alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

|   | (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/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | September 2, 2010                    |

----
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# TIME AND DATE:

9 a.m. (Eastern Time) October 18, 2010.

# PLACE:

4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

# STATUS:

Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

## Parts Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the September 20, 2010 Board Member Meeting.

2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by the Executive Director.

a. Monthly Participant Activity Report

b. Monthly Investment Performance Review

c. Legislative Report

3. Mid-Year Financial Audit Report.

4. Quarterly Vendor Financial Report.

5. Annual Budget Discussion.

## Parts Closed to the Public

6. Confidential Vendor Information.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

Dated: October 8, 2010.

Thomas K. Emswiler,

Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25854 Filed 10-8-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
584 A.2d 239

#### SHERRY LAWRENCE, ETC. v. STEPHEN APOLLO LESLIE APOLLO v. LAWRENCE LAWRENCE.

June 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.1
​

SECOND AMENDMENT 
TO THE  
TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC. 
POST 2004 EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN
​
WHEREAS, Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. Post-2004 Excess Benefit Plan effective January 1, 2005, which was most recently amended on November 4, 2015 (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, all employees whose benefits under the Pension Plan and the Profit Sharing Plans are limited by Section 401(a)(17) limitation, the Section 415 limitation or both, as such terms are defined under the Plan, automatically participate in, and accrue benefits under, the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to retain authority as to who is eligible to participate in, and accrue benefits, under the Plan; and 
WHEREAS, Paragraph 7 of the Plan authorizes the Company to amend the Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2022 as follows:
1.Paragraph 1 is hereby amended by adding the following after the first sentence thereof:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company, by action of its Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the Plan Administrator, may either (i) exclude an employee who participates in the Pension Plan from becoming a participant in the Plan or (ii) discontinue accruing additional employer credits under the Plan.” 
2.Paragraph 2 is hereby amended by adding the following after the first sentence thereof:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company, by action of its Board (or an authorized committee thereof) or the Plan Administrator, may either (i) exclude an employee who participates in the Profit Sharing Plan(s) from becoming a participant in the Plan or (ii) discontinue accruing additional employer credits for one or more participants under the Plan.”
​
​
The remainder of this page is intentionally blank

1
​




​
​

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer effective as of this 7th day of December 2021.
​
TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC.
​
_____________________________________
Name: G. Howard Ember, Jr.
Its:Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer
​
​
​
Attest:
​
​
_____________________________________
Name:
Its:

2
​
:.•'-.. , gt.i&lZr.Ol

r, ' • • ^ i

^Cvr Tn^ft\*p\VlCQ^W

-l , s vq^-u~\v-o\o^ Hoars

^sU^VV^

^kAVx^tMi%

BkkC_CC

vXuAso^w^ \%yn^^G>

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAN 20"::;5

Ab©6Acosia,Oerr
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7231** 

JOHN LEWIS WRAY, JR. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. R. DAVID MITCHELL; BEVERLY PERDUE; ROY COOPER; FORREST DONALD BRIDGES; RICHARD L. SHAFFER; SARAH E. KIRBY

- TURNER; COLLIN MCWHIRTER; DAVID SCHWEEPEE, II; JOHN CHURCH; PAUL DITZ; RICHARD G. YOUT; RENITA W. MELTON; SERGEANT DAVIS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00298

- RJC )

Submitted : October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Lewis Wray, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Lewis Wray, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and dismissing it . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirem ent.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on February 28, 2012 . The notice of appeal was filed on July 13, 2012
. * Because Wray failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extensi on or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Wray’s motion to add documents and petition for a writ of mandamus . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 adequately presented in the materials befor e the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Teresa MARSH Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-5962.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2001.

Before RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and EDGAR, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable R. Allan Edgar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Teresa Marsh, appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, on her employment discrimination claim.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.

*339The district court did not directly address plaintiffs double-workload claim. She alleges that no one else in her group received special assignments, but does not establish that anyone in the group was similarly situated to her for purposes of these assignments. She also fails to offer an example of an employee who was paid extra for special assignments. For these reasons, her claim about her workload fails, whether she is objecting to the assignment, evaluation method, or pay.

Because the reasoning which supports summary judgment for defendant on the other issues raised by plaintiff has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion entered on December 16,1998.
585 A.2d 392

#### GLENPOINTE ASSOCIATES v. TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK.

October 10, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*37, 574 A.2d 459)
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1678 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT 

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and 

foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes. 

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HR 1678 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Torture Victims Relief 

3 Reauthorization Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMES5 TIC TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

6 TORTURE. 

7 Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 

8 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

10 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 

11 Department of Health and Human Services for fis12 cal years 2008 and 2009, there are authorized to be 

13 appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 

14 $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 

15 2009.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOR17 EIGN TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

18 TORTURE. 

19 Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 

20 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

22 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

23 years 2008 and 2009 pursuant to chapter 1 of part 

24 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are 

25 authorized to be appropriated to the President to 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

HR 1678 RFS

1 carry out section 130 of such Act $12,000,000 for 

2 each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

3 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 

4 UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE 

5 UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 

6 VICTIMS OF TORTURE. 

7 Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fis8 cal years 2008 and 2009 pursuant to chapter 3 of part 

9 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are author10 ized to be appropriated to the President for a voluntary 

11 contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for 

12 Victims of Torture $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

13 years 2008 and 2009. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
584 A.2d 807

#### IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE E. FOX, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 30, 1991.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court for its consideration on the papers submitted in respect of the within application;

It is ORDERED that the application of BRUCE E. FOX for transfer to disability inactive status is granted, effective January 23, 1991; and it is further

ORDERED that BRUCE E. FOX is hereby restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period that he remains on disability inactive status; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics governing suspended, disbarred or disabled attorneys.
Order entered September 20, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00537-CV

JOHN K. COIL, AVE, INC. AND EAST BAY, INC., Appellants

V.

JOHN A. COIL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF EAST 

BAY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-01235

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Antionette Reagor’s September 17, 2021 

request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the 

extension and ORDER Ms. Reagor to file the record no later than October 1, 

2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
O pinion filed September 1 5 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ____ 

### No. 11

- 1 5

- 0031 4

- CR

_____ _ _____ 

### IVAN GARAY LOPEZ , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR21461

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N On August 25, 2016, this court abated this appeal and remand ed the cause to the trial court for a hearing on Appellant’s motion for new trial. The trial court held a hearing on the motion for new trial and granted it in part . We dismiss this appeal without prejudice

. On September 14, 2016, the trial court signed an order in which it granted a new trial in trial court cause no. CR21461 “as to p unishment only.” “G ranting a new trial on punishment restores the case to its position after the defendant was found2

guilty.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 21.9(c). Thus , Appellant has been returned to the position in which he stood immediately following the finding of guilty, and a new trial on punishment will proceed as if the original punishment hearing had never occurred

. Consequently, no final, appealable judgment remains over which this court currently has jurisdiction. Jackson v. State , No. 05

- 09

- 00487

- CR, 2010 WL 2598919, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 30, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication);
Norris v. State , No. 2

- 10

- 014

- CR, 2010 WL 1854138 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Th is dismissal
does not in any way prejudice Appellant ’s right to file a notice of appeal in this cause
in the future. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

September 1 5 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

 

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

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | April 14, 2005                       |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standardcontained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
584 A.2d 232

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LINDA A. SCHREIBER.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*507, 573 A.2d 942)
Exhibit 34.1

LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

California Republic Bank

We have examined managements assertion, included in
the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that California Republic Bank (the Bank) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commissions Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Bank acted as servicer, involving motor vehicle retail installment sale contracts included in public securitizations sponsored by the Bank platform as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2014, and except for servicing criteria 1122 (d)(2)(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(vi), 1122 (d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122 (d)(4)(ix)-(xiii), and 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the Bank has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. See Managements Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is
responsible for the Banks compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Banks compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Banks compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform and
determining whether the Bank processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Bank during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Banks compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the asset-backed securities transactions involving motor vehicle retail installment sale contracts included in public securitizations sponsored by the Bank platform is fairly
stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

March 25, 2015
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VILLARD PETIT.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63214-63215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25874]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0267]


Errata Notice; Notice of Public Workshop on a Potential 
Rulemaking for Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Errata Notice; Notice of Public Workshop.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-492-3287; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88c2e7fbeda6cbfde9ecfae9ece7c8e6faeba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c26031f09422f190d081e0d08032c021e0f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUMMARY: The Notice of Public Workshop on a Potential Rulemaking for 
Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities issued on July 23, 2010 (75 
FR 45167, August 2, 2010), states that the date and location of the 
public workshops are as follows:

    The public workshops will be held in Rockville, Maryland, on 
September 7-8, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and in Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, on the week of October 4, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The 
September 7-8, 2010, workshop will be held at the Hilton Washington, 
DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, located at 1750 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The exact dates and location 
for the October 2010 workshop in Albuquerque, New Mexico, will be 
noticed no fewer than ten (10) days prior to the workshop [* * *]

The dates and location for the October 2010 workshop have been 
finalized. The workshop will be held on October 19-20, 2010, at the 
Sheraton Albuquerque Uptown Hotel, located at 2600 Louisiana Boulevard 
NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of October, 2010.


[[Page 63215]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas G. Hiltz,
Acting Deputy Director, Special Projects and Technical Support 
Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-25874 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
584 A.2d 253

#### ELMORA HEBREW CENTER, INC. v. YALE M. FISHMAN, ET AL.

June 26, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*229, 570 *A.*2d 1297)