Denton,

9567085, Milan Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 1000 

Milan, MI 48160 and the attorneys of record on this date, March 1, 2010, by electronic

and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00100-CR

Gregorio Manuel Baladez

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-27068-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 16, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James J. Rooney, Relator, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46962-46963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6306]

Re-Chartering of the Advisory Committee on International 
Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on International Communications and 
Information Policy (ACICIP) has been re-chartered for an additional two 
years.
    The Department of State announces the re-chartering of the Advisory 
Committee on International Communications and Information Policy 
(ACICIP), a continuing committee under the authority of 22 U.S.C. 2656 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. II, Secs. 1-5 
(``FACA''). ACICIP members are private sector communications and 
information technology specialists from U.S. telecommunications 
companies, trade associations, policy institutions, and academia, who 
advise the Department on issues affecting international communications 
and information policy.
    The Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
which requires advisory committees to renew their charters every two 
years.

[[Page 46963]]

    Dated: August 4, 2008.
Emily Yee,
Designated Federal Officer, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-18600 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
#### Abraham N. Ward, Appellant, *v.*William M. Owens *et*al., Appellees.

APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND.

The statute authorizing testimony to he introduced orally in chancery, does not dispense with the necessity of incorporating the testimony in the record.

This Court will not presume that any proof was made, that does not appear of record.

All that is necessary for an understanding of this case, is set out in the opinion of the Court. The decree was ordered by Harlan, Judge, at the October term, 1850, of the Cumberland Circuit Court.

Stuart and Edwards, for Appellant.

Lincoln & Herndon, for Appellees.

Treat, C. J.

This was a bill in chancery to set aside a conveyance. The answer denied the allegations of the bill, and the cause was at issue by the filing of a replication. A decree was entered for the complainant, which the defendant assigns for error. The record fails to show, that any evidence was given to sustain the averments in the bill. The statute authorizing testimony to be introduced orally at the hearing, was only designed to change the mode of taking proof in chancery cases, and does not dispense with the necessity of incorporating it into the record. The evidence, or the facts proved by it, ought to be stated in the record. This Court will not presume that any other proof was made than what appears in the record. Such was the express decision in the ease of White *v.*Morrison, 11 Illinois, 361. There is then no basis on which this decree can stand. It will be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

*Decree reversed.*
2:09-cv-10236-SJM-SDP Doc # 1-2 Filed 01/21/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TONY HADDAD,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-12597

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

CHARLES RILEY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

CHARLES RILEY, BRIGHTON MARKET,

INC., and BLUE DIAMOND MARKET OF

WARREN, INC.,

Defendants,

and

BRIGHTON MARKET, INC.

Cross-Claimant,

v.

CHARLES RILEY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Cross-Defendant

______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BLUE DIAMOND

MARKET OF WARREN, INC.

Presently before the Court is the report issued on January 20, 2010 by Magistrate Judge

Michael J. Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this Court grant the

plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendant Blue Diamond Market of Warren, Inc.,

only. Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no

objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation
-2-

waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases

the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 43] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for judgment against defendant Blue

Diamond Market of Warren, Inc., only [dkt. # 13] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that judgment will be entered against the cross-defendant in favor

of the cross-claimant on the cross-claim after a hearing at which the cross-claimant will have an

opportunity to establish the amount of damages to which it is entitled. The hearing is scheduled for

March 22, 2010, at 3:30 p.m.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 10, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 10, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20003-08

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

TRAVIS WILDFONG,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On September 17, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of

the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on September 17, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 98, PageID.210 Filed 09/18/09 Page 1 of 2
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: September 18, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Shane Waller and Philip Sturtz, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: September 18, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 98, PageID.211 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. McKelvey, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skyview
Development Corp.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

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

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and

      5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonable likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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


Dated: November 1, 2007                    By: /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
       ----------------                        -----------------------------
                                               Donald R. McKelvey
                                               Principal Financial Officer
#### A. B. Barr & Company, Respondent, v. Pierre D. Dumont, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20421-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

D-1 JUAN LUIS MONTOYA-PEGO,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on December 22, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

December 23, 2009, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty to count one

of the indictment. On February 16, 2010, an amended Rule 11 plea agreement [Dkt. # 39] was filed,

correcting the factual basis for Defendant’s guilty plea to be consistent with Defendant’s statements

at the plea hearing. As of today’s date, the parties have not elected to file any objections to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The decision not to file objections to the report and

recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 29] is ADOPTED.
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty to count one of the indictment

is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 39] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 23, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 23, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS
#### Josephine M. Kane, as Administratrix, etc., of Mary C. H. Kane, Deceased, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
rrc-ex101_15.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1

 

 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 1

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED
RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL
SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN

 

WHEREAS, Range Resources Corporation (the “Company”) adopted the Amended and Restated Range Resources Corporation Executive Change In Control Severance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated from time to time (the “Executive CIC Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board determined to supplement the Executive CIC Plan to clarify the calculation of the cash severance benefit.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is supplemented as follows:

 

1.Section 1.1 (v) is added as follows:

(v) “Target Bonus” means the Employee’s Base Salary multiplied by the Employee’s annual short term incentive bonus percentage at the time of the Change in Control.

 

2.Section 3.1 is corrected to address a typographical error as follows:

3.1 Severance Benefits Any Eligible Employee who incurs an Involuntary Termination of Employment during the Protection Period shall receive, subject to Section 3.3(b) and Section 3.4, the following severance benefits, subject to the limitations contained in this Plan. [the original Plan document referred to Section 3.5 when the correct reference is 3.4]

 

3.Section 3.1 (a) is revised so that after (ii) it reads as follows:

(ii) the sum of the Eligible Employee’s (a) Base Salary; and, (b) Bonus or Target Bonus, whichever is greater.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company has caused this Supplement to be signed on its behalf by its duly authorized representative this 10th day of February 2020.

 

 

RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION


			
	
   By:
	
/s/
	
MARK S. SCUCCHI

	
Title:
	
 
	
Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1





                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4a

                              FIRST  AMENDMENT  TO
                     O'SULLIVAN  INDUSTRIES  HOLDINGS, INC.
                          DEFERRED  COMPENSATION  PLAN

         WHEREAS, O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. has established its
Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of a select group of
management and highly compensated employees; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company reserved the
right to amend the Plan from time to time in its discretion; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth below;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the Plan is
amended as follows, effective July 1, 1997:

5.6      Method of Payment.   A Participant may elect distribution of the
Accounts in a lump sum or in installments over a period of years (not to exceed
ten).  Any such election must be made no later than twelve months prior to the
time a Participant first becomes eligible to receive a distribution of his
Accounts under the Plan.  If the Participant elects installment payments, the
unpaid amount shall continue to be invested as provided in Article IV and shall
continue to accrue earnings until paid.  A distribution shall be made in cash,
except that with respect to any amount credited to the Phantom Stock Unit
investment at the time of distribution, the Participant or his Beneficiary may
elect to receive his distribution in the form of whole shares of common stock
of O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc., provided, however, that: (1) the
restrictions specified in Section 4.2 shall apply to such latter election by an
officer, as defined in Section 4.2; and (2) any Participant or Beneficiary's
right to receive a distribution in the form of shares of stock is limited to
the right to receive shares of treasury stock, and to the extent there are no
shares of treasury stock available, the distribution shall be made in cash.
Any election pursuant to this Section 5.6 shall be made on a form prescribed by
the Administrator and shall be irrevocable once made.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been duly executed as of
the 3rd day of September, 1997.

                                        O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.



                                        By:     /s/ Daniel F. O'Sullivan
                                                Chairman of the Board and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                "Sponsoring Employer"

ATTEST:

/s/  Rowland H. Geddie, III
Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary



                                 Page 1 of 1