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

Exhibit 10-e-4


First amendment
to
NORDSON CORPORATION 
2005 Excess Defined Benefit plan
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)




WHEREAS, Nordson Corporation (the “Company”) Sponsors and maintains the Nordson Corporation 2005 Excess Defined Benefit Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”) for the benefit of certain salaried employees designated by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or its designee; and 
WHEREAS, the Company now desires to revise the interest rate assumption used for purposes of calculating any lump sum payment from the Plan made as a result of a Separation from Service occurring on or after July 9, 2009;
NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below.
1.Effective as of July 9, 2009, Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
3.1       Payment of the excess pension benefit to an Employee or Beneficiary shall be made in accordance with the Employee’s election under Section 2.4 and if applicable Section 2.5. The amount of the excess pension benefit payable to an Employee or Beneficiary shall be reduced to reflect reduction for early commencement or for selection of an optional form of payment in accordance with the applicable terms of the Salaried Pension Plan. In making the determination and reductions provided for in this Article III, the Company may rely upon calculations made by the independent actuaries for the Salaried Pension Plan, who shall apply the assumptions then in use in connection with the Salaried Pension Plan. For purposes of calculating any Lump Sum payment under the Plan, the following actuarial assumptions shall be used: The mortality assumption shall be the Internal Revenue Service Single Life Table under Section 1.401(a)(9)-9 of the Treasury Regulations and the interest rate assumption (1) for purposes of any payment made as a result of a Separation from Service occurring prior to July 9,2009 shall be the average 30 Year Treasury Security Rate published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin for the month prior to the month in which the Participant’s Separation from Service occurs and (2) for purpose of any payment made as a result of a Separation from Service occurring on or after July 9, 2009 shall be the average of the 30 Year Treasury Security Rates published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin for each of the 12 months prior to the month in which the Participant’s Separation from Service occurs.


EXECUTED this 31 day of August, 2009
NORDSON CORPORATION
By:  /s/ Robert E. Veillette
Title: Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
#### The BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN OHIO & WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 78-3005.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 11, 1980.

*586William T. Bodoh, Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman Co., L. P. A., Timothy J. Jacob, Youngstown, Ohio, for petitioner.

Bernard Levine, Regional Director, Region 8, N. L. R. B., Cleveland, Ohio, Elliott Moore, Gen. Counsel, William R. Stewart, Elizabeth Bunn, Marjorie S. Gofreed, Steven Fetter, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

ORDER

Before LIVELY and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

This matter is before the court on a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board and cross-application by the Board for enforcement of its order. The Board’s decision and order was issued on December 5, 1977 and is reported at 233 NLRB No. 140.

The Board, in agreement with the administrative law judge, found that the petitioner had reached agreement on a new contract with the union, Local 28, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO. The agreement, as found by the Board, contained a “me too” clause equal to the best settlement made by the petitioner with any of the other building trades unions for the contract years.,1976 and 1977. Subsequently the petitioner refused to execute a contract proposed by the union which contained its version of the “me too” clause. The Board found that the petitioner violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to execute and abide by the terms of this contract.

Upon consideration of the entire record together with the briefs and oral argument of counsel, the court concludes that the findings and decision of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, the order of the Board is enforced.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

1018 

Order 

 

October 26, 2010 

141548 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141548 

 COA: 290026 

Kalamazoo CC: 2008-001426-FH 

RICKY ALLEN NORTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

157 

CAF 10-00589 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DONNA BLACK, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN PAUL WATSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, UTICA, FOR JONISSA H. AND

JAHQUIN H.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R.

Griffith, J.), entered January 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, adjudged

that respondent did not willfully violate an order of the court and

suspended petitioner’s visitation with the parties’ children. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the

Family Court Act, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter

alia, suspended her visitation with the parties’ children until

further order of Family Court and adjudged that respondent father

should not be sanctioned for violating a prior order regarding certain

letters written by the parties’ children. We reject the contention of

the mother that the court erred in modifying the prior order of

visitation by suspending her visitation. It is well settled that,

“[w]here an order of . . . visitation is entered on stipulation, a

court cannot modify that order unless a sufficient change in

circumstances—since the time of the stipulation—has been established,

and then only where a modification would be in the best interests of

the children” (Matter of Hight v Hight, 19 AD3d 1159, 1160 [internal

quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Donnelly v Donnelly, 55 AD3d

1373). Here, the parties stipulated to certain testimony at the

hearing on their respective petitions, and the stipulated testimony

was sufficient, if accepted by the court, to establish the requisite

change in circumstances. The prior order required the mother to pay

the cost of transporting the father and the children to the

correctional facility in which she was incarcerated, and the mother

stipulated to the evidence establishing that she failed to do so. In

addition, contrary to the contention of the mother, the court’s

“determination that it was in the best interests of the subject
-2- 157 

CAF 10-00589 

child[ren] to suspend [her] visitation with [them] has a sound and

substantial basis in the record and, thus, we decline to disturb it”

(Matter of Balgley v Cohen, 73 AD3d 1038, 1038; see generally Matter

of Cross v Davis, 298 AD2d 939). We have considered the mother’s

remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. 

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




e-Appeal Logoe-Appeal Information Hub
	  	Access e-Appeal
	 FAQ
	   Information Sheets
	  Extension of Deadlines
	  e-Filing Regulations
	   Policies
	  	   User Guides
	  
	   Technical Support Form

	  Search & Site Index


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5375-N-40]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 15, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988                           ( print page 63502)                        court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 7, 2010.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 2010-25763 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
# Commenting on Enforcement Actions to SBA Ombudsman

Under a law passed by Congress in 1996, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has established an SBA Ombudsman and SBA Regional Fairness Boards to investigate small business complaints about Federal agency enforcement actions.

If you are a small business and believe that you have been treated unfairly by MSHA, you may file an electronic comment/complaint to the SBA Ombudsman over the Internet.  Alternatively, you may contact the SBA's Office of the National Ombudsman by:
                - Website:   https://www.sba.gov/ombudsman/comments
                - Toll Free Phone: (888) REG-FAIR (734-3247)
                - Fax: (202) 481-5719
                - E-mail:  ombudsman@sba.gov
                - Mail:

Office of the National OmbudsmanU.S. Small Business Administration409 3rd Street, SW, MC2120Washington, DC 20416-0005

Please note, however, that your right to file a comment with the Ombudsman is in addition to any other rights you may have, including the right to contest citations and proposed penalties and obtain a hearing before the Federal Mine Safely and Health Review Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in 
Crescent City, California. The committee meeting is authorized under 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination (SRS) Act 
(Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 9, 2010, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Del Norte County Unified 
School District, Redwood Room, 301 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent 
City, California 95531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Ranieri, Committee Coordinator, 
Six Rivers National Forest, at (707) 441-3673; e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f352d3e31363a2d361f392c71393a3b712a2c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb1a9bab5b2bea9b29bbda8f5bdbebff5aea8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
purpose of this meeting is to vote on which projects the RAC will 
recommend for funding. Public input opportunity will be provided and 
individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that 
time.

    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Tyrone Kelley,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-25970 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 21, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 8, 2009, (74 FR 46232), Research Triangle 
Institute, Kenneth H. Davis Jr., Hermann Building, East Institute 
Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Cocaine (9041).............................  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Institute will manufacture small quantities of cocaine and 
marihuana derivatives for use by their customers in analytical kits, 
reagents, and reference standards as directed by the National Institute 
on Drug Abuse.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Research Triangle Institute to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Research Triangle Institute to ensure that 
the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: January 25, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-2578 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
584 A.2d 247

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KELLY GASKIN BROWN.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Ray DORAN, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donald Arthur PADGETT, Appellant.

Nos. 79-1991, 79-1992.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 1980.

Decided April 28, 1980.

Mark F. Monahan, Alfrey & Monahan, Bellevue, Neb., and J. Thomas Marten, Ku-tak, Rock & Huie, Omaha, Neb., for appellants.

Lynn L. Wallin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., argued, Edward G. Warm, U. S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., and Jean Breen, Legal Intern, on brief, for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, ROSS, Circuit Judge, and LARSON, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Earl R. Larson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this case seek review of the sentences imposed on them in the district court1 proceedings. William Ray Do-ran and Donald Arthur Padgett entered guilty pleas to four separate counts of armed bank robbery2 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. A presentence investigation was conducted and the resulting report was distributed to counsel in advance of the sentencing. On November 19,1979, the appellants appeared separately before the district court and were each sentenced to four consecutive 25 year terms. Both defendants appeal the severity of their sentences.

Two issues are raised on appeal. The first is whether this court has the authority to review the sentences of the district court under the narrow standard set forth in *Woosley*v. *United States,*478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1973). Assuming that such authority exists, the second issue is whether the 100 year sentences constitute gross abuse of the trial court’s discretion and require this court to reduce the sentences on appeal. Even assuming, arguendo, that this court has the authority to reduce the district court’s sentence, it is clear that the 100 year sentences are not the product of a gross abuse of the district court’s discretion. *784Therefore, the sentences imposed on the appellants must stand.

Accordingly, we order that the sentences imposed by the district court be, and hereby are, affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Albert G. Schatz, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

2

. Cases from five federal judicial districts were transferred to Nebraska pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. An indictment against Doran for a robbery in Kansas City, Missouri, was dismissed at the time of sentencing. The remaining four counts, to which each of the defendants entered a guilty plea, arose out of armed robberies in Des Moines, Iowa; Salt Lake City, Utah; Sacramento, California; and Seattle, Washington.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6070

SHANE RANSOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-3217-S)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shane Ransom, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann

Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Shane Ransom seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Ransom v. Corcoran, No. CA98-3217-S (D. Md. Jan. 6, 1999). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED