alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Inland Waterways Users Board

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In Accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the forthcoming meeting.

    Name of Committee: Inland Waterways Users Board (Board).
    Date: October 20, 2010.
    Location: The Isle Casino Hotel Bettendorf, 1777 Isle Parkway, 
Bettendorf, Iowa 52722 at 1-800-843-4753 or 1-800-724-5825.
    Time: Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m. and the meeting is 
scheduled to adjourn at approximately 1 p.m.
    Agenda: The Board will consider its project investment 
priorities for the next year, will hear the status of the 
implementation of the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) 
Investment Strategy Team recommendations, as well as the status of 
the funding for inland navigation projects and studies and the 
status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark R. Pointon, Headquarters, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-ID, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20314-1000; Ph: 202-761-4691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Any 
interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with 
the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-23210 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
No. 87-1279.

#### Morrison, Independent Counsel *v.*Olson et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 484 U. S. 1058.] Motion of Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Independent Counsel, for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Exhibit 4.3(v)

 

ECOLAB SAVINGS PLAN AND ESOP

FOR TRADITIONAL BENEFIT EMPLOYEES

 

Fourth Amendment

 

Pursuant to Section 10.2 of the “Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP for Traditional Benefit Employees,” the Company amends the Plan effective as of the date of this Amendment, as set forth below.

 

(1)                                 Section 2.1 Eligibility is amended to read:

 

2.1                               Eligibility

 

(A)                               Each individual who is determined by the Plan Administrator, as of December 31, 2012, to have an accrued benefit under the final average pay formula or the 5% cash balance formula of the Ecolab Pension Plan, by reason of participation in that plan on or before January 1, 2007, and who has an Account balance under the Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP on December 31, 2012 will be a Participant in this Plan.

 

(B)                               An individual who (i) would be described in Subsection (A) but for the fact that he or she did not have an Account balance under the Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP on December 31, 2012 because he or she was employed by an Affiliated Organization that was not a participating employer in such plan, and (ii) has been continuously employed by an Affiliated Organization since December 31, 2012, will be a Participant in this Plan as of the date her or she becomes a Qualified Employee.

 

(C)                               An individual who is a Beneficiary or an Alternate Payee with respect to a Participant described in Subsection (A) and has an Account balance under the Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP on December 31, 2012, will have an Account under this Plan as of January 1, 2013, consisting of the account transferred from the Ecolab Savings Plan and ESOP.

 

(D)                               No other individual will become a Participant.

 

(2)  Section 11.17 Eligible Earnings, Subsection (C) is amended to read:

 

(C)                               Notwithstanding Subsection (A), no payment in the nature of back pay will be included in Eligible Earnings unless the order or agreement pursuant to which it is paid explicitly requires such inclusion.  To the extent that a payment in the nature of back pay is required to be taken into account for purposes of this Plan, such payment will be taken into account, in the manner prescribed by the Administrator, as Eligible Earnings as of the time such payment is made and not for any prior period to which it may relate.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its authorized officers and its corporate seal to be affixed, on the date written below.

 

	
Dated:  October 27, 2014
    	
ECOLAB   INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Seal)
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By   
    	
/s/Daniel   J. Schmechel 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Daniel   J. Schmechel 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Financial Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Attest:   
    	
/s/James   J. Seifert 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
James   J. Seifert 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Executive   Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 of Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Luis E. Lamela, 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; and

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



                                                     /s/ Luis E. Lamela
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Luis E. Lamela
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     August 12, 2002
News United States Air Force
 Department of the Air Force releases Inspector General review into Feb. 4 Joint Base Andrews unauthorized access incidentPublished March 11, 2021
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force Inspector General’s **review** of the Feb. 4 unauthorized access incident at **Joint Base Andrews**, Maryland, cited three issues that led to the wrongful entry of a civilian man onto both the base and a U.S. Air Force **C-40** aircraft on the flightline.
According to the review, the human error of a fully qualified and trained security forces Airman who served as a gate guard was the first issue. The Airman’s failure to follow proper procedures wrongfully allowed the man access to the base.
Second, the automatic gate at the entry control point malfunctioned, allowing an unauthorized pedestrian access to the flightline.
The third issue involved personnel posted on the flightline who failed to observe the man walking toward the aircraft and personnel who saw him on the aircraft but did not challenge his presence.
The review found that the Presidential 747 aircraft located at JB Andrews were safe at all times under a more robust security layer within a protected self-contained area manned by armed security personnel. Additional security procedures are not releasable.
The unauthorized access incident occurred Feb. 4 at 7:16 a.m. via the Virginia Gate of JB Andrews. After gaining unauthorized access to the base, the civilian man proceeded to the **89th Airlift Wing** passenger terminal and accessed the flightline through a gap in a malfunctioning gate.
After entering the flightline, the man entered the parking area near a U.S. Air Force C-40 aircraft before boarding the aircraft, which was open for aircrew training. Two aircrew members conducting training on the aircraft observed the man board and then a few minutes later, exit the aircraft.
The man then walked toward the entry control point and was engaged by 316th Security Forces Squadron personnel after someone in the passenger terminal alerted them. The man was arrested for unauthorized access to the flightline and turned over to local authorities.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Force inspector general 



review 



unauthorized access 



incident 



Joint Base Andrews 



C-40 



Aircraft 



human error 



entry control point
#### Marguerite GAMBLE, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, N. L. Gault, Jr., and C. Peter McGrath, Appellees.

No. 80-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 15, 1981.

Decided Feb. 3, 1981.

*453Sylvia Meek, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay, Thomas W. Tinkham, Joel W. Lavintman, Michael Wahoske, Jr., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Before HEANEY and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a student, claims she was dismissed from the Medical School of the University of Minnesota because of her race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The case was referred to the Honorable George G. McPartlin, United States Magistrate, for a hearing. The Magistrate found that plaintiff was dismissed for nondiscriminatory academic reasons. The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, after an independent consideration, adopted this finding, and judgment was entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

The Magistrate’s recommended findings and conclusions thoroughly canvass the detailed factual contentions of the parties. We are not persuaded that these findings are clearly erroneous. The case in the end comes down to an assessment of the credibility of witnesses, including plaintiff. In this situation, we must and do give great deference to the findings made below. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). In brief, we note that the 12 other black students in plaintiff’s class were duly graduated; that plaintiff had long had academic problems; and that plaintiff, in order to succeed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, must persuade the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants intentionally discriminated against her. *E. g., Johnson v. Alexander, 572*F.2d 1219 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*439 U.S. 986, 99 S.Ct. 579, 58 L.Ed.2d 658 (1978). The same is true of a § 1983 claim. On the question of procedural due process, we agree with the District Court that this dismissal was for academic reasons. *Cf. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz,*435 U.S. 78, 98 S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978). Even if the dismissal is viewed as based on disciplinary reasons, plaintiff was given proper notice and a hearing.

The judgment is affirmed. 8th Cir. R. 14.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2011-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, August 31, 2011, to and including December 31, 2011 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, August 31, 2011, to and including December 31, 2011.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March 2012.

 
| March 29,   2012 |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |   |
|                  |   |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman |
|                  | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman |
|                  | Title: | President |

 

----
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-4 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 4 | Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
#### J. A. Kuykendall v. Marx *&*Kempner.

(No. 263, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 196.)

Appeal from Lee Comity.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 689. *Tried of the right of property in a county other than that in ivhich judgment ivas rendered; copy of execution as evidence.*It is provided by statute that ‘ ‘ in all trials of the right of property under the provisions of this act, in any county other than that in which the writ issued under which the levy was made, the copy of the writ required to-be returned by the sheriff or other officer in making the levy shall be received in evidence in like *365manner as the original could be.” ■ [Pas. Dig. art. 5315.] On the trial of this case, a copy of the execution by virtue of which the levy was made was offered in evidence, and was objected to by claimant, “because it had thereto no seal attached, nor copy of a seal.” The execution itself purports to have been authenticated properly by the clerk of the district court of Galveston county, “with the seal thereof,” as he states in his certificate, and there is little doubt, we think, that it was so authenticated. The sheriff who prepared the copy and certified to its correctness has omitted to copy the seal. There was no error in admitting the evidence. [Earle v. Thomas, 14 Tex. 583.]

January 30, 1878.

Affirmed.
#### William Hunt v. Wiley & Porter.

(No. 2071, Op. Book No. 2, p. 528.)

Appeal from Milam County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1214. *Citation; sufficiency of; construction of statute.*It was objected to the citation in this case that it did not state the names of all the parties to the transaction, or the nature of the demand. The suit-was upon a note executed by John G-illiland and M. A. Grilliland as principals, and appellant Hunt as indorser. John Grilliland being dead at the institution of the suit was not made á party, and his name was not mentioned in the citation. *Held,*the statute requires that the citation shall state “the date of the filing of the plaintiff’s petition, the file number of the suit, the names of all the parties, and the nature of the plaintiff’s demands.” [R. *697S. 1215.] The citation sufficiently complies with these requirements. The suit is against M. A. Gilliland and William Hunt. They are the parties to the suit, and the citation gives their names. It was not necessary to give the names of all the parties to the transaction. The citation states the nature of the demand to be a note of a particular date, payable at a particular time, for a particular amount, upon which Hunt is bound as indorser. The design, doubtless, of the codifiers in dispensing with the necessity of issuing a copy of the petition in certain cases was to save costs, and it could not have been intended that the citation required to be issued should serve the purpose or supply the place of a copy of the petition in giving a prolix statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action. It was thought enough if it indicated to the defendant the nature of the demand, and referred to the petition filed, from which he could have full information. The objections made to the citation were properly overruled.

§ 1215. *Indorser; diligence to fix liability of; sufficient excuse for not suing to first term, etc.*Appellees alleged as an excuse for not instituting their suit against Hunt, the indorser, to the first term of the court after the maturity of the note [E. S. 262], that John Gilliland, one of the makers of the note, died before its maturity, and that his estate was, at the maturity of the note, notoriously insolvent, and that the other maker of the note, M. A. Gilliland, was at the maturity of the note, and ever since had been, also notoriously insolvent. These facts were proved on the trial. *Held,*that this is a good cause shown why suit was not brought to the first term of the court has been decided by many decisions of our supreme court. The appellant’s counsel earnestly urges that Hemphill, Lipscomb and Wheeler erred in these decisions, and that the error should be corrected. We prefer that the law upon this subject shall remain settled as they have settled it. It is well known, works no injury, and there could not be the slightest reason for *698changing it. [R. S. 262, 1208; Insall v. Robson, 16 Tex. 128; Platzer v. Norris & Co. 38 Tex. 1; Stratton v. Johnston, 36 Tex. 90; Fisher v. Phelps, 21 Tex. 551; Grayson v. Taylor, 14 Tex. 675; Hanrick v. Alexander, 51 Tex. 494.]

November 16, 1881.

Affirmed.
---

**Exhibit 99.6**

| |                               |                         
| | ----------------------------- | ------------------------
| | KPMG LLP                      | Telephone (514) 840-2100
| | 600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West | Fax (514) 840-2187      
| | Suite 1500                    | Internet www.kpmg.ca    
| | Tour KPMG                     |                         
| | Montréal (Québec) H3A 0A3     |                         

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors Tembec Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated November 29, 2013
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Tembec Inc. included in
this annual report on Form 40-F.

Yours very truly,

|December 16, 2013
|-----------------
|Montreal, Canada 

___________________ *CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy
permit No. A110592

KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability
partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms
affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss
entity. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.

---
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 463 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to modify 

the definition of the term ‘‘biobased product’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. KING, Ms. COLLINS, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. CHAMBLISS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to modify the definition of the term ‘‘biobased 

product’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Forest Products Fair5 ness Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BIOBASED PRODUCT. 

7 Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Invest8 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 463 IS

1 (1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(4) BIOBASED PRODUCT.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘biobased 

5 product’ means a product determined by the 

6 Secretary to be a commercial or industrial prod7 uct (other than food or feed) that is— 

8 ‘‘(i) composed, in whole or in signifi9 cant part, of biological products, including 

10 renewable domestic agricultural materials 

11 and forestry materials; or 

12 ‘‘(ii) an intermediate ingredient or 

13 feedstock. 

14 ‘‘(B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘biobased 

15 product’, with respect to forestry materials, in16 cludes forest products that meet biobased con17 tent requirements, notwithstanding the market 

18 share the product holds, the age of the product, 

19 or whether the market for the product is new 

20 or emerging.’’; 

21 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through 

22 (14) as paragraphs (10) through (15), respectively; 

23 and 

24 (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol25 lowing: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 463 IS

1 ‘‘(9) FOREST PRODUCT.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘forest prod3 uct’ means a product made from materials de4 rived from the practice of forestry or the man5 agement of growing timber. 

6 ‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘forest prod7 uct’ includes— 

8 ‘‘(i) pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, 

9 lumber, and other wood products; and 

10 ‘‘(ii) any recycled products derived 

11 from forest materials.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS