alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21314]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8714-3]


Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2a5b7a1a6bea7bcb6fca0bbb1b992b7a2b3fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b4c5e484f574e555f15495258507b5e4b5a155c544d">[email protected]</span></a> and please refer to the appropriate EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 1669.05; Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information 
Dissemination--TSCA Section 406(b); in 40 CFR part 735, subpart E; was 
approved 08/14/2008; OMB Number 2070-0158; expires 08/31/2011.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21314 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.5


 





Mantua Creek Group, LLC


P. O. Box 25064


Winston Salem, NC 27114


August 12, 2019


 


 


Ms. Christine T. Lindenmuth


 


Your Hometown Deli, LLC


25 E. Grant Street


Woodstown, NJ 08098


 


Re: Addendum - Lease Agreement, 541A Mantua
Ave., Paulsboro, NJ


 


Dear Christine,


 


Pursuant to our conversation today, please
accept this letter as written notification that Mantua Creek Group, LLC (Landlord) hereby grants Your Hometown Deli, LLC (tenant)
an extension to the lease dated 7/1/2014 for a further two years, in accordance to Section 1 Part B of said lease.


 


Therefore, the lease will now end June
30, 2021. All other terms of the Lease Agreement remain the same. This will further acknowledge receipt of your check (# 3055 dated
8/9/19) in the amount of $10,000.00 which brings the account current through 7/31/19.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	James T. Patten
	 	James T. Patten, Manager
EXHIBIT32.1

|   | 1. | to      the best of our knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | to      the best of our knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 16, 2010 | /s/      Andrew Stollman     |
|----------------------------|------------------------------|
|                       | Andrew      Stollman         |
|                       | President                    |
|                       |                         |
|                       |                         |
| Date:      August 16, 2010 | /s/      Thomas Plotts       |
|                       | Thomas      Plotts           |
|                       | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
Form of amendment for modified Stock Option Award Agreement




 EXHIBIT 10.25 
  
 SYPRIS SOLUTIONS, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS 
 TO ACCELERATE VESTING PERIODS 
 FOR CERTAIN “UNDERWATER” OPTIONS 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to your Stock Option Agreements is made by and between Sypris Solutions, Inc. a Delaware corporation
located at 101 Bullitt Lane, Suite 450, Louisville, KY (“Company”) and the undersigned Optionee, effective as of March 11, 2005. 
  

	1.	For Unvested Options with Option Prices above [$__.__] (the “Accelerated Options”), the Vesting Periods are hereby amended to allow each such Accelerated
Option to be exercised at any time after March 11, 2005, until its expiration under the terms of the Plans and your Agreements. 

  

	2.	“Option Price” means the price to be paid for Common Stock upon the exercise of an Unvested Option, as set forth in the Plans and your Agreements.


  

	3.	“Plans” means the Sypris Solutions, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Key Employees and/or the 2004 Sypris Equity Plan, as applicable. 

  

	4.	“Stock Option Agreements” or the “Agreements” includes each of your Stock Option Agreements for Options Granted Pursuant to 1994 Stock Option Plan
for Key Employees and/or each of your Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreements under the 2004 Sypris Equity Plan. 

  

	5.	“Unvested Options” means only those unvested stock option grants made to you under the Plans which have not been exercised, forfeited or terminated as of March 11,
2005; provided, however, that the term “Unvested Options” shall not include any grants of Performance-Based Options which have not yet achieved their Target Share Prices. 

  

	6.	“You” or “your” means the undersigned Optionee. 

  

	7.	All other capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Plans and the Agreements, whether capitalized in the Plans and the Agreements or not.


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Amendment in duplicate to be effective as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	SYPRIS SOLUTIONS, INC.	 	 	 	OPTIONEE
				
	By	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 Jeffrey T. Gill
 President & CEO
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Printed Name)
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Companies. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August                6, 2007 |
|------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/                Eric M. Markell       |
| Eric                M. Markell                 |
| Executive                Vice President and    |
| Chief                Financial Officer         |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-01-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

Defendant moved for ex parte relief concerning access to

telephone, visitation, access to legal materials and prompt

posting and delivery of mail. The court held a hearing at which

the defendant and senior officers from Strafford County House of

Corrections testified. 

Defendant testified that his attorney, investigator and one

expert experienced delays of five (5) days in receipt of mail and

that he had some delays in receipt of legal mail. The

Superintendent and Captain McPherson testified that with the

exception of Saturday mail and late day receipt mail all of

Reid’s legal mail is mailed the same day he delivers it to guards

and/or receives mail. The prison keeps a log of his mail which

is an exhibit. I find that defendant has been afforded prompt

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 368 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 3
1Defendant says that mail has not been an issue lately in

any event.

2Reid understands he will be moved in cuffs and shackles. 

The calls will not be monitored but will be placed only to

persons on the list who are witnesses, experts, counsel or the

investigator. 

2

and effective mail service by the prison.1

Defendant asserts that he is being given insufficient

telephone access, which he claims he needs for legal calls. 

Defendant was placed in administrative segregation in April for

an alleged assault on another inmate. While in that status, he

is not permitted to make legal calls out. The prison has agreed

that he may make up to three “legal” calls per day out until

trial next week.2 With respect to defendant’s receipt of legal

calls, I find that defendant is and has been permitted legal

calls to him. Due to the system some experts have hung up due to

prolonged cell block connection time. The short period the phone

was broken was resolved when the Superintendent had the phone

fixed the same day Reid complained. 

I find Reid and the prison miscommunicated on visitation. 

While maximum security prisoners only have legal visits the

Superintendent directed that Reid could be visited by any

witness, expert, investigator or lawyer involved on his criminal

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 368 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 3
3

case. Reid now understands this. 

The log of access to law materials demonstrates that

defendant has had very substantial and constitutionally

sufficient access to law materials. 

The motion is granted in part as set forth above, is moot in

part and is denied in part. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 12, 2006

cc: Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

 Gordon Reid, pro se

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 368 Filed 07/12/06 Page 3 of 3
#### CITY OF CLEARWATER v. GREEN, Mayor-Commissioner.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

John C. Polhill and S. E. Simmons, both of Clearwater, for relator. :-

Baskin, Jordan & Richards, of Clear-water, for respondent; ' ' '

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the respondent R. E. Green, as mayor-commissioner of the city of Clearwater, to countersign certain waterworks revenue certificates of the city of Clearwater and to affix the seal of the said city thereto and to execute the coupons attached to said certificates by his facsimile signature.

The same legal questions are presented here for our determination'1 which have *648been presented and determined in the cases of E. H. Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492, opinion filed July 17, 1936, and Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631, opinion filed at this term of the court, and in the two cases of the State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell, as Clerk of the City of Vero Beach (Fla.) 169 So. 628, decided at this term of the court; and on authority of the opinions and judgments in those cases, the motion to quash the alternative writ in this case is denied, and it is ordered that, the relator not wishing to plead further, peremptory writ of mandamus do issue.

WHITFIELD,' C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell, 169 So. 628, this day filed.
#### DUTTON et al. v. BROOK MAYS & CO.

No. 4706.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 29, 1934.

For former opinion, see 152 So. 602.

Lester Wilson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Clifton F. Davis, of Shreveport, for appel-lees.

MILLS, Judge.

Plaintiffs complain that the judgment heretofore rendered in this case, though purporting to be in their favor, is unenforceable.

This objection could well be met with the observation that it is as enforceable as the unexecuted portion of the contract entered into by them. Courts cannot contract for the parties; their power being limited to construing and enforcing contracts as made. While it is not our function or intention to point out how judgments may be executed, we will say that in our view' the judgment can be made effective by a proper putting in default by either party. We believe that the district judge and know that this court tried to make an equitable disposition of a most indefinite and unsatisfactory situation. This is reasonably accomplished by our former judgment, which is now reinstated and made the final judgment of this court.
EXHIBIT 99.2

 

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

> 
            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of    the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand    Capital SBIC, L.P. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officers    knowledge, that:

            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,    2002 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the    information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Dated: November 8, 2002
/s/ Allen F. Grum                                         Allen F. Grum, President of Rand Capital Corporation     (equivalent of chief executive officer of Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)
Dated: November 8, 2002
/s/ Daniel P. Penberthy                                 Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of Rand Capital Corporation    (equivalent of chief financial officer of Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Katherine Gatsas,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-315-SM

Opinion No. 2008 DNH 152

Manchester School District a/k/a

Administrative Unit No. 37,

Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant moves for an award of attorneys’ fees, as the

prevailing party in this Title VII discrimination suit (documents

no. 90, 100). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

Plaintiff’s case was adequate to avoid dismissal and

judgment as a matter of law. While it qualified as among the

weakest cases presented to a jury, given the evidence, still,

plaintiff’s claims were not “frivolous, unreasonable, or without

foundation” at the time the complaint was filed. Tang v. Dep’t

of Elderly Affairs, 163 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1998) (citing

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978)). 

Accordingly, as defendant is unable to establish the necessary

prerequisite to an award, the court declines to award attorneys’

fees to defendant as a prevailing party.

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SM Document 104 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Defendant is, however, awarded its reasonable costs under 28

U.S.C. § 1920 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Defendant’s bill of

costs (document no. 89) and plaintiff’s objections are referred

to the Clerk who shall tax reasonable costs as allowed by law.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees (document no. 90) is

denied. Defendant’s supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees and

costs (document no. 100) is granted in part and denied in part. 

Costs are allowed defendant.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 22, 2008

cc: Leslie H. Johnson, Esq.

Kathleen C. Peahl, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SM Document 104 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 2
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.11    
    


 
 

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS


	1.
	Continuation Period pursuant to Subparagraph 1(d) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement shall mean "the period of time
beginning on the Termination Date and ending twenty-four (24) months thereafter."



	2.
	The
following language shall be added as Subparagraph 4(a) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement: 



The
Company will pay to the Executive the sum of (i) two (2) times the greater of (A) the Executive's effective annual base salary at the Termination Date or (B) the
Executive's effective annual base salary immediately prior to the Change in Control, plus (ii) two (2) times the greater of (X) the highest annual bonus awarded to the Executive
under the Company's Variable Compensation Plan or any other bonus plan (whether paid currently or on a deferred basis) with respect to any twelve (12) consecutive month period during the last
two (2) fiscal years ending prior to the Termination Date or (Y) the highest target bonus rate applicable to the Executive for any period during such prior two (2) year period,
multiplied by the applicable annual base salary determined under clause (i) of this Section 4(a); the resulting amount to be paid in a lump sum on the first day of the month following
the Termination Date. 



	 	 	Dated: January 9, 2004
	

 	
 	

SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By	

/s/  JAMES F. BRASHEAR      
 James F. Brashear

Corporate Secretary
	

 	
 	

SABRE INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

/s/  JAMES F. BRASHEAR      
 James F. Brashear

Senior Vice President, Deputy General

Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	

 	
 	

Michelle Peluso





	

 	
 	

Signed:	

/s/  MICHELLE PELUSO      














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.11


ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            676 - INDX 2006-AR8



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

Board of Trustees
Archstone Communities Trust

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-43723, 333-44639, 333-49526, 333-51139,
333-60815, 333-60817, 333-60847, 333-68591 and 333-77387.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 26, 2000 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                   KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 13, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ISAAC PERRY, a/k/a Ike, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-93-42-F) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order denying the motion for a writ of error coram nobis is marked as “filed” on May 3, 1999, the district court’s records show that the order was entered on the docket sheet on May 7, 1999. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), we consider the date the order was entered as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2 PER CURIAM: Isaac Perry appeals the district court's orders denying hismotion for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reconsider. We dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion for a writ of error coram nobis for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the order denying the motion to reconsider. In civil actions in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, all parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) orreopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order denying the motion for a writ of error coram nobis was entered on the docket on May 7, 1999. * Perry's notice of appeal was filed on August 3, 1999. Because Perry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an ex-3 tension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to Perry's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider, we have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Perry , No. CR-93-42-F (E.D.N.C. July 19, 1999). We deny Perry’s motion for an enlargement of time to file an informal reply brief and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART