alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   |   |
| 1.     | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.; and |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   |   |
| 2.     | Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   |   |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |
|                                  |
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ William Pate                      |
| William Pate                          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Credence Systems Corporation:

     EPRO, a California corporation;

     Credence Systems KK, a Japanese company;

     Credence Systems International, Inc., a Barbados corporation;

     Test Systems Strategies, Inc., a Delaware corporation; 

     Credence International Limited, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and 

     Credence Systems Korea, a South Korea company (a wholly owned subsidiary of
        Credence International, Limited, Inc.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7005

JERRY ADAM HELMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANNY RUMER, Warden; PAUL R. SANDERS, Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-2300-PJM)

Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr.,

Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) 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. See Helms v. Rumer, No. CA-99-2300-PJM (D.

Md. June 27, 2000). 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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 98 (Friday, May 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-06]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program and 
Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and 
other requirements for the FY2009 Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant 
Program and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant Program NOFA. The 
NOFA makes approximately $117 million available under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, 
approved March 11, 2009). Applicants for assistance under this NOFA 
must address applicable requirements in HUD's Fiscal Year 2009 Notice 
of Funding Availability (NOFA) Policy Requirements and General Section 
to the HUD's FY2009 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs (General Section) 
published on December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79548), as amended on April 16, 
2009 (74 FR 17685). Applicants should take particular note that they 
should follow the application submission instructions contained in this 
NOFA and not use those in the General Section. The notice providing 
information regarding the application process, funding criteria and 
eligibility requirements is available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/lead or http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program and Lead Hazard Reduction 
Demonstration Grant Program, contact Warren Friedman, Senior Advisor to 
the Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 
Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410-3000; telephone number 202-402-7574 
(this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing 
impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the 
toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 
800-877-8339.

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
Jon L. Gant,
Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.
[FR Doc. E9-12095 Filed 5-20-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           523,025
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           42,446
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             44,318
<EQUITIES>                                          26
<MORTGAGE>                                     146,460
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   43,473
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 801,337
<CASH>                                         226,788
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             180,825
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          29,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,444,848
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                433,780
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             30,315
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 273,536
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 76,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,623
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       188,043
<OTHER-SE>                                     275,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,444,848
<PREMIUMS>                                     208,400
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             18,782
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,335
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  22,528
<BENEFITS>                                     153,651
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      3,369
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,169
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,054
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,736
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,541
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
From: Bob Bruce

To: Doulou, Vannice C.

Subject: NEPA categorical exemption for management agreements

Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:55:08 PM

Dear Ms. Doulou:

I am Bob Bruce, general counsel for Warner Hospitality and Warner Gaming. Our affiliated

 companies manage tribal gaming facilities for the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico and the

 Spokane Tribe of Indians of Washington under NIGC-approved management agreements (and

 currently have another management agreement before the NIGC for the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of

 Nevada and Arizona).

I support your proposed change regarding the application of categorical exclusions to management

 agreements. I do not view IGRA as requiring NEPA analysis for the review and approval of gaming

 management agreements. I believe that this categorical exemption would benefit Indian Tribes

 greatly, in that it would facilitate economic development, and help tribes avoid millions of dollars in

 expenses and years in delay in development of their gaming projects.

- Thank you, Bob Bruce

Robert E. Bruce | Executive Vice President & General Counsel

WARNER HOSPITALITY

o. 702.871.7700 | m. 702.332.5081

6720 Via Austi Parkway | Suite 400

Las Vegas, NV 89119 

WarnerHospitality.com

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and

intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the

named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, distribute, take any action or rely on it

and should notify the sender by reply. If you have received this message in error, please

notify me immediately.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1286

GERALDINE M. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FOOD EMPLOYERS LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATION AND UNITED FOOD 

AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS PENSION FUND PLAN,

Defendant – Appellee, 

and

KAREN STAFFORD,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:12-

cv-00891-PWG)

Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geraldine M. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Laura O. Aradi, Sharon 

McNeilly Goodman, Barry Steven Slevin, SLEVIN & HART, PC, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Geraldine M. Jones appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing all but one of her claims in her civil complaint and 

granting summary judgment to Appellee on her remaining claim.* 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm. Jones v. Food Emp’rs Labor Relations 

Ass’n & United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund Plan, No. 

8:12-cv-00891-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2012 & Feb 20, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * We previously remanded this case to the district court for 

the limited purpose of determining whether Jones was entitled to 

have her time to file an appeal reopened under Rule 4(a)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court 

determined that Jones was entitled to a reopening of the appeal 

period and an extension of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5). 

Accordingly, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely.
FLOODS

All gas control valves, electric circuit breakers, ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs), and fuses that have been under water must be replaced to avoid explosions and fires.  Even if these safety devices appear to function after being submerged in a flood, they are unfit for continued use and cannot be repaired.  Other parts of gas and electric appliances that have been submerged such as fans, motors, electric circuits and venting systems should be evaluated by a qualified technician.  Entire appliances may need to be replaced.

Gas control valves on furnaces, water heaters, and other gas appliances that have been under water must be replaced.  Silt and corrosion from floodwater can damage internal components of control valves.  Gas can leak and result in an explosion on fire. Gas control valves that have been under water cannot be salvaged; they must be replaced.

Electric circuit breakers, GFCIs, and fuses that have been submerged must also be replaced. The only safe action is to discard and replace them.  Also it is recommended that smoke detectors that have been submerged be tested.
1

Filed 1/3/24 P. v. Hernandez CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. E081830

(Super.Ct.No. RIF153872)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy , Judge.

Dismissed.

David L. Polsky , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION

Defendant Joseph Hernandez appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 117 2

. 6

. Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable

issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 ( Delgadillo ).

On Novem ber 3, 2023, we notified defendant: (1) counsel filed a brief indicating

no arguable issues had been identified; (2) as a case arising from an order denying

postconvict ion relief, this court was not required to conduct an independent review of the

record, but we could do so in our discretion; and (3) in accordance with the procedures

set forth in Delgadillo , he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief raising an y

argument he wanted this court to consider. We also notified defendant that if we did not

receive a brief within that 30

- day period, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More

than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defen dant. We

consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed. ( Delgadillo

,

supra , 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)3 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J

.
Driver Application

Great Basin Area Incident Support Cache
Bureau of Land Management
National Interagency Fire Center
3833 S. Development Avenue
Boise, Idaho 83705

CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: Home Phone Number:

Email Address: Cell Phone Number:

GENERAL INFORMATION

lam Licensed for the Following: (Check all That Apply)

Driver / Operator (Vehicles Up To 26,000 GVWR)[_| Driver Class A CDL (Vehicles Greater than 26,000 GVWR) |_|
AVAILABILITY (Check All That Apply)
Weekdays| |] Weekends[ | Evenings[ | May| | June[ |] July[ | August[ | September| | October[ |
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (Last Two Years)
Employer: Employer Contact Number:

Brief Description of Duties Performed:

Employer: Employer Contact Number:

Brief Description of Duties Performed:

POSITION INFORMATION

* Work is primarily performing driving duties, although some work may be performed outdoors in mild to extreme
weather conditions.

By submitting this application | hereby certify that the above information is true. | understand that any
misrepresentation may be grounds for immediate termination of employment. | understand that | must be at least 18
years of age to be hired. All applicants must be aware that they will be subjected to a fingerprint check and/or
background investigation. Individuals must obtain and maintain a favorable adjudication. Individuals who fail to obtain
and maintain a favorable adjudication will not be considered for employment or terminated.

Privacy Act Notice: This application you are submitting for employment with the Bureau of Land Management contains
information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. 43 U.S.C. 1469 authorizes collection of this information. We need the
information you put on this application to determine your qualifications and availability for employment at the Great

Basin Area Incident Support Cache, and to contact you if selected. Information collected on this application will be
shared only with cache personnel responsible for hiring. While your response is entirely voluntary, failure to provide all
the requested information could lead to rejection of your application.
**Handcrew Non-IHC**

**For Agency Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**ADMINISTRATION AND READINESS**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**COMPLETE CHECKLIST #21, VEHICLES**

Checklist #16 – Handcrew Non-IHC	4	Revised June 2021

# image1.png
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHS
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John D. Johnson, President and
Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ JOHN D. JOHNSON                      
| |                                          
| | John D. Johnson                          
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

July 12, 2004
Document

Exhibit 10.7



Director Compensation 
The compensation program for non-employee Directors is shown in the following table: 
						
	Compensation Element	Non-Employee Director Compensation(1)

	Board Chairman Annual Retainer	$145,000
	Board Member Annual Retainer 
(other than Board Chairman)	$75,000
	Committee Chairman Annual Retainer	$25,000 Audit Committee
$15,000 all other Committees(2)

	Technology Liaison Annual Retainer	$10,000 
	Share-based Compensation	Fair value on the date of the respective awards is used to determine the number of Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") awarded.
An annual award of $115,000 in RSUs following the Annual Shareholder Meeting. $115,000 in RSUs if joining the Board within six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting, $57,500 in RSUs if joining more than six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting but before the next Annual Shareholder Meeting.
All awards have a 1-year vesting period.
	Basic Group Term Life Insurance	Premium for $10,000 face amount
	Business Travel Accident Insurance	Premium for $100,000 coverage


(1)  Annual retainer fees are paid following the Annual Shareholder Meeting each year. The annual retainer fees are prorated to the extent that a non-employee Director joins the Board after the Annual Shareholder Meeting. Non-employee Directors may elect to defer cash compensation into RSUs. 
(2)  The Executive Committee Chair is not paid an Annual Retainer.


Last Revision Date:  May 25, 2022
#### SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE POUR PARTICIPATIONS INDUSTRIELLES ET COMMERCIALES S. A. v. CLARK et al.

No. 4360-48.

United States District Court District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Dec. 24, 1948.

John J. Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

David Schwartz, of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

LAWS, Chief Judge.

In this suit, which arises under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix §§ 1-38, defendants served counsel for plaintiff with notice that they desired to examine before a notary public in the District of Columbia, plaintiff corporation through Hans Stur-zenegger, Felix Iselin and August Ger-mann, described as officers or managing *566agents of the plaintiff corporation. Plaintiff has moved that depositions shall not be taken, or in the alternative, that they be required to be taken in Switzerland. At the oral hearing, the Court announced that plaintiff’s motions would be overruled as to Felix Iselin, but as to Hans Sturzenegger and August Germann decision was reserved. The question as to the latter individuals is whether they are officers or managing agents of plaintiff, within the meaning of rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides as follows: “If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with 'a proper notice, * * * the court on motion and notice may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party.”

Plaintiff argues that since these individuals are directors, and not officers or managing agents, they are not required to appear in response to the notice served. It may be true that ordinarily a director of a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of a State of the United States is not included in the language of the Rule. From the record in this case, however, it appears that plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation provide that the directors will constitute the administrative body of the corporation and that they will be charged with conducting its business. They also charge the directors with other responsibilities not usually imposed upon directors of American corporations. The duties of the directors in plaintiff corporation appear to be comparable to those of officers and managing agents of American corporations and in my opinion such directors should be regarded as being included within the provisions of Rule 37(d).

It is agreed that plaintiff’s alternative motion is to be determined in the sound discretion of the Court. Upon the record before me, it seems advisable that depositions taken by defendant should be permitted to be taken in the District of Columbia where the suit is to be tried, but at the expense of the United States within usual Government limitations.

The Court has been informed counsel will agree upon the dates for taking the depositions and that no action is required on that part of plaintiff’s motion which calls upon the Court to determine the dates of the hearings.