alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11868]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,713]


Peterson Manufacturing Company, Grandview, MO; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Peterson 
Manufacturing Company, Grandview, Missouri.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of April, 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11868 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
               INTELLIGROUP, INC. 2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN


Intelligroup, Inc. (the "Company"), a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New Jersey, has previously adopted the Intelligroup, Inc. 2004
Equity Incentive Award Plan (the "Plan").

In order to amend the Plan in certain respects, this First Amendment to the Plan
has been adopted by a resolution of the Compensation Committee of Board of
Directors of the Company on September 24, 2004, effective as set forth below.
This First Amendment to the Plan, together with the Plan, constitutes the entire
Plan as amended to date.

1. Effective as of September 24, 2004, Section 3.1(a)(i) of the Plan is hereby
amended by replacing the number "2,500,000" with the number "1,100,000".

                                 * * * * * * * *

Executed this 24th day of September, 2004.

                                             INTELLIGROUP, INC.



                                              By:     /s/ Christian Misvaer
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                             Officer
Exhibit 23.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-150563) on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement (No. 333-155595) on Form S-3
of Boise Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2008, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Aldabra 2 Acquisition Corp. which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Boise Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

New
York, New York
February 23, 2009

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby
certify, to my knowledge, that:



(1) the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: February 2, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    WM. STACY
LOCKE               
|                        |  |  |  | Wm. Stacy Locke                      
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Pratt *against*Malcolm.

A *bill of cxoep*toojusUcSoniy coramon°Upicas! of ^exceptions* jad\ciitlTVake notice of, or grant a writ^ to tices to come deny

*Storrs,*for the -plaintiff in error,

moved, that the judges of the court of Common pleas' of *Madison*county, who had signed the bill of exceptions taken in this cause, come in and acknowledge, their seals, and tba-t.a writ'be directed to them for that purpose, ' ;(1 N. *R. L.*326. sess. 36. ch. 4. s. 6.)

*Root,*contra,

objected , that only two of the justices had.signed the bill of exceptions; whereas three justices, at least,, were *321necessary to constitute a court of common pleas, so that this was not a legal bill of exceptions, or one of which this court could take notice.

*Storrs,*in reply,

contended, that if one of the justices refused to sign the bill of exceptions, the others might do it; that this was so laid down by *Coke*in his reading on' the English statute, which was similar to ours; (2 *Inst.*427. 2 *Lev.*237.) and in the case of *Money and others*v. Leach,*
      *Pratt,*the chief justice of the C. P., alone sealed the bill of exceptions, and came into the court of K. B. to acknowledge his seal, pursuant to the writ directed to him for that purpose.

Burr. 1692. 1742. 1750.

*Per Curiam.*

The. application, in this case,' is for a writ directed to the judges of the court of common pleas of *Madison*county, requiring them to come into this court to confess or deny their seals to a bill of exceptions. Upon examining the bill of exceptions, it purports to have been sealed by only two judges. This we think is not sufficient. Not less than three judges can form a court of common pleas. And as the bill of exceptions is not a part of the record, the decision complained of should at least appear to be made by a number which we can judicially notice as constituting a court. To permit a bill of exceptions to be sealed by one judge only, would be liable to great abuse; for although, regularly, a bill of exceptions must be tendered at the trial, yet it is, in practice, usually reduced to form, and sealed after-wards, and often in vacation. We think, therefore, that this is not such a bill of exceptions as we can notice, so as to justify the granting of the motion..

Motion denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The undersigned, Wayne P. Garten, President and Chief Executive Officer and John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company"),  each hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 24, 2005 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period specified. 

 

Signed at the City of Weehawken, in the State of New Jersey, this 21st day of February, 2006. 

 

 
| /s/ Wayne P. Garten

Wayne P. Garten

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

JohnW. Swatek

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Ioannis Hiletzaris, Also Known as John Hiletaris, Deceased. Kathy Liosis, Respondent; Nicholas Hiletzaris, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 623]

In a probate proceeding in which Kathy Liosis, the administrator of the estate of Ioannis Hiletzaris, also known as John Hiletzaris, petitioned pursuant to SCPA 2205 to compel an accounting, Nicholas Hiletzaris appeals from an order of the Sur*741rogate’s Court, Queens County (Kelly, S.), dated September 8, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Ioannis Hiletzaris, also known as John Hiletzaris (hereinafter the decedent), died on April 17, 2004. In September 2010, the petitioner, as administrator of the decedent’s estate, commenced this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2205 to compel Nicholas Hiletzaris (hereinafter Nicholas) to account for his transactions and dealings as the decedent’s attorney in fact pursuant to a durable power of attorney executed by the decedent in favor of Nicholas on November 16, 1998.

The Surrogate’s Court properly denied Nicholas’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding. A proceeding to compel a fiduciary to account is governed by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1) *(see Matter of Barabash,*31 NY2d 76, 80 [1972]; *Matter of Sbuttoni,*16 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]; *Matter of Meyer,*303 AD2d 682, 683 [2003]). Here, while the fiduciary relationship ended upon the decedent’s death on April 17, 2004, more than six years prior to the commencement of this proceeding *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-1511 [a]), the evidence submitted by Nicholas raised triable issues of fact as to whether Nicholas’s alleged misrepresentations in his 2009 accounting of the estate of the decedent’s father served to toll the statute of limitations *(see Tydings v Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP,*11 NY3d 195, 201 [2008]; *Spallholz v Sheldon,*216 NY 205, 209 [1915]; *see also Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc.,*8 NY3d 478, 491 [2007]). We also reject Nicholas’s contention that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, as Nicholas failed to establish prima facie the requisite element of prejudice *(see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki,*100 NY2d 801, 816 [2003], *cert denied*540 US 1017 [2003]; *Matter of Barabash,*31 NY2d at 82; *Markell v Markell,*91 AD3d 832, 834 [2012]; *Skrodelis v Norbergs,*272 AD2d 316, 316 [2000]).

Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ, concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7635
LEROY K. SMALLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and RUFUS MULDROW, Plaintiff, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of Operations; P.DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Warden; WILLIE EAGLETON, Associate Warden; GEORGIA YEARWOOD, Associate Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock H ill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-97-193-O-19BD) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* We note that Rufus Muldrow, Smalls' co-Plaintiff below, is not a party to the appeal because he did not sign the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). 2 Leroy K. Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Leroy Smalls appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * Smalls v. Moore , No. CA-97-193-O-19BD (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DWAYNE SMAIL, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-110C DECISION

On June 2,2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Twenty-five (25) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Negligent Homicide, a felony. The Court designated the defendant a Persistent Felony Offender.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty. The state was represented by Ed Corrigan.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

*21DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                 ------------

                          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 Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kevin Schott, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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.

Date:  January 3, 2006                      By: /s/ Kevin Schott
                                                ----------------------------
                                                     Kevin Schott
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 22.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
PennCorp Financial Group, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No.  333-13285) on Form S-3 and (Nos.  333-48629,  333-48631 and  333-48637) on
Form S-8 of PennCorp  Financial Group,  Inc. of our report dated March 19, 1998,
relating  to  the   consolidated   balance  sheets  of  Southwestern   Financial
Corporation  and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income,  shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the
years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of PennCorp Financial Group, Inc.

                                                     KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Dallas, Texas
March 27, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 856 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 856

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the minimum 
  medicare deadlines for filing claims to take into account delay in 
  processing adjustments from secondary payor status to primary payor 
                                status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 2005

 Mr. Rockefeller (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the minimum 
  medicare deadlines for filing claims to take into account delay in 
  processing adjustments from secondary payor status to primary payor 
                                status.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT IN MINIMUM MEDICARE CLAIMS FILING DEADLINES TO 
              ACCOUNT FOR DELAY IN PROCESSING ADJUSTMENTS FROM 
              SECONDARY TO PRIMARY PAYOR STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Sections 1814(a)(1) and 1835(a)(1) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(1), 1395n(a)(1)) are each amended by 
inserting ``(but, in the case of items and services furnished to an 
individual during the period beginning on the date the individual's 
status under section 1862(b)(2) changes from having a group health plan 
that is a primary plan to no longer having such a health plan that is a 
primary plan and ending on the date of completion of the change of 
status, ending no earlier than 1 year after the date of completion of 
the change of status)'' after ``1 calendar year''.
    (b) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by subsection (a) 
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 
1987, and before August 11, 1993.
    (2) In the case of claims for items and services described in the 
matter inserted by the amendments made by subsection (a) and furnished 
on or after January 1, 1987, and before August 11, 1993, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the deadline for submission 
of such claims under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act shall in no case expire before the end of the 1-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# RECEIVEDINa /35V~/¥ m 15 2015 t?A/H AUC-QlTieAT 

### Mot fieyu^TF^ 

## irigmm. Abel Acosta, Clerk £.0.A, <EAS£ No, ll-n-00tZ£-C& PP -ll>f*1- II TN THE £ourT of £#wf*a/ Affa/s of TEXAS 

### A)(/3T/A/ ; TEXAS £tf£?r££ ALAN 5TAPl£5, APPelU«r V*>- FILED IN THE f TATS 0^ TEXAS ^//^W^CRIMINALAPPEALS 2 3 2:;5 

### A PPTtlAAt& PKIE F AbelAcosta, Clerk 0 h 

### PETTTToAC A,r PXS^REVifitfARY REVXEW "3— Judical P/srfter (^0UrT 0 f /i/>0fcrj0/f (Eot//i Ty} TexSIS 

### jtf/n fazTS/Z f/cftjfier JtAefqe frfS/e/ssej £H£yr£K /fLAH 5TA)/*^£$ Ewf/e fair 2.64 EM* 3V?<F, fa/,7sv)//r, VcJ7te* 

### A Pfefa" r Pro
- 5c feTmoA/e/? / of m ia1. 

### IDENTITIES Of'- mW5 AND£<%fl&L 

## JuJae Prr*lJ/y: /AM f05r£< FL£T£H£X Tor +Ae 5%7Zar TJtIJI I fytyL(m€T£C%az9*0
Asst PisrtFcT ATTez/vfy fcrM*PeP<yS**T«rT£i«(: AM/« tykrf*fcrTpc\i%7f*» ffctfa* J2X?tf fa/*>7?*<o Trices 7$?c( 

### TriAePr-faf/s/trfs/Aff**f>' W*\, M rfi^0S^J Jfc, Tfi£*f*o?&&*> FO0 /Y. CHXttH fa/or/**) T-fyjts y^^0i

X of & it

### TAPlT of 6>AtTe«T5
T#t/i° 0P To/v T<*«rs 3

fcTCmneSf Tor Pt>(/?vtU Aral/to<<>* 7~ 7AA°; If, W,!3 

### Prayer A*r PeF/s-f 

### ApPpv^'x .OttcMeaf ) Ltf-tr- AlpGjrs.)

1> rf If T?A 7~ 

## ^TAPEPPP^r #<y«rX/y Ar«/ Jtgctt* VTA* tfran/rie/iT /k /7oT~ N*0<*&+ryJ TA^rs Pt?r<° 

### uuAiveX, It /i \y0ry ckvt'dos fP^r A^P^X^^^ U/#t> fioT aX^fif^^/y repfpsf7~<-*y #7- r^i^y, 

### PeprfiX<f«T- #aX Af>yrP<?«7 *r? 0*p tfrA 'fPp ^TXtTE/MEy/r *f >yPe A~0? *e 

### fl/l J0*/y ll} £6/2 AP#?//<?aF out?1* /A/A/tfrS rdr I 00C/*7~ #p Mc/rAvr j?/>X #-/?? Acts/if 0P 

### iP/j/a^pi// ?*>$<*$$/*i 0P TPn°*r/*t />y 0 A^Pjsi ,



### Tyw/ bryj* Uj/tA Voir p/rr o/i AyrX'?, 20/3 X/^7- jury refar/>f>A a ty<°rX/eT <?<f st y^ss CdA-Ose
- fap/iT //? y/f> Trysts £><°yffr^TSH<°i~r a-/ Xrtmfi*/ (fyA^e 0/\ COCtnT I 0*X 5~0 y**'** C0nE/»P/*'<o/>>r ## 

### tf«X 0/1 Apri///; J'/J, ftp jury F*C/>X Apy*//**7 M/Uy oP PvtP 0aVfiTJ> , 0A Apr// /A, At/3; fp* 006,+ T X, A0#/>5-2>} ///?u°h /)0fPe> 0 f Ay>y"*'r U/tfs. y/lffsx Ta-tAe C<?urT^

J-fre-Vr 4*f/4

### •5TATEjyl£AT 0p fro*<-c/ur*{ Ai$To#y Jv) fAe Aj&rr-r #E APX^/s, Tcu*/-PtA 

### AturT 0p A'PtfrW* P/srAtcT TyPr) T&X/IS P^p/Nto^ 0fr//v<r*eS 5a>pf?»it?er IIj 2*'i, To Pnof/t/) T<?r reT^r/stj Cu<?^> P//<*X. 0£0O///>s M /?£ V/E w 

### TPK0M£oc/5 0:ny£C-£ *f TH£ 0#t/£T ^Z I~A({d/»p/rr? yHy/>&£ of rv* coaxr, **?> FUin EE#0{ r%/iX*s*o^/ Eyy^A" *V

M s<e (% T of /f
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 55 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 55

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
                               Colorado.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Mr. Allard introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
                               Colorado.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rocky Mountain National Park 
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Federal parcel.--The term ``Federal parcel'' means the 
        parcel of approximately 70 acres of Federal land near MacGregor 
        Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map numbered 121/
        80,154, dated June 2004.
            (3) Non-federal parcels.--The term ``non-Federal parcels'' 
        means the 3 parcels of non-Federal land comprising 
        approximately 5.9 acres that are located near MacGregor Ranch, 
        Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
            (4) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Rocky Mountain National 
        Park in the State of Colorado.

SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) Exchange of Land.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept an offer to 
        convey all right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal 
        parcels to the United States in exchange for the Federal 
        parcel.
            (2) Conveyance.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
        which the Secretary receives an offer under paragraph (1), the 
        Secretary shall convey the Federal parcel in exchange for the 
        non-Federal parcels.
            (3) Conservation easement.--As a condition of the exchange 
        of land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall reserve a 
        perpetual easement to the Federal parcel for the purposes of 
        protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values 
        of the Federal parcel.
    (b) Boundary Adjustment; Management of Land.--On acquisition of the 
non-Federal parcels under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall--
            (1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect the 
        acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and
            (2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of the Park, in 
        accordance with any laws (including regulations) applicable to 
        the Park.
                                 <all>
```