alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27800]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, 
November 19, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the 
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined 
that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 19, 2014.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27800 Filed 11-19-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
ILND 450 (Rev. 04/29/2016) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Saint Xavier University,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Rocco Mossuto,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 cv 5206

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) Rocco Mossuto

and against plaintiff(s) Saint Xavier University.

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other:

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Coleman on a motion for summary judgment. 

Date: 9/16/2022 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Yvette Montanez , Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-05206 Document #: 83 Filed: 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:843
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE GROUP, INC.
First Amendment to Change in Control & Non-Competition Agreement
  Company Executive Agreement
   FIRST
  SECOND
 in accordance with the
Companys payroll practices in effect at the time of the Employment Separation
 THIRD
 Revenue Code of
 FOURTH
 1




---



##### 



FIFTH
 Code Section 409A Compliance
    2




---



##### 



e.g.
  SIXTH
  3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Mervin DunnName:
    
    Mervin DunnTitle:
    
    President and CEO
 EXECUTIVE/s/ Chad M. UtrupChad M. UtrupAddress:8173 Tillinghast DriveDublin, OH 43017
Exhibit
23.2








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Symmetry Medical Inc., on Form S-8 (File Number 333-123610) of our report dated
March 5, 2010, on our audits of the financial statements of Symmetry Medical
Inc. 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
and for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, which report is
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.






/s/BKD, LLP





Fort
Wayne, Indiana


March 5,
2010
EXHIBIT 31

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2004-3
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2004-3


I, James Guerin, a Senior Vice President of Long Beach Securities Corp.,
certify that:

l.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,
of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-3, Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2004-3;

2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken
as a whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the Trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;

4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting
a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


Dated:  March 1, 2005

By:  /s/  James Guerin
     James Guerin
     Senior Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

James Fletcher, Jr.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04768

Honorable Andrea R. Wood

Jerome Bogucki, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, November 9, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Telephonic status hearing

held on 11/9/2022. Written order to issue on defendants' motion to compel [81].

Production of IDOC recordings screened for privilege (along with a privilege log) shall be

produced by Plaintiff's counsel by 11/15/2022. The parties' joint oral motion to extend the

discovery schedule is granted subject as follows. The fact discovery deadline is

provisionally extended to 3/31/2023 subject to the parties9; filing a joint status report

regarding discovery setting forth a list of the witnesses to be deposed, including a short (1

or 2−sentence) description of the witness's role in the case, which party is seeking the

deposition, and whether the witness may be deposed prior to completion of the review of

the IDOC recordings. The joint status report shall also include a description of all other

fact discovery remaining to be completed within the extended deadline. The joint status

report shall be filed by 11/29/2022. Mailed notice. (exr, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 89 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1293
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-26 (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005
Automating the Fuel Element 

Visual Inspection Process at the 

NCNR Reactor

By: Benen Crombie

NCNR/Reactor Engineering

Mentor: James Whipple

1
2
3
4
5
Automation Process

1. Image Processing

2. Video Processing

3. Viewing Results/GUI

6
Image 

Processing

7
Contour 

detection

8

1 2

3 4
9
Video 

Processing

10
Processing 

the Video 

Quickly

11
Multiprocessing/Threading

12
Viewing 

Results

13
14
15
Challenges

•Glare

•Time Optimization

•Limited Data

16
Acknowledgements

• Mentor James Whipple

• Samuel MacDavid

• Susana Texiera

• Joseph Dura

• Julie Borchers

• NCNR Surf Students

17
Questions

18
EXHIBIT 10.1

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF CORUS BANKSHARES COMPENSATION FOR DIRECTORS


Corus Bankshares Director Compensation
 Last Approved: August 23, 2005


Fees

	
   
 	
   
 	
  
Board of
   Directors
  	
   
 	
  
Audit 
   Committee
  	
   
 	
  
Compensation
 Committee
  	
   
 	
  
Nominating
 Committee
  	
   
 
	
   
  	
  
 
  	
  



  	
  



  	
  
 
  	
  



  	
  



  	
  
 
  	
  



  	
  



  	
  
 
  	
  



  	
  



  	
  
 
  
	
  
Chairman   Retainer Fee
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
0
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
18,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
6,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
0
  	
  
 
  
	
  (per   annum)
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  
	
  
Routine   Meetings
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
8,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
6,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
3,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
3,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  (per   meeting)
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  
	
  
Special   Session Meetings
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
2,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
2,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,500
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,500
  	
  
 
  
	
  In-Person
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  
	
  
(per   hour)
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  
	
  Special   Session Meetings
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,200
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,200
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
1,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  
Telephonic
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
   
 	
  
 
  
	
  (per   hour)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSEPH JACOB RAMIREZ, AKA Jamie

Ojeda, AKA Jacob Ramirez, AKA Jimmy

Torres, AKA James Young,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50619

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00315-BRO-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO,** District Judge. 

FILED

MAY 07 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Joseph Jacob Ramirez appeals his 90-month sentence imposed by the district

court following his guilty plea to several credit card fraud-related crimes. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

The district court did not plainly err when it assigned two criminal history

points for a prior assault conviction, in accordance with United States Sentencing

Guideline § 4A1.1(b). Ramirez’s presentence investigation report listed Ramirez’s

sentence for the assault conviction as “120 days jail,” and Ramirez failed to object

to this characterization either in responding to the presentence report or at the

sentencing hearing. We decline to take judicial notice of the Superior Court

documents Ramirez proffers for the first time on appeal, because the documents

are “subject to varying interpretations, and there is a reasonable dispute as to” what

they establish. Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, 655 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir.

2011).

Nor did the district court plainly err when it imposed a sentence in the

middle of the Sentencing Guidelines range after considering Ramirez’s arguments

for a variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 90-month

sentence. This sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United

-2-
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court need not, and indeed “cannot

compare a proposed sentence to the sentence of every criminal defendant who has

ever been sentenced before.” United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th

Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

-3-
#### A. J. Payne *v.*James Monk, etc.

Appeal — Reversal—Pleading.

The failure to file an amended petition at the term of court succeeding the filing of the mandate of the Court of Appeals- was held not ground for reversal.

Pleading — Amendment—Dismissal.

When leave has been given plaintiff to amend his petition but he fails to do so, a motion should be made to dismiss the action, or a rule asked for requiring plaintiff to show cause why he had failed to prepare his cause for trial.

Pleading — Amendment—Discretion of Court.

It is discretionary with the -court to permit or refuse the filing of an amended petition.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1873.

*256
      *A. J. Moore, for appellant.*

*Kirtly, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The failure to file the amended petition at the term of the court succeeding the filing of the mandate of this court is no ground for reversal. " Leave had been given the appellee to amend his petition and upon his failure to do so, a motion should have been made to dismiss the action, or a rule asked for requiring the appellee to show cause why he failed to prepare his cause for trial. The amended petition was filed and an issue made upon it by the answers. It was discretionary with the court to' permit it to be filed or not, and we can not see how the appellant has been prejudiced. He has been fully heard and much proof taken on both sides. The judgment was proper and must be *affirmed.*
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Donald M. Muir, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Power Conversion Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 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) [Paragraphomitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release34-47986.]

 

c) 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

 

d) 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. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe 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) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 6, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Donald  M. Muir                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald M.  Muir                                     |
| Senior Vice  President, Finance and Administration, |
| and Chief Financial Officer                         |

 

1

----
Exhibit 13.1
 eLong, Inc.
 CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B)  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Company Report
 (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 of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and results of operations of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 /s/ Guangfu CuiName:
    Guangfu CuiTitle:
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    May 11, 2010
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0 861

_____________________________ A LLISON E. R ANIERI , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Melissa G. Olin , Judge

. June 14, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
FILED

September 20, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE 

 MARCH SESSION, 1995

WILLIAM A. RANSOM, )

)

Appellant, ) No. 01C01-9410-CR-00361

)

) Davidson County

v. )

) Hon. Ann Lacy Johns, Judge

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Writ of Habeas Corpus)

)

Appellee. )

 

CONCURRING OPINION

 

I concur in Judge Hayes' opinion, but I feel compelled to explain why it

was appropriate for the trial court not to treat the petition as one seeking postconviction relief. Judge Hayes cites Ray v. State, 489 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Tenn. Crim.

App.), cert. denied (Tenn. 1972), for the proposition that a trial court is not required to

treat a habeas corpus petition as a post-conviction petition, but may do so in its

discretion. See T.C.A. § 40-30-108 (1990), amended by 1995 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch.

207 § 1 (to be codified at T.C.A. § 40-30-105(c) for actions filed on or after May 10,

1995). This does not mean that a trial court is entitled to refuse to treat an invalid

habeas corpus petition as a post-conviction petition so as to defeat a valid postconviction claim. There must be a material or substantial basis to support the trial

court's decision.

In this case, the petitioner's post-conviction case seeking to attack his

habitual criminal sentence by attacking his underlying convictions has been held in

abeyance pursuant to State v. Prince, 781 S.W.2d 846, 852 (Tenn. 1989), in order for

him to file separate petitions to attack each of his prior convictions. None of those prior

convictions, only his habitual criminal one, occurred in Davidson County. Thus, the
2

trial court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition as one seeking postconviction relief for his previous convictions. T.C.A. § 40-30-103(a) (Supp.1994),

amended by 1995 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 207 § 1 (to be codified at T.C.A. § 40-30-

104(a)).

 

 Joseph M. Tipton, Judge