alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey

[USGS-GX11GG009950000]


Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake 
Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next meeting at the 
campus of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), President's 
Board Room, Pasadena, California 91126. The Committee is comprised of 
members from academia, industry, and State government. The Committee 
shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on 
matters relating to the USGS's participation in the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program.
    The focus of the meeting will be a review of the USGS Earthquake 
Hazard Program's activities in southern California, including the 
multi-hazards demonstration project and earthquake early warning 
prototype development. The committee will also discuss USGS monitoring 
activities, international work, and USGS role within the four-agency 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
    Although meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 
Committee are open to the public, seating may be limited due to room 
capacity.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 4, 2010, beginning at 1 p.m. 
and ending approximately 5 p.m.; November 5, 2010, commencing 
approximately 9 a.m. and adjourning at 4 p.m.
    Contact: Dr. David Applegate, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 
Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6714, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f2e3f3f232a282e3b2a0f3a3c283c61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfaebfbfa3aaa8aebbaa8fbabca8bce1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 20, 2010.
William S. Leith,
Acting Associate Director for Natural Hazards.
[FR Doc. 2010-27248 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.17.2



Form of

Second Amendment to the
Phantom Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
for
First National Bank of Nassau County

(formerly a holding of First Capital Holding Corporation,
now a subsidiary of Coastal Banking Company)





Upon mutual consent and for valuable consideration hereby recognized, The Phantom Stock Appreciation Rights Plan("Phantom SAR Plan") is hereby amended. The language below is immediately effective upon execution.



Amendment



Whereas, the Bank wishes to freeze the Phantom SAR Plan and calculate each participants Accrued Benefit as of __________, 20__ based on the plan formula in Section 1.1 of the Phantom SAR Plan;



Whereas, this __________, 20__  calculated Accrued Benefit will earn no future interest;



Whereas, each participant's Measurement Period, Payout Period, and Beneficiary Designations will remain unchanged by this Amendment;



Whereas, in exchange for this concession, the Bank wishes to issue a new plan providing each participant with a number of non-qualified stock options;



Whereas, the Phantom SAR Plan can only be amended with the mutual written consent of the Participant and the Bank, even if the Participant is no longer employed by the Bank;



Whereas, all other provisions of the Phantom Stock Appreciation Rights Planwhich are not specifically modified by this Amendment are hereby incorporated and shall remain in full force and effect.



Now Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, The Bank and Participant agree to this Second Amendment to the Phantom Stock Appreciation Rights Planby signing below:



| |  |                                     |  |  |  |                                    
| |  | ----------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | Date                                |  |  |  | Plan Participant Signature and Date
| |  |                                     |  |  |  |                                    
| |  | Plan Participant Printed Name      
| |  |                                     |  |  |  |                                    
| |  | Date                                |  |  |  | Bank Officer Signature and Date    
| |  |                                     |  |  |  |                                    
| |  | Bank Officer Printed Name and Title
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BRUCE BROCKENBAUGH.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene WALTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-7076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael E. Walton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion entitled “Actual Innocence as a Matter of Law and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” which the district court construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We *284dispense 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.*
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the "Form 10-Q") upon my best knowledge and belief fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                         |                                                                                                              | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: November 13, 2009 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                         | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
---

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 Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-4 (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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, 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. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
   
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 172A13

FILED 20 DECEMBER 2013

DAVID B. WIND

v.

THE CITY OF GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA, A Municipal Corporation 

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 738 S.E.2d 780 (2013), affirming an order 

granting summary judgment for plaintiff and denying summary judgment for 

defendant entered on 1 November 2011 by Judge Forrest Donald Bridges in Superior 

Court, Gaston County, and remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme 

Court on 18 November 2013.

The McGuinness Law Firm, by J. Michael McGuinness, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Patrick H. 

Flanagan, and Bradley P. Kline, for defendant-appellant.

Fred P. Baggett for North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police; and Edmond 

W. Caldwell, Jr., General Counsel, and Julie B. Smith, Associate General 

Counsel, for North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, amici curiae.

Richard Hattendorf, General Counsel; and Bailey & Dixon, LLP, by Jeffrey P. 

Gray, for North Carolina State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, amicus 

curiae. 

Edelstein and Payne, by M. Travis Payne, for Professional Fire Fighters and 

Paramedics of North Carolina, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1873

To require employees at a call center who either initiate or receive telephone 

calls to disclose the physical location of such employees, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To require employees at a call center who either initiate 

or receive telephone calls to disclose the physical location 

of such employees, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Call Center Con5 sumer’s Right to Know Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALL CENTER REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A United States corporation or its 

8 subsidiaries that utilizes a call center to initiate telephone 

9 calls to, or receive telephone calls from, individuals located 
2

•S 1873 IS 

1 in the United States, shall require each employee in the 

2 call center to disclose the physical location of such em3 ployee at the beginning of each telephone call so initiated 

4 or received. 

5 (b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—A corporation 

6 or subsidiary described in subsection (a) shall annually 

7 certify to the Federal Trade Commission whether or not 

8 the corporation or subsidiary, and the employees of the 

9 corporation or subsidiary at its call centers, have complied 

10 with that subsection. 

11 (c) NONCOMPLIANCE.—A corporation or subsidiary 

12 that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to such civil 

13 penalties as the Federal Trade Commission prescribes 

14 under section 3. 

15 (d) CALL CENTER DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘‘call center’’ means a location that provides cus17 tomer-based service and sales assistance or technical as18 sistance and expertise to individuals located in the United 

19 States via telephone, the Internet, or other telecommuni20 cations and information technology. 

21 SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULES. 

22 Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe 

24 rules to provide for effective monitoring and compliance 

25 with this Act. The Federal Trade Commission’s rule-
3

•S 1873 IS 

1 making shall include appropriate civil penalties for non2 compliance with this Act.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0372 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 21, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2022

08/12/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0372
#### MARGARET CAMPION v. HOLMES H. LILLIE.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY T. WRIGHT, SR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

JOANN STOCK; GATEMEL

CHAMJOCK; JOSEPH FORTUNATO;

MEGHAN REED; BARRY

GOLDSMITH,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1288

(D.C. No.1:10-CV-01097-ZLW) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R.

 27.3(A)(9).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1288 Document: 01018484074 Date Filed: 08/25/2010 Page: 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to therequirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Gordon Link, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofTapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

(a)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 28, 2006 of the Company to which thiscertification is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

(b)         the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 7,2006
|            |       | /s/ GORDON LINK                                        |
|------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | ** ** | **Gordon Link**                                        |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer** |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and will be retained by Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. Thiscertification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference intoany filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

----
BILL OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that Machinery  Rental Company  ("Seller"),  in
consideration of Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand and /oo Dollars  ($257,000.00)
and other good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged,  does hereby grant, convey, assign, transfer and deliver
to Mestek,  Inc., a Pennsylvania  corporation  ("Buyer"),  free and clear of all
liens,  encumbrances,  restrictions  and adverse claims  whatsoever,  all of the
machinery,  equipment, fixtures, jigs, dies, tooling, patterns, tooling fixtures
identified in Schedule 1 attached hereto (the "Machinery & Equipment"), together
with  any  rights  of  Seller  to all  warranties,  if  any,  and to the  extent
assignable, received from the manufacturers and sellers of such items.

Seller does for itself,  and its successors and assigns,  covenant and agree, at
its own expense, to warrant and defend the title to and the sale and transfer of
the Machinery & Equipment unto Buyer,  its  successors and assigns,  against all
claims whatsoever.

Seller shall, at the request of Buyer and without further consideration, execute
and deliver such other  instruments of  conveyance,  assignment and transfer and
take such other  actions  as Buyer may  reasonably  require to more  effectively
convey,  assign,  transfer to and vest in Buyer,  good and marketable  title and
possession in the Machinery & Equipment.

Buyer hereby accepts the Equipment "AS IS" and "WHERE IS" and  understands  that
there are NO WARRANTEES  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,  INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED  WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY  OR  FITNESS  FOR A  PARTICULAR  PURPOSE  granted  or given with
respect to the Machinery & Equipment.

By acceptance hereof,  Buyer agrees to utilize,  guard and equip the Machinery &
Equipment  as  required  under  the  applicable  rules  and  regulations  of the
Occupational  Safety and Health  Administration  ("OSHA") and to comply with any
and all applicable  OSHA  standards in its sale,  use,  modification,  repair or
refurbishment of the Equipment with all appropriate disclaimers for and in favor
of the Seller, and to hold Seller harmless for any claims related thereto.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Seller  has  executed  this  Bill of Sale this 1st day of
January, 2000.

WITNESS:                                             MACHINERY RENTAL COMPANY


                                                     /S/ JOHN E. REED
---------------------------                          ---------------------------
                                                     By:      John E. Reed
                                                     Its:     Trustee
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27612]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third 
Review)]


Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China; 
Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the countervailing duty 
order on heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, the antidumping 
duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Canada, and the 
antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings (both heavy and 
light) from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to industries in the United States within 
a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 
23295) and determined on August 6, 2010 to conduct expedited reviews of 
the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders (75 FR 49945).
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 
the Secretary of Commerce on October 27, 2010. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4191 (October 2010), 
entitled Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third 
Review).

    Issued: October 27, 2010.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-27612 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1   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 Annual Report of Silicon South, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zagros Shahvaran, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 6, 2007 /s/ Zagros Shahvaran Zagros Shahvaran Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
# ISS during STS-130 Approach

Backdropped by Earth’s horizon and the blackness of space, the International Space Station is featured in this image photographed by an STS-130 crew member as space shuttle Endeavour and the station approach each other during rendezvous and docking activities. Docking occurred at 11:06 p.m. (CST) on Feb. 9, 2010, delivering the Tranquility node and its Cupola.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s130e006575/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenFebruary 10, 2010ProducerJSCSize1920x1311pxPIA Numbers130e006575The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jul 15, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman