alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Office of Fire & Aviation

Operations Alert

No. 09-02 Date: August 27, 2009

Subject: “SEAT Flight Safety Day & Mandatory Pilot Briefing.”

 

Area of Concern: Single Engine Air Tanker Operations. 

Discussion: BLM is conducting a “SEAT Flight Safety Day” on Friday 8/28/2009. Other Federal and State SEAT 

users are encouraged to participate. On this day, no BLM SEAT flight operations will be authorized. However, 

aircraft Daily Availability will continue to be paid. A briefing that includes the following elements is mandatory.

Flight safety has priority over operational effectiveness and mission accomplishment. Pilots may decline any 

mission that they feel may endanger themselves, other aircraft or ground personnel.

Required review topics for all SEAT Pilots:

• Review the Aircraft Flight Manual and Pilot’s Operating Handbook sections concerning critical safe flight 

parameters, including the manufacturer’s recommended drop speed. 

• Review the aircraft and company checklists to include Pre-Takeoff, Drop Sequence, Landing, etc. 

• Review the Pilot Read Files http://www.wildfirelessons.net/Additional.aspx?Page=184#readfiles

Required review topics for SEAT Pilots and Agency Aviation Personnel: 

• Review System Safety Risk Assessments for SEAT Operations. 

http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/5-SMSSEATAssess.xls

• Discussion of the SEAT “Minimum SEAT Descent Altitude” of 60’ above vegetation (this is a contract 

requirement and can be found at “B20 Flight Operations” in the contract). 

http://amd.nbc.gov/apmd/cwn/cwnVTseat.htm

• Discussion of the “Optimum Drop Height” for their particular aircraft, 80-90’ above vegetative cover for 

most gate systems.

• Review and discussion of the “ASHE” acronym and its’ application to SEAT flight safety.

http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/ASHEreview2008.doc

• Review “How to Properly Refuse Risk” for safety or other reasons.

http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/turndown_aviation_09.doc

Aviation managers and aircraft managers are encouraged to include other aerial and ground firefighters in briefings, 

discussions and review of materials. Additional aviation related briefing topics can be found on the Wildland Fire 

Lessons Learned Center website located at: http://www.wildfirelessons.net/Additional.aspx?Page=177

Aerial supervisors and ground personnel are reminded to be vigilant in monitoring safe flight parameters during all 

phases of the aerial retardant delivery mission. Unsafe flight operations must not be tolerated.

 Mark Bickham Joe Bates

 SEAT Program Manager BLM Aviation Safety 

(208) 387-5872 (208) 387-5879
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 12-A
                                 ------------
                                        
                      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 12-A

                        Atlantic City Electric Company
                        ------------------------------
                                        
                      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                      ----------------------------------
                            (Dollars in Thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            12 Months Ended December 31,
                                  ------------------------------------------------
                                    1998      1997      1996      1995      1994
                                  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                               <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
 
Net income                        $ 30,276  $ 85,747  $ 75,017  $ 98,752  $ 93,174
                                  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 
Income taxes                        18,178    50,442    36,958    48,277    36,130
                                  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 
Fixed charges:
 Interest on long-term debt         63,940    64,501    64,847    62,879    58,460
 Other interest                      3,435     3,574     4,019     4,364     4,148
 Preferred stock dividend
  requirements of subsidiaries       6,052     5,775     1,428         -         -
                                  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Total fixed charges                 73,427    73,850    70,294    67,243    62,608
                                  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 
Earnings before income taxes
 and fixed charges                $121,881  $210,039  $182,269  $214,272  $191,912
                                  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges    1.66      2.84      2.59      3.19      3.07
                                      ----      ----      ----      ----      ---- 

</TABLE> 


For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are net income plus income taxes
and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on long- and short-term
debt, amortization of debt discount, premium, and expense, dividends on
preferred securities of a subsidiary trust, and the interest factor associated
with the Company's major leases.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (on Form S-8 Nos. 33-86090, 333-13355, 333-49355,
333-87855 and 333-117243 pertaining to the Rent-Way, Inc. Stock Option Plan and Form S-3
and related prospectus Nos. 333-116635, 333-107022 and 333-102525) of Rent-Way, Inc. of
our report dated November 11, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Rent-Way, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September
30, 2004.

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

Pittsburgh, PADecember
 8, 2004
#### In the Matter of Doron Zabari, Petitioner, v New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 11]

Determination of respondent, dated December 30, 2010 and affirmed on administrative appeal by order dated July 21, 2011, which, after a hearing, sustained a notice of violation against petitioner and imposed a fine in the amount of $3,200 against him for violating Administrative Code of City of NY § 24-231 (a) (2) for excessive noise, unanimously confirmed, the petition *459denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered Aug. 2, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

We find substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s determination that petitioner violated the New York City Noise Control Code (Administrative Code § 24-231 [a] [2]) by allowing music from his store to reach an audible level inside the upstairs apartment of 50-51 decibels (dB), exceeding the 45 dB permissible limit in a frequency of 100 hertz (Hz) *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). It is irrelevant that respondent’s veteran inspector used the one-third octave noise meter for the first time at this inspection site; he testified he had previously received two days of training in its use and knew how it worked, and that it worked similarly to other noise meters. That the investigator was directed to contact his supervisor after taking the readings, rather than issue a violation immediately, does not, as petitioner suggests, render the measurements inherently suspect.

There is also no merit to petitioner’s argument that the inspector deviated from standard procedure by testing the noise level at 100 Hz, a frequency not on the preprinted form; the form notably leaves room for an additional reading at another frequency. Petitioner’s contention that the inspector should have taken lengthier readings of the ambient sound level when the music was off because the meter might have recorded a higher decibel level over time, was considered and appropriately rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. The inspector stated that a longer reading “could have” shown a higher level, but that his three readings taken within one minute were consistent at 43 dB. In any event, a reading of 43 dB is a full two decibels lower than the maximum ambient level allowed of 45 dB.

Because the whole record contains substantial evidence for the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that petitioner violated the Noise Code, judicial review is at an end *(see Matter of Acosta v Wollett,*55 NY2d 761, 762 [1981]; *see also Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc.,*27 AD3d 388, 390 [1st Dept 2006]). Furthermore, the imposition of a $3,200 fine was well within the parameters of the range of fines mandated for an initial violation of Administrative Code § 24-231 (a) *(see*Administrative Code § 24-257), and does not shock the judicial conscience *(see Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ.
#### HOLAHAN v. HOLAHAN.

Civ. 3811.

District Court, W. D. New York.

July 21, 1948.

Walter S. Forsyth, of Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiff.

William B. Gelb, of Rochester, N. Y., for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

The defendant herein heretofore procured a judgment against the plaintiff herein, has issued an execution thereon, and obtained an order against this plaintiff in such suit restraining him from disposing of any of his property.

The action has been brought to restrain the defendant herein from enforcing in any manner the judgment obtained by her against him. An order to show cause why the defendant herein should not be so restrained from proceeding on her judgment pending the trial of this suit, is returnable before this court and is the subject of this motion.

Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., following section 723c, provides that no stay or in-junctive order can be granted “except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred * * No security has been given. The temporary stay heretofore granted must be vacated, and further stay pending determination of the action denied at this time. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the application for the stay pending the determination of the suit.
#### In the Matter of Tyrone Houston, Appellant, v Patricia DiMango, a Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Respondents.

Decided November 30, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.
<PAGE> 1

                                                             Exhibit 10.21

                           ANGELICA CORPORATION
                    FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                             JANUARY 25, 1997

                                 SCHEDULE


The stock option agreements under the 1994 Performance Plan for grants dated
December 2, 1996 with four of the Company's executive officers, which are
listed below, are substantially identical in all material respects.  This
schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation
S-K for the purpose of setting forth the material details in which the
specific stock option agreements differ from the form of agreement filed as
Exhibit 10.21 to the Angelica Corporation Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
1/27/96:


Paragraph 2 (b) was added: "(b) if any of the events set forth in the first
paragraph of Section 4.2 of Optionee's Employment Agreement dated November
27, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement") occurs, then the Option will be
exercisable in full by Optionee as of the Entitlement Date (as defined in the
Employment Agreement).  In each of the above-described circumstances, the
Option shall continue to be exercisable until such Option terminates pursuant
to the applicable provision of Section 3.b. of this Agreement."

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                          Title
----                          -----
<S>                           <C>
T. M. Armstrong               Sr. Vice President - Finance and Administration
L. Linden Mann                Controller and Assistant Secretary
Jill Witter                   Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
L. J. Young                   Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT (10)(c)(2)

May 20, 1998

Enterprise Funding Corporation
c/o Merrill Lynch Money Markets Inc.
World Financial Center - South Tower
225 Liberty Street
New York, NY  10218
Attention:  Gerard Haugh

Nations Bank, N.A.
Nations Bank Corporate Center 10th Floor
Charlotte, NC  28255
Attention:  Michelle M. Heath

Dear Mr. Haugh and Ms. Heath:

              Reference is herein made to the Transfer and Administration 
Agreement, dated as of January 24, 1996, among Enterprise Funding 
Corporation, K2 Inc., formerly known as Anthony Industries, Inc., and 
NationsBank N.A., as amended (the "Agreement").

              The undersigned hereby desires to extend the date referred to 
in clause (v) of the definition of "Termination Date" in the Agreement to May 
19, 1999, subject to payment of the Annual Renewal Fee in accordance with the 
Fee Letter (as defined in the Agreement).

              The undersigned hereby represents and warrants to you that its 
representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement are true and 
correct as of the date hereof (except those representations and warranties 
set forth herein which specifically relate to an earlier date) and that no 
Termination Event exists on and as of the date hereof.

              All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by 
this letter agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

                                       48

<PAGE>

Enterprise Funding Corporation
May 20, 1998
Page 2


              If you are in agreement with the above, kindly sign below and 
return a copy of this letter to the undersigned.

                                     K2 INC.

                                     By:______________________________________

Agreed, effective upon         
receipt of Annual Renewal         
Fee referred to above:

ENTERPRISE FUNDING
      CORPORATION

By:____________________________


NATIONSBANK, N.A.

By:____________________________

                                       49
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000005657
<NAME> AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1997
<CASH>                                       2,412,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,912,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   487,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,431,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,986,000
<PP&E>                                      48,305,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,099,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,012,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,794,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     5,110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,272,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,012,000
<SALES>                                    116,783,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           117,110,000
<CGS>                                       77,652,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              107,116,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            28,169,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,295,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,994,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,469,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,525,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.86
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT
​
This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Third Amended and Restated Employment and Noncompetition Agreement, dated as of January 25, 2020 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Robert R. Hill, Jr. (the “Executive”) and South State Corporation, a bank holding corporation organized under the laws of South Carolina (the “Company”), is entered into as of May 26, 2022.   
​
W I T N E S E T H:
​
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein to amend certain requirements regarding the termination of his position and responsibilities with the Company; 
​
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
​
		1.	The last two sentences of Section 3(a), beginning with “From the Effective Date until the third anniversary thereof (the “Specified Period”)...” and “For purposes of this Agreement...”, respectively, are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

​
“During the Term, (i) the removal of Executive from the position of Executive Chairman of the Company, or failure to appoint or re-nominate Executive to, such position, (ii) any termination of Executive’s employment by the Company or (iii) any modification to Executive’s reporting relationships as set forth in this Agreement or Article III of the bylaws of the Company shall, in each case, require the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the Entire Board of Directors.  For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Entire Board of Directors” means the total number of directors that the Board would have if there were no vacancies.”
​
		2.	The penultimate sentence of Section 6(a), beginning with “Further, Executive shall not be deemed...”, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

​
“Further, Executive shall not be deemed to be discharged for Cause unless and until there is delivered to Executive a copy of a resolution duly adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the Entire Board of Directors at a meeting called and duly held for such purpose (after reasonable notice is provided to Executive and Executive is given an opportunity, together with counsel for Executive, to be heard before the Board), finding in good faith that Executive is guilty of the conduct set forth above and specifying the particulars thereof in detail.”
​
		3.	Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


​



​

​
[Signature Page Follows]
​

2
​




​

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
​
​
	​


	​



	SOUTH STATE CORPORATION

	By:
	





​

	​
	Susan Bagwell

	​
	Executive Vice President, Human Resources

	​

	EXECUTIVE

	​
	


​

	​
	Robert R. Hill, Jr.



​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
[Signature Page to Amendment to Employment Agreement]

​
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Thank you to Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s leadership and 

the Arizona Indian Gaming Association’s Judy Ferreira for the 

opportunity to introduce the NIGC’s regulatory mission to 

distinguished business leaders from Arizona today, September 20, 2022. 

As the Arizona Chamber holds meetings in Washington, D.C. this week, I 

wish President Seiden and his organization’s leadership well in their 

important work.

My comments provided an opportunity to share how Indian gaming is 

unique and how its footprint is significant at the national and 

regional levels. Indian gaming is multi-jurisdictional approach to 

regulation, the statutorily limited uses for Indian gaming revenue, 

and the governmental nature of Indian gaming operations make Indian 

gaming a unique part of the gaming industry. Indian gaming is a $39 

billion annual industry on Indian land licensed by 248 tribes in 29 

states. Last year, the 15 tribes with 27 operations in Arizona 

generated a gross gaming revenue of nearly $2.5 billion. 

As Indian gaming is federal regulatory body, it is important for the 

NIGC to share with leaders in the business community how the Agency 

mission supports strong economic development. A well-defined and 

predictable regulatory framework helps promote industry innovation and 

growth. Arizona has benefited from Indian gaming’s long history of 

growth and innovation with Indian gaming marking a 20-year anniversary 

in the State this Fall.

Attached is a one-page fact to explain some of the Indian gaming 

highlights I shared during my presentation.

###