alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000, as amended, (Pub. L. 110-343), the 
Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource 
Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting. The meeting is open 
to the public.

DATES: Tuesday November 9, 2010, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South 
Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review and 
approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Pierson, Designated Federal 
Official, at (208) 347-0301 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a213a232f383925240a2c39642c2f2e643f39"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b607b626e797864654b6d78256d6e6f257e78">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Suzanne C. Rainville,
Forest Supervisor, Payette National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2010-27997 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.30


                                 ENDORSEMENT NUMBER 1

             Attaching to and forming part of Contract Number 8DDD999-A122
                              (hereinafter "Agreement")

                                        between

                           ZENITH NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,
                              CALFARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
                              ZNAT INSURANCE COMPANY AND
                             ZENITH STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

                                          and

                          INTER-OCEAN REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                         --------------------------------------

It is hereby noted and agreed that effective December 31, 1999, any Letter of
Credit required under the Agreement shall be issued in a form acceptable to
the insurance regulatory authorities in the State of California, in the
United States of America and shall be governed by California law.

All other terms, clauses and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.

For and on behalf of
INTER-OCEAN REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

/s/ Desmond Nash
-----------------------------------
Dated this 22nd day of December, 1999

<PAGE>


Signed for and on behalf of
ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY,
CALFARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
ZNAT INSURANCE COMPANY AND
ZENITH STAR INSURANCE COMPANY


/s/ Jack D. Miller
-----------------------------------
SIGNATURE

Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer                                   December 22, 1999
-----------------------------------        -----------------------------------
TITLE                                 DATE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, 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:

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

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

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: May 14, 2004

                                            BY:  /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                David J. Mickelson
                                                Executive Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                and Chief Operating Officer
#### Thule Thor-Sven ROBERTSSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-17444.

D.C. No. CV-00-01679-JWS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 4, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 18, 2003.

*743Before NOONAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Thule Thor-Sven Robertsson appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Robertsson argues the jury instructions in his capital murder trial were defective because they required unanimity acquittal on the more serious charge before the jury could examine the lesser included offenses. The district court found no violation and denied his petition. This court agrees that Robertsson’s petition for habeas corpus should be denied.

Robertsson argues that under *Beck v. Alabama,*447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), the jury instructions were an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and his petition should be granted. In *Beck*the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law that prohibited jury instructions on lesser included offenses. The Court in *Beck*stated,

> when the evidence unquestionably establishes that the defendant is guilty of a serious, violent offense — but leaves some doubt with respect to an element that would justify conviction of a capital offense — the failure to give the jury the “third option” of convicting on a lesser included offense would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction.

*Id.*at 637, 100 S.Ct. 2382.

Here the jury was provided with a narrowed third option of convicting Roberts-son on a lesser included offense only if they unanimously acquitted him of the capital crime. This court need not determine if the jury instructions were an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because even if there was error it did not have a substantially injurious effect on the verdict. *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Robertsson’s jury was presented with two theories of the case. The state presented evidence of first degree murder, while Robertsson denied any wrongdoing whatsoever. If the jury believed Robertsson, then no conviction was warranted. If the jury believed the state’s evidence, the only possible verdict was first degree murder. Therefore, the lack of a true “third option” did not substantially affect the verdict because there is no factual basis on which the jury could have permissibly reviewed the lesser included offenses.

The district court’s denial of Roberts-son’s habeas petition is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Donald W. Jewell,Chief Executive Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSport-Haley, Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  November 14, 2007

 

 
| /s/ DONALD W. JEWELL            |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Donald W. Jewell                |
| Chief Executive Officer         |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
**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**
  The
        undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
        to
        their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended December 30, 2007 of Sport Chalet, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic
        report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented
        in
        such report.
  Date:  February
        12, 2008
  /s/
        Craig L. Levra
 Chairman
        of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
   /s/
        Howard K. Kaminsky
 Executive
        Vice President-Finance,
 Chief
        Financial Officer and Secretary
 
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Sport Chalet, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment dated as of March 1, 2000 amends the Employment Agreement
(the  "Agreement") dated and effective as of January 5, 1998 between Zenith
National Insurance Corp. (the "Company") and John J. Tickner (the "Employee")

     Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement, it is therefore agreed
as follows:

     1.   Section 2 - TERM - is deleted and the following substituted therefore:

          "2. TERM.  This Agreement shall be in effect for a term commencing on
          the  Effective Date and expiring on March 1, 2003, and such period
          shall be referred to herein as the "Term" of this Agreement, and such
          Term shall not be affected by the termination of the Employee's
          employment hereunder."

     2.   Section  3 -  SALARY  -  is  deleted  and  the  following substituted
          therefore:

          "3. SALARY.  Employee's minimum annual base salary shall be as
          follows: $311,163,  effective March 1, 2000; $349,376, effective
          March 1, 2001; $387,589 effective March 1, 2002.  Employee's annual
          base salary shall be payable in installments in conformity  with
          the Company's policy relating to salaried employees.  The
          Employee's  base salary may be subject to annual  adjustment (but
          not below the then current amount) in the sole discretion of the
          Board.

     3. Section  8(c)(i) - TERMINATION  (CONSTRUCTIVE  TERMINATION) - is deleted
and the following substituted therefore:

               (i) Mr.  Stanley R. Zax ceases to be full-time  Chairman of the
               Board and President of the  Company and Zenith other than by
               reason of death or disability or by reason of retirement on or
               after December 31, 2002; provided, however, this clause (i) shall
               in any event be deleted and of no further force or effect after
               December 31, 2002.

<PAGE>

     4. In all other respects, the Agreement remains unchanged.

     In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first written above.

Zenith National Insurance Corp.            Employee



By: /s/ Stanley R. Zax                     By:  /s/ John J. Tickner
   ----------------------------               --------------------------------
        Stanley R. Zax                              John J. Tickner

                                      -2-
#### Faught *v.*Crosby.

Assumpsit by the payee of a promissory note against the maker. Plea, that the note had been assigned, &e. *Held,*that the assignment not being denied under oath, was evidence for the defendant without proof of its execution.

*555*Saturday, May*29.

ERROR to the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

*C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Quarles,*for the defendant.

Dewey, J.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, commenced before a justice of the peace and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court. The defendant pleaded before the justice several pleas, — among them are the general issue, ánd a special plea that the note had been assigned, and that the assignee still retained his interest in it. The Circuit Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the plaintiff read the note in evidence -and rested his cause. .The defendant then ^offered, as testimony, a special assignment which appeared on the back of the note, purporting to have been executed by the plaintiff through an agent, without having previously proved its execution.' The plaintiff objected to the evidence and the objection was sustained.

We think this decision was wrong. The pleading questions the plaintiff’s ownership of the note, and the defendant had a right to rebut the presumption of.title arising from the possession of the instrument. To effect this object, the assignment was a necessary link in his chain of evidence. As the assignment was specially pleaded, and not denied under oath, proof of its execution was dispensed with by the statute. R. S. 1838. We do not mean to say, however, that had the general issue only been pleaded, there would have been a necessity, under the circumstances of the case, of proving the execution of the assignment. We make no decision on that point.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
9 United States , 973 F.2d 1548, 1550–51 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 241 cmt. A (1981)). Making this determination “depends on the nature and effect of the violation in light of how the particular contract was viewe d, bargained for, entered into, and performed by the parties.” Id. at 1551. Although DynCorp’s pleading is far from convincing, its failure to cite other “cases where a prior material breach of contract was found to be a def ense to claims under the FCA” (Reply Mot. at 10), does not mean that the Court should strike this defense at this early stage. Thus, the Court denies the government’s motion to strike the pr ior breach of contract defense, but it grants the motion to strike the inequitable conduct or uncle an hands defense.
CONCLUSION The government’s motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the fifth and s ixth defenses, and granted in part as to the seventh and ninth defenses and it is denied as to laches if asserted as to prejudgment int erest (seventh defense) and the breach of contract defe nse (ninth defense).

/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle

Date: October 4, 2017 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge
NNG12CR31C

Attachment I

Dated 03/30/11

1

CONTRACT HISTORICAL DATA

As provided in clause G.6 ADVANCED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES: REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE 

CONTRACT HISTORICAL DATA, and based on the written request from the Contracting Officer, the 

Contractor shall provide all of the following historical data from this contract: 

(1) Provide all labor resources employed under this contract in the last twelve months, 

by Company Labor Category. For each labor category, provide the number of fulltime equivalents (FTEs), the current weighted average wage rate (unburdened 

“straight time” rate), and the average seniority level;

(2) For each labor category , identify the most recent date that wages were escalated 

and provide the percentage by which wages were escalated;

(3) For each labor category, identify whether the category is “exempt”, “non-exempt”, 

or “union” as governed under the Services Contract Act;

(4) For each labor category, provide a brief position description in sufficient detail to 

indicate the duties of each category and any minimum education and experience 

requirements.

Example Table of Requested Data

Labor 

Category

# of *FTE 

by 

Company

’s Title

**Current 

Weighted Avg. 

Unburdened 

Hourly Rate for 

this category

Average 

Seniority for 

this category

Date and 

amount of 

last rate 

escalation

Identification 

“exempt,” “nonexempt”, “union”

Engineer 4 9 $18.20 18 months April 2005 

(2.8%)

exempt

* 1 FTE is defined as the work of a full time equivalent. Example: Four employees working 2 hours 

per day make up one FTE.

** Straight time labor rates only, not bid rates or burdened rates

(5) Provide the actual non-labor (other direct costs) expenditures for the prior twelve 

months, delineated by each of the following cost elements: Materials, equipment, 

travel, supplies, and any other non-labor expenditures (e.g. service centers, training, 

facilities, etc.); 
NNG12CR31C

Attachment I

Dated 03/30/11

2

(6) Provide an estimate of the number of FTEs, including associated labor category 

titles/descriptions, for those personnel currently supporting this contract that are 

accounted for as indirect. This may include administrative employees (e.g., 

accounting or clerical personnel), management employees and/ or technical 

employees (e.g. computer support personnel); and

(7) The information required in (1) through (6) above shall be provided for the prime 

contractor and all significant subcontractors. Significant subcontractors are those 

subcontractors that have performed more than $60 million in work over the life of 

this contract.

(End of Attachment)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000892997
<NAME>                        WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             506,519
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   506,519
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,182,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,524,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,182,099
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10,046
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      136,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   454,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (580,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (580,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (580,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0




</TABLE>