alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.1


                                SECOND AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

                            SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN
               (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1989)

         Effective January 1, 1997, the following revision is adopted by the
Transtar, Inc. Salaried Retirement Plan.

         APPENDIX A, Subsection (a) shall be amended as follows:

         (a)      Normal wages and salaries for services performed, including 
                  incentive, shift differential, out-of-line differential, and
                  Sunday, holiday and overtime premium payments applicable to
                  such services, but excluding any cost-of-living payment and
                  the amount resulting from a Cost-of-Living Adjustment included
                  in the base hourly or salary rates on or after May 1, 1974
                  other than the first thirty-nine cents ($.39) per hour for
                  hourly paid employees and the first sixty-eight dollars ($68)
                  per month for salaried employees. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997,
                  PARTICIPANTS WHOSE ROLLED INTO BASE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
                  EXCLUDED FROM PENSIONABLE EARNINGS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1997
                  EXCEEDS SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($600.00) PER MONTH SHALL HAVE
                  SUCH EXCLUSION REDUCED PROSPECTIVELY TO SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS
                  ($600.00) PER MONTH. The preceding shall be modified for
                  Participants covered by a collective bargaining agreement that
                  provides for a deviation in the method of determining normal
                  wages and salaries. Effective August 11, 1986, the amount of
                  any temporary reduction in any Participant's salary will be
                  included in Pensionable Earnings for pension purposes;
                  provided, however, that the temporary reduction included in
                  Pensionable Earnings shall be reduced by any subsequent salary
                  increase.


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Transtar, Inc. has caused this Amendment
to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 4th day of February, 1997.


ATTEST:                                     TRANSTAR, INC.




By  /s/ R. N. GENTILE                       By /s/ J. W. SCHULTE
    -------------------------                  -----------------------
        R. N. Gentile                              J. W. Schulte
222 So.2d 360

#### M. H. PARSONS v. Lillie Belle PARSONS.

6 Div. 657.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 10, 1969.

*106S. P. Keith, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.

Jack H. McGuire, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

MERRILL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree refusing to grant the husband’s petition to modify a decree of separate maintenance that had been granted in favor of the wife in 1965.

Appellant sought to have the court remove, set aside or modify Paragraph 5 of the separate maintenance decree, which provides:

> “That respondent, Lillie Belle Parsons, with her minor daughter, is hereby given the right and privilege of living, or, occupying and using said homestead and 17i^ acres of lands herein described, free from interference, abuse or harrassment from M. H. Parsons, cross-respondent, pending further orders of this Court, and the said M. H. Parsons is hereby denied any right or privilege of living on, occupying and using said homestead and 17j^ acres of land pending the further orders of this Court.”

Appellant also averred that the changed circumstances relied on for the modification are contained in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition, which read:

> “That Complainant is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, avers that respondent recently was arrested for having an illegal whiskey still on said property and operating the same thereon; that respondent is illegally using complainant’s property for an illegal purpose and in all probability will, if she continues in use of said property, cause serious damage and loss to complainant’s said property.

> “Complainant avers that he had no knowledge or notice of respondent’s illegal use of said property prior to her said arrest and apprehension.”

Both appellant and appellee argued in briefs facts that are not included in the record. Argument in brief reciting matters not disclosed by the record cannot be considered on . appeal. Coleman v. Estes, 281 Ala. 234, 201 So.2d 391; Christian v. Reed, 265 Ala. 533, 92 So.2d 881, 2 Ala. Dig. Appeal & Error ‘@^714(5).

The only witness to testify was the petitioner, M. H. Parsons. It was stipulated that there was an indictment against Lillie Belle Parsons for distilling and possessing a still but there had been no trial and no arraignment. An indictment is only a charge and is not proof that the party is guilty as charged.

The trial court held that petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition to modify. We agree because we are convinced that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a material change of circumstances since the rendering of the prior decree.

The trial court can, in its discretion, modify an original award of alimony or support on proof of changed circumstances of the parties, one or both, but unless the discretion is abused, an order will not be reversed on appeal. Mockridge v. Mockridge, 278 Ala. 79,175 So.2d 772.

We find no abuse of discretion and it follows that the decree should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
#### Hiram LYLES v. SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

No. 1860.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 14, 1938.

Hawthorn, Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellant.

A. R. Lecompte, of DeRidder, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

. For the reasons this day assigned in this consolidated case with the case of Hiram Lyles v. National Liberty Insurance Co. of America, La.App., 182 So. 181, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by the allowance of twelve per cent damages on the principal sum or face of the policy, and the further sum of $150 as attorney’s fees, together with legal interest on the face of the policy from *184judicial demand until paid'; and as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed, all at the cost of defendant-appellant.
#### In the Matter of the Application of G. Floyd Boughton for Admission to the Bar.

Application for admission to the bar denied. All concurred, except

McLennan, P. J., and Kruse, J., who voted for admitting the applicant.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6327] 

# DATES:

Interested parties are invited to submit, in duplicate, comments relative to this proposal on or before September 22, 2008 to J. Brian Duggan, Office of International Energy and Commodities Policy, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. The application and related documents that are part of the record to be considered by the Department of State in connection with this application are available for inspection in the Office of International Energy and Commodities Policy during normal business hours. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        J. Brian Duggan, Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy (EB/ESC/IEC/EPC), Department of State, Washington, DC 20520; or by telephone at (202) 647-1291; or by e-mail at                         *DugganJB@state.gov.*

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Stephen J. Gallogly, 

Director, Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-19414 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
#### Mrs. Anita DIX v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

No. 2504.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 20, 1943.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Baker v. Travelers Insurance Co., and Dix v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., 13 So.2d 65, this day handed down:

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from is hereby reduced to the sum of $1,513 and as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed at the cost of appellee in this court, all other costs to be paid by defendant appellant.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David L. Omachinski, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this third quarter SEC Form 10-Q of OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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;

c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 

d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000505

16-AUG-2016

08:19 AM
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Otter Tail Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin
G. Moug, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 results of
operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                                                     
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Kevin G. MougKevin G. Moug
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
August 14, 2003
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                          JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, L.P.
                 HISTORICAL RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (000's omitted)    
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 1992     1993     1994     1995     1996
                                                               -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
HISTORICAL EARNINGS:
<S>                                                            <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
   Net income before extraordinary
     item....................................................  $10,120  $15,390  $15,386  $18,729  $18,524
   Add:
   Interest, amortization of deferred
     financing fees and other fixed
     charges (excluding interest
     capitalized)............................................   30,570   27,839   33,308   28,904   36,337
                                                               -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Historical earnings.....................................  $40,690  $43,229  $48,694  $47,633  $54,861
                                                               =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
 
FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense and
     amortization of deferred
     financing fees..........................................  $30,127  $27,412  $32,932  $28,447  $35,620
   Interest capitalized......................................        -        -      957    5,270    7,162
Interest element of rentals..................................      443      427      376      457      717
                                                               -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Fixed charges...........................................  $30,570  $27,839  $34,265  $34,174  $43,499
                                                               =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
 
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
   CHARGES (A)...............................................     1.33     1.55     1.42     1.39     1.26
                                                               =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
 
</TABLE>

(A)   In computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings have been
based on income from operations before income taxes and fixed charges (exclusive
of interest capitalized) and fixed charges consist of interest and amortization
of deferred financing fees (including amounts capitalized) and the estimated
interest portion of rents.
#### Clelland, Impl., v. Tanner.

The right of appeal is purely statutory, and, to be available, the terms upon -which the right is given must be complied with. The time within which an appeal bond shall be filed must be fixed by an order of the *court,*hence such order cannot be made in vacation.

*Error to District Court of Fremont County.*

The case is stated in the opinion.

Messrs. Thatcher and G-ast, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Bentley and Vaile, for defendant in error.

Beck, C. J.

The only error assigned is to the action of the district court in dismissing an appeal to the court from a money judgment entered up in vacation in the county court.

Counsel for plaintiff in error contended that although no appeal was prayed, and no time fixed by the court for *253the giving of an appeal bond, yet appeals lie from judgments entered in vacation, as well as from those entered in term time, and a good and sufficient appeal bond having been executed by the plaintiff in error, which was duly approved and filed by the. judge of the county court, and the papers having been transmitted to the district court, it was error to dismiss the appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction to entertain it.

If the proposition be admitted, that the statute authorizes an appeal from judgments entered up in vacation, still the right is purely statutory, and to be available the terms upoxi which the right is given must be complied with. These terms, as prescribed by the act of 1877, are, “ the party desiring such appeal shall, within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, give. good and sufficient bond, with one or more sureties, to be approved by the judge or clerk of said court.” * * * We held, in *Gruner v.*Moore, 6 Colo. 526, that the order fixing the time within which the appeal bond might be filed could not be made in vacation, for the reason that it required the judicial action of the court to make such order.

In this present case the plaintiff in error tendered his appeal bond twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, assuming that the law allowed him that time to prepare the same without an order of court. Where a statutory right rests upon conditions thereto attached, such conditions cannot be arbitrarily dispensed with, and advantage taken of the right at the same time. And where the statute clearly covers all cases, it is no answer to say that in a given case the conditions required are inconvenient and useless. Until the statute is modified its terms must be complied with.

*Affirmed.*
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 I, Thomas L. Millner, certify that
this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Remington Arms Company, Inc. fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: August 2, 2005
        /s/ Thomas L. Millner

Thomas L. Millner
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### William Harold PEOPLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Arthur F. Beeler, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6959.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

*994William Harold Peoples, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

William H. Peoples seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Peoples cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). An appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peoples has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6037 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6037

To prohibit the Administrator of the Small Business Administration from 
   directly making loans under the 7(a) loan program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Hagedorn, Mr. 
Stauber, Mr. Meuser, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Garbarino, Mrs. Kim of California, 
Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Donalds, Ms. Salazar, and Mr. Fitzgerald) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small 
                                Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Administrator of the Small Business Administration from 
   directly making loans under the 7(a) loan program, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON DIRECT 7(A) LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of subsection (a) of 
section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration may not directly 
make a loan pursuant to such subsection.
    (b) Existing Loans.--The Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall service a direct loan made under section 7(a) of 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) if such loan was made before 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```