alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2

                                     TO THE

                                  AMETEK, INC.
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN



         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of May 1, 1997, the
AMETEK, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan"); and

                  WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Plan provides that
the Administrator of the Plan (defined as a committee consisting of AMETEK's
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Counsel) may
amend the Plan at any time or from time to time as long as the amendment does
not significantly increase the cost of the Plan to the Company; and

                  WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain
respects;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: Section 1.14 of the Plan shall be amended to read, in its
entirety, as follows:

                  "Retirement Plan" means the Employees' Retirement Plan of
                  AMETEK, Inc., the Employees' Retirement Plan of AMETEK
                  Aerospace Products, Inc., the Specialty Metal Products
                  Division of AMETEK Employees' Pension Plan, the Retirement
                  Feature of The AMETEK, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan or the
                  AMETEK Savings Plan for Acquired Businesses, either
                  collectively or individually, as required by the context.

         SECOND: Section 3.4 of the Plan shall be amended to read, in its
entirety, as follows:

                  "A Participant's right to a Supplemental Benefit shall be
                  non-forfeitable when he has completed five years (based on
                  whole years and fractions thereof) of service with the
                  Company.

         THIRD: The provisions of this Amendment shall be effective as of
January 1, 2000.


<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrator of the Plan has caused this
amendment to be executed on this 27th day of January 2000.

                                             ADMINISTRATOR

                                             /s/ Frank S. Hermance
                                             ---------------------
                                             Frank S. Hermance

                                             /s/ John J. Molinelli
                                             ---------------------
                                             John J. Molinelli

                                             /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                             ---------------------
                                             Donna F. Winquist
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Murphy

v. Civil No. 08-224-JD

United States

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed a motion requesting a certificate

of appealability (document no. 17). The court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability on the ground that the petitioner

has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: February 10, 2009

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Charles Murphy, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00224-JD Document 18 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,252
<PP&E>                                          21,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,502
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,510)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,192
<SALES>                                         21,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,255
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    879
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                849
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FRANCIS BOYD,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, 

HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA 

STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, 

INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, 

MISCONDUCT ISSUER,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 635 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George E. Fry, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 923]

Appeal from a judgment of Yates County Court (Falvey, J.), entered April 10, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: The contention of defendant that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered is not preserved for our review *(see People v Rowe,*284 AD2d 796, *lv denied*97 NY2d 643; *People v McFadgen,*274 AD2d 830, 832, *lv denied*95 NY2d 966). In any event, that contention is without merit. “The plea minutes reveal that County Court conducted a searching and thorough inquiry of defendant and defendant’s responses were coherent, detailed and wholly aware” *(People v Kinner,*147 AD2d 742, 743, *lv denied*74 NY2d 665).

We reject the further contention of defendant that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. The colloquy conducted by the court on three separate occasions “indicates that defendant knowingly and intelligently sought to proceed *pro*se” *(People v McIntyre,*250 AD2d 1002, 1003, *lv denied*92 NY2d 881; *see People v Harris,*292 AD2d 633). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58146-58152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23334]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-84]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-84 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58147]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.019


[[Page 58148]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.020


[[Page 58149]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.021


[[Page 58150]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.022


[[Page 58151]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.023


[[Page 58152]]


 [FR Doc. E8-23334 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
**Exhibit 7**

** **

**Computation of consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges**

** **

The following table sets out the calculation of the ratios of earnings to fixed charges (unaudited) for the periods indicated.

 

 
|                                                                          | **Year Ended 30 September** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| (in   $AUD millions, unless otherwise indicated)                              | **2017**                    | **2016** | **2015** | **2014** | **2013** |
|                                                                          | ** **                  | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Profit   before income tax                                                    | 11,515                      | 10,644 | 11,416 | 10,740 | 9,772 |
| Add   fixed charges                                                           | 15,932                      | 16,881 | 18,223 | 18,894 | 20,376 |
| Less minority   interest in subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges | (7)                         | (15) | (56) | (64) | (74) |
| **Earnings before tax and fixed charges**                                     | 27,440                      | 27,510 | 29,583 | 29,570 | 30,074 |
|                                                                          |                        |   |   |   |   |
| Interest   expense                                                            | 15,716                      | 16,674 | 18,028 | 18,706 | 20,188 |
| Portion   of rent estimated to represent interest expense                     | 216                         | 207 | 195 | 188 | 188 |
| **Fixed charges**                                                             | 15,932                      | 16,881 | 18,223 | 18,894 | 20,376 |
|                                                                          |                        |   |   |   |   |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (%)**                                    | **1.72**                    | **1.63** | **1.62** | **1.57** | **1.48** |
| ** **                                                                    | ** **                  | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

 

 

ORDER TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT

 

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Restrict Document. 

Upon consideration and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that said Document, the United States’ Brief in Support of Motion

to Restrict Document, as well as any order revealing the contents of that document, are

hereby restricted until further order by the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that said Document and Order and Brief in Support of Motion to

Restrict Document shall be restricted to a “Level 3" and will be “viewable by filer & court”

only.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of June, 2012.

 

THE HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 88-1 filed 06/21/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Harding Park Owners, Inc., as Assignee of Vincent Tierney, Assignor, Plaintiff, *v.*Ann Young et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

January 24, 1957.

*M. S. & I. S. Isaacs*for plaintiff.

*Goldwater S Flynn*for defendants.

*11Francis X. Conlon, J.

Motion to vacate a notice for examination before trial of defendants is denied. Section 288 of the Civil Practice Act provides for any party to take a deposition “ of any other party which is material and necessary ”. There is no authority for the proposition that the plaintiff may not examine before trial all codefendants if their testimony is material and necessary. Insofar as the specific objections to individual items of the notice are concerned, these are denied. By a recent decision of this court the plaintiff was ordered to serve a bill of particulars now and permitted to serve a supplemental bill on the conclusion of the examination. All of the items are proper as matters raised by the pleadings and necessary to comply with the defendants’ demands for particulars. However, as the plaintiff has expressed willingness to first examine the defendants Samuel H. Holding and John A. Billiard individually and as president of defendant Private Investors Corporation, the examination of these defendants will take place at Special Term, Part I of this court on February 1, 1957, at 11:00 a.m. or at such other time and place as the attorneys for the parties may agree. If it appears that the examination of the other defendants is material and necessary on the completion of this examination, it may be had on appropriate motion. Settle order.
Case 1:11-cv-01970-LTB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-LTB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-LTB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-LTB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cragar
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael L. Hartzmark, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)); 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/ Michael L. Hartzmark
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael L. Hartzmark
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            May 15, 2003
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 Annual Report of MSC.Software Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Laskey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 1, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN J. LASKEY     
|                    |  |     |  | JOHN J. LASKEY         
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| January 14, 2010        |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| /s/ Linster W. Fox      |
| Linster W. Fox          |
| Chief Financial Officer |
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 

Naperville, Illinois 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Factory Card &Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary (the “Company”) as of July 29, 2006, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended July 29, 2006 and July 30, 2005 and cashflows for the six-month periods ended July 29, 2006 and July 30, 2005. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical proceduresand making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), theobjective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the UnitedStates of America. 

We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), theconsolidated balance sheet of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of January 28, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the 52 weeks ended January 28,2006 (not presented herein); and in our report dated April 17, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balancesheet as of January 28, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

August 31, 2006
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 7, 2022

----

Forms            Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Report of Institution-to-Aggregate Granular Data on Assets and Liabilities on an Immediate Counterparty Basis (FR 2510).            -Approved, May 2, 2022                        Forms -- initial Board review to extend with revision the Structure Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Domestic and Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-6/7/10/10E).            -Approved, May 2, 2022            Personnel            Division of Information Technology -- appointment of Herman Ip as assistant director.            -Approved, May 2, 2022            Regulations and Policies            Flood Insurance -- interagency notice of revised Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance.            -Approved, April 20, 2022            (A/C)                      Regulation BB (Community Reinvestment Act) -- interagency notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comment to strengthen and modernize regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act.            -Approved, May 4, 2022            Reserve Bank Operations            Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas -- appointment of Lorie Logan as president.            -Approved, May 2, 2022            Enforcement            Synovus Bank, Columbus, Georgia -- consent order of prohibition against Angela Garcia, a former institution-affiliated party.            -Announced, May 5, 2022            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for ***

the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HANG NAM YOON,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-74544

Agency No. A035-138-732

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 14, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ,

District Judge.*** 

FILED

MAY 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
We deny Yoon’s motion to file a late reply brief.

1

Although Yoon argues that Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 2

(9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), represented a change in controlling law, Fernandez-Ruiz

merely applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal. Thus, petitioner’s

arguments were available as soon as Leocal was decided and could have been

presented in his prior petition for review.

2

Hang Nam Yoon (“Yoon”), a citizen of South Korea, brings this second

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 2004

order of removal, which deemed Yoon removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii)

based on an aggravated felony conviction. This court already decided in Yoon v. 1

Gonzales, Case No. 04-74307, that Yoon’s conviction constitutes an aggravated

felony, and consequently that the BIA’s removal order was valid, when it

dismissed Yoon’s first petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because Yoon

could have presented his arguments concerning the effect of Leocal v. Ashcroft,

543 U.S. 1 (2004), in his first petition, which was decided more than two months

prior to this court’s dismissal of that petition, the present petition does not present

grounds that could not have been presented in the prior judicial proceeding. Nor 2

has Yoon shown that the prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of the BIA’s order. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Yoon’s

second petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2); see Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 809-

10 (9th Cir. 2003).
3

PETITION DISMISSED.