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.                  

###### African Development Foundation

      ( print page 51621)    
*Time:*                     Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.                

*Place:*                     African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.                

*Date:*                     Tuesday, September 30, 2008.                

*Status:*

1. Open session, Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; and

2. Closed session, Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

                    Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals wishing to attend the open session of the meeting must notify Doris Martin, General Counsel, at (202) 673-3916 or Michele M. Rivard at                     *mrivard@usadf.gov*                     of your request to attend by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.                

Lloyd O. Pierson,

President.

[FR Doc. E8-20446 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN GRANT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 499 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
|Exhibit 12                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|Peoples Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies                                         
|                                                                                            
|Statement Re:  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges *                          
|(Dollars in Thousands)                                                                      
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Net Income Before Preferred                                                                 
|Stock Dividends, as reported                                                                
|                                                                                            
|Undistributed earnings from equity investees                                                
|                                                                                            
|Add - Income Taxes                                                                          
|Fixed charges excluding capitalized interest                                                
|                                                                                            
|Earnings                                                                                    
|                                                                                            
|Fixed charges including capitalized interest                                                
|                                                                                            
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                          
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|*  Prior year amounts have been restated to reflect the conversion to successful efforts and
|to adjust for undistributed equity income.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.7.1

                    BONUS PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL 2005 UNDER THE
                             PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN

The Jack in the Box Compensation Committee approved a bonus program for the
executive officers of the Company (other than the executive officer of the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary Qdoba Restaurant Corporation) for fiscal year
2005 as contemplated under the stockholder-approved Performance Bonus Plan. The
bonus will be based 75% on meeting certain EPS goals and 25% on meeting certain
ROA goals. The Compensation Committee established threshold, targeted and
maximum levels of EPS growth and ROA growth derived from the financial forecasts
of the Company. No bonus payments are made unless the threshold level of EPS
growth and ROA growth is achieved. If target level is achieved the executive
officers will receive bonus payments equal to 75% (CEO) or 45-65% (other
executives) of base salary. If targets are exceeded, each executive officer may
earn a maximum bonus of up to 150% (CEO) or 90-135% (other executives) of base
salary.

The Jack in the Box Inc. Compensation Committee approved a separate bonus
program for the executive officer of Qdoba Restaurant Corporation, for fiscal
year 2005 under the stockholder-approved Performance Bonus Plan. The bonus will
be based on meeting certain goals for earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for Qdoba. The Compensation Committee
established threshold, targeted and maximum levels of EBITDA derived from the
financial forecasts for Qdoba. No bonus payments are made unless the threshold
level of EBITDA growth is achieved. If target level is achieved the executive
officer will receive bonus payments equal to 50% of base salary. If the target
is exceeded, the executive officer may earn a maximum bonus of up to 125% of
base salary.

The Jack in the Box Compensation Committee approved a long-term performance unit
program for management employees of its wholly owned subsidiary, Qdoba
Restaurant Corporation, including the Qdoba executive officer. Under this
program, established pursuant to the stockholder-approved 2004 Stock Incentive
Plan, "performance units" are granted to participants at the beginning of a
three-year performance period. The performance units will vest three years from
date of grant contingent upon the achievement of certain performance goals. The
Compensation Committee has established goals for the performance period fiscal
year 05 through fiscal year 07 for per-store average sales, restaurant operating
margin and number of restaurants open at the end of the three-year period.
Awards may range from 0% to 120% of performance units granted and are converted
to a cash value of $1 per performance unit. Additional Performance Unit Programs
may be implemented each fiscal year with performance periods, which overlap the
performance periods of earlier programs.
EXHIBIT
32.1.





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Neil
Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Princeton
Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") 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, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(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
Registrant.





Dated:  April
14,
2009               By:  /s/ Neil
Blosch


Neil
Blosch


Chief
Executive Officer, Principal Accounting


Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Olga Giordano, Respondent, v Employers’ Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered April 18, 1989, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny summary judgment to plaintiff and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured on April 8, 1983 in an automobile accident involving a tractor trailer driven by Charles Hayden, Jr. The tractor was registered to Hayden Trucking Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, and the trailer was *144registered to Joseph Lapite. Subsequently, plaintiff sued Charles Hayden, Jr. and others in the Supreme Court, Bronx County.

In this action plaintiff sought a declaration that pursuant to the terms of an insurance policy in effect on the date of the accident, defendant was obligated to defend Charles Hayden, Jr. and to pay any damages. The motion court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, stating that a prima facie showing of coverage had been established by a certified record of the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Department indicating coverage for Hayden Trucking and by defendant’s failure to produce for examination a "qualified individual”.

We modify to deny summary judgment since factual issues exist as to whether a policy covering Charles Hayden, Jr. had ever been issued and, if so, the terms of said policy. It is noted that the individual produced by defendant did testify to searches made for such a policy without success. It is also noted that plaintiff submitted no brief on this appeal. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3646

_____________________________
L EO P RICE , J R

. ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Amended Petition for Belated Appeal

– Original Jurisdiction

. February 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The amended petition seeking belated appeal is denied on the merits.

J AY , W INSOR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authori zed motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Leo Price, Jr., pro se
, Petitioner

.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
177 La. 83

#### R. A. GROUNDS v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 31515.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

Melvin F. Johnson and Murff & Perkins, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

Lewis L. Morgan and A. D. Cain, Jr., both of New Orleans, and *D.*M. Ellison, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This ease involves the same legal questions and facts, so far as pertinent, as are presented in the case entitled Joseph Connolly et al. v. Louisiana Highway Commission (La. Sup.) 147 So. 505, this day decided.

For the reasons assigned in the Connolly Case, it is decreed that the judgment appealed from he avoided, that the defendant’s exception of no right and no cause of action be *507overruled, and that this case be remanded to the district court to be proceeded with according to law and the views herein expressed; the costs of the appeal to await the final judgment.
Exhibit 15.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Kabel Deutschland GmbH, Unterföhring:

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Kabel Deutschland GmbH, Unterföhring, as of March 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in consolidated equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2008. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Kabel Deutschland GmbH,
Unterföhring, at March 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31,
2008, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

July 25,
2008

Ernst &
Young AG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
Munich, Germany

|/s/GERHARD MÜLLERWirtschaftsprüfer |  |  |  | /s/RALF BOSTEDTWirtschaftsprüfer |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2



                       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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, serving
as its Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge, 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.


Date: February 13, 2009                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Principal Financial Officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
Compensation for Directors



  
 Exhibit 10.K

  
 Compensation for Directors 
  
 As of 2004, each non-employee director receives for service as a director an annual fee of
$110,000. Members of the Audit Committee receive an additional annual fee of $5,000. The chairmen of each of the Audit, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committees receive an additional annual fee of $10,000. The chairmen of each of the
Executive and International Committees receive an additional annual fee of $5,000. Directors also are reimbursed for travel expenses in connection with meetings. Compensation is available for extended travel on Board business at the request of the
Board or a Committee of the Board at the rate of $2,000 per day, including travel days and work days. 
  
 The Board of Directors has designated that $55,000 of the $110,000 annual fee paid to non-employee directors automatically will be placed into a common share equivalents account under the Fee Deferral Plan for
Directors. The value of the common share equivalents account is measured from time to time by the value of the Company’s common shares and is payable to a director in cash at a time selected in advance by the director, which must be on or after
the director’s termination of service as a director. The share equivalents account is credited on each dividend payment date for common shares with the number of share equivalents that are equal in value to the amount of the quarterly dividend
on common shares. The Fee Deferral Plan for Directors provides that non-employee directors may defer receipt of all or a portion of the remaining fees for services as a director and elect between interest bearing and common share equivalent accounts
as the investment vehicle for the deferred fees. The Fee Deferral Plan for Directors is administered by the Compensation Committee.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Nov ember 9 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk Nov ember 9 , 2016

15 4 651 ( 49 )

ALTMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY

,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 4 651

v COA: 32 8 593

Ingham CC: 13

- 00 1106

- CK

AON RISK INSURANCE SERVICES

WEST, INC

. , Defendant

- Appell ee

.

________ _________________________ ____ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, pursuant to the stipulation signed by the attorneys

for the parties, the time for defendant

- appellee to file its answer to the application for

leave to appeal is extended to Dec em ber 5 , 2016.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Abraham Baptiste and Alicia Gorham, Also Known as Alicia Baptiste, Respondents.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), dated December 22, 1988, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective omnibus motions which were to dismiss Kings County indictment No. 4884/88.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, those branches of the defendants’ respective omnibus motions which were to dismiss Kings County indictment No. 4884/88 are denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Because there is no indication that the defendant may have been prejudiced thereby, the bifurcated procedure employed by the prosecutor in presenting the instant case to the Grand Jury was proper *(see,*CPL 210.35 [5]; *People v Cade,*74 NY2d 410, 417). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6809 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6809

   To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico who are 
 seeking to temporarily enter the United States for business through a 
     land port of entry from any COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 2022

 Mr. Gimenez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico who are 
 seeking to temporarily enter the United States for business through a 
     land port of entry from any COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Terminating Reckless and Unnecessary 
Checks Known to Erode Regular Shipping Act'' or the ``TRUCKERS Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM COVID-19 VACCINATION REQUIREMENT.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security may not impose any COVID-19 vaccination requirement 
on any commercial truck driver who is a national of Canada or of Mexico 
and is seeking to temporarily enter the United States for business 
through a land port of entry.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mrs. Margaret McNEILL v. Charles F. ELCHINGER.

No. 20474.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 28, 1955.

Harry R. Cabral, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

John Pat Little, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for defendant-appellee has filed a motion suggesting that this appeal be dismissed for the reason that the suit involves “a money judgment in the sum of $4,041.24 * * * and is not a suit for physical injuries to, or for the death of a person.”

Counsel for appellant has asked that the appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court.

Our examination of the record indicates that there is involved a claim for more than $2,000 and that it is not a suit for physical injuries or for death.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana pursuant to law, LSA-R.S. 13:4441, 13:4442, which transfer is to be effected within sixty days, and if such transfer should not be made within that time, then and in that event the appeal is to stand as though it had been dismissed. Appellant is to pay all costs in this Court.

Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.