alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_20" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 7. U.S. business response to the COVID-19 pandemic work-hours flexibilities, in percent, 2021</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Pandemic impact on work flexibilities</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Total</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Healthcare and social assistance<br />(NAICS 62)</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Child daycare centers<br />(NAICS 6244)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Started flexible or staggered work hours</p>
</th>
<td>24.6</td>
<td>27.5</td>
<td>32.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Started compressed or alternative work schedules</p>
</th>
<td>12.2</td>
<td>18.3</td>
<td>30.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_20_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="4">
<p>Note: NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
CHEFS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


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

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


         I, Martin W.  Fletcher,  Principal  Financial and Principal  Accounting
Officer  of Chefs  International,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  do  hereby  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (a)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
                  year  ended   January  30,   2005  which  this   certification
                  accompanies (the "Periodic  Report"),  fully complies with the
                  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         (b)      the  information  contained  in  the  Periodic  Report  fairly
                  presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 29, 2005


                                                      s/ Martin W. Fletcher
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 MARTIN W. FLETCHER
                                                 Principal Financial and
                                                 Principal Accounting Officer
                                                 Chefs International, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PETER JAMES SOROKAPUT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 23 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Coltec Inductries Inc
3 Coliseum Centre
2550 West Tyrola Road
Charlotte, NC 38217

                                      March 24, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Coltec Industries Inc
     Annual Report on Form 10-K

Dear Sirs:

     On behalf of Coltec Industries Inc, a Pennsylvania corporation (the
"Company"), transmitted herewith for filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the General Rules and Regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Commission") promulgated thereunder, is the following
document pursuant to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
("EDGAR") system of the Commission:

     Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Company for the year ended December
     31, 1996 (the "Form 10-K"), together with a schedule and exhibits thereto.

     The financial statements in the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1996 do not reflect a change from the preceding year in any
accounting principles or practices, or in the method of applying any such
principles or practices.

     Should you have any questions or require any additional information
regarding the foregoing, please contact the undersigned at (203) 351-4458.

     Please acknowledge receipt of this material by transmitting an accession
message to me by CompuServe electronic mail.

                                 Very truly yours,


                                 Donald E. O'Keefe
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11232

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM D. BROSSEAU,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CR-315-1-X

- - - - - - - - - -

November 17, 1998

Before EMILIO M .GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William D. Brosseau appeals his sentence for fraudulently

selling securities in interstate commerce, in violation of

15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a), 77x. He contends that his counsel was

ineffective at sentencing and that the district court denied him

a meaningful allocution pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C). 

Neither argument has merit. The record is not sufficiently

developed regarding the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim,

which is being raised for the first time in this court. 

Accordingly, this court will not reach the merits of the claim. 
No. 97-11232

-2-

See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). 

As for meaningful allocution, the record shows that Brosseau was

afforded several opportunities to address the court on any matter

of his choice, and he did so at length. The district court did

not deny Brosseau a meaningful allocution. See United States v.

Myers, 150 F.3d 459, 461-62 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013, by andamong RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as General SpecialServicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op SpecialServicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administratorand as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2013-C13 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Wooster *v.*Howe Machine Co.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

July 22, 1884.)

Patents for, Inventions.

*Wooster v. Handy, ante,*61, followed. Bill dismissed.

In Equity.

Blatchford, Justice.

The decision herewith made, in *Wooster*v. *Handy, ante,*51, requires that the bill in this case should be dismissed as to both of the reissued patents sued on, because of their invalidity as respeots claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of the Pipo reissue, and claims 8 and 9 of the Bobjohn reissue; the dismissal to be with costs.

The same decision is made in the suits against the following defendants : The Singer Manufacturing Company, a New York corporation; the Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing-machine Company; the Domestic Sewing-machine Company, impleaded, etc.; Allen Schenck, impleaded, etc.; the Singer Manufacturing Company, a New Jersey corporation; and Charles B. Barker.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  August 8, 2007
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNYGregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate:  August 8, 2007
    /s/ BRIAN J. ROBINSONBrian J. RobinsonChief Financial Officer  60
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

Percent of Private Industry Workers Participating in Retirement Plans, Selected

Periods, 1990-2003

by Jordan Pfuntner

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Originally Posted: July 28, 2004

• Retirement plans come in two forms: defined benefit pensions and defined contribution plans. A defined benefit

pension is a retirement plan that uses a predetermined formula to calculate the amount of an employee’s future

benefit. A defined contribution plan is a type of retirement plan in which the employer makes specified contributions to

individual employee accounts, but the amount of the future retirement benefit is not specified. • Over the last decade and a half, retirement plan coverage has held steady at about half of private industry workers,1

although the type of coverage has gradually shifted. At the beginning of the 1990s, defined benefit pensions and

defined contribution plans each covered about one-third of private industry workers. By 2003, defined contribution

plans covered about twice as many workers as did defined benefit pensions: 40 percent compared with 20 percent.

Jordan Pfuntner

Deputy Associate Commissioner, Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Telephone: (202) 691-6309; E-mail: Pfuntner.Jordan@bls.gov

Notes

1 BLS studied retirement plans for employees of State and local governments in the 1990s, conducting surveys in 1990, 1992, 1994, and

1998. Overall retirement plan coverage held relatively steady from 1990 to 1998, as did coverage by defined benefit pensions and defined

contribution plans. During these years, 9 in 10 workers were covered by retirement plans; about 85 percent of workers had defined benefit

pensions, and about 10 percent had defined contribution plans. (BLS last surveyed State and local governments for the prevalence of benefit

plans in 1998.)

Percent of workers participating in retirement plans, private industry, 1989-2003

1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1996-97 1999 2000 2003

All retirement 53 54 53 50 51 53 48 48 49
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 2

1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1996-97 1999 2000 2003

Defined benefit pension 35 34 32 28 28 27 21 19 20

Defined contribution plan 34 35 35 34 37 40 36 36 40

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Information and Marketing Services, PSB Suite 2850, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC

20212-0001 | www.bls.gov/OPUB | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | Contact Us
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHRISTIE STAUDENMAYER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-1007

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00023-DWM-5

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Christie Staudenmayer appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon 

her fourth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Staudenmayer contends that her above-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1007

unreasonable in light of the abuse inflicted on her by prison officials when she was 

previously incarcerated. Given this history and the nature of her supervised release 

violations, Staudenmayer argues that the court should not have imposed a custodial 

sentence at all, but rather sent her to an inpatient treatment facility. We review this 

claim for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The district court expressed “significant concern” about Staudenmayer’s 

allegations of abuse but concluded that an 18-month sentence—6 months below 

what the government was requesting—was warranted in light of Staudenmayer’s 

lengthy history of non-compliance. It explained that Staudenmayer had been given 

“break after break after break” by probation and the court, but yet continued to 

violate the terms of her supervision in myriad ways. In light of this history, which 

is amply supported by the record, we cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 

United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a 

revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Jamie William SITES, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jedediah Leslie Vickers; Robert Anthony Propst; Jeremy Anthony Propst; Charles Lee Bennett, Plaintiffs, v. PENDLETON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-7385.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Jamie William Sites, Appellant Pro Se. Bryce Aaron Adkins, Jacquelyn J. Core, Steptoe *&*Johnson, Morgantown, West Virginia; Richard Michael Yurko, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamie William Sites appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his

*521motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed.R.CivJP. 60(b). Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. Sites’ motion for reconsideration does not demonstrate that his civil complaint was improperly dismissed. We therefore find that the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. *Sites v. Pendleton Cty. Bd. of Education,*No. 2:05-cv-00043-REM, 2007 WL 2455466 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 24, 2007). 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.*
**Exhibits**

 

**Exhibit 4.20**

 

**Conformed Copy**

 

Simon Enoch 

38 Chiddingstone Street 

Fulham 

London 

SW6 3TG 

 

30 March 2004 

 

Dear Simon 

 

I write to confirm what we have agreed regarding your continued roleas non-executive director of Baltimore Technologies plc (the “Company”). 

 

Wehave agreed that you will continue to act as non-executive director of the Company until the conclusion of the Company’s Annual General Meeting on 5 May 2004 at which time your appointment will terminate. We have further agreed that during theperiod from now until the termination of your appointment on 5 May 2004, you will receive no fee in your capacity as non-executive director. The terms of the Company’s letters to you dated 30 and 31 July 2003 (other than in relation to durationof appointment and remuneration) will apply during your extended appointment. I confirm that your fee in respect of your appointment up to 30 March 2004 will be paid in cash only. 

 

We have also agreed that the Company will recommend to the Trustees of the Company’s Share Award Plan dated 16 December 2002 that subject to andin accordance with the rules of the Plan as amended from time to time you will be entitled to exercise that part of your Award under the Plan that is exercisable in July 2004 on the date of exercise in July 2004 (the “Exercise Date”). Itis agreed that that part of your Award under the Plan that is exercisable by you after the Exercise Date shall be cancelled and that your entitlement under the Plan will cease from that date. 

 

I would be grateful if you would confirm your acceptance of the terms set out in this letter by signingand returning the attached copy letter. 

 

Yours sincerely 

 

Bijan Khezri 

 

Chairman 

Baltimore Technologies plc 

 

I have read this letter and accept the terms detailed above. 

 

**Exhibits**

 

**Conformed Copy**

 

Signature:
  
Simon Enoch

Date:
  
30 March 2004

Name:
  
Simon Enoch
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IV

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 25, 2017, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute--
Cooperative Research Group on HEDGE IV (``HEDGE IV'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, The G.I.E. 
Regienov, Boulogne Billancourt, FRANCE, has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and HEDGE IV intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 14, 2017, HEDGE IV filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 27, 2017 (82 FR 15238).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 9, 
2017. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33516).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-18173 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| BY:         |   /s/ George                    Paz                                          George PazPresident, Chief Executive                      Officer                      and ChairmanExpress Scripts, Inc. |   |
|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  |  April                    23, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 692 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 692

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 442 East 167th Street in Bronx, New York, as the ``Herman Badillo 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2015

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 442 East 167th Street in Bronx, New York, as the ``Herman Badillo 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HERMAN BADILLO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 442 East 167th Street in Bronx, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Herman Badillo Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Herman 
Badillo Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```