alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.ad


     

    
      	
              Exhibit
                (10.ad)

            


    

     

     

    FOURTH
      AMENDMENT TO THE

    MET-PRO
      CORPORATION SALARIED PENSION PLAN

    


     

    
      	
              This
                Fourth Amendment to the Met-Pro Corporation Salaried Pension Plan
                (the
                “Plan”) is made by Met-Pro Corporation (the “Company”).

              


              


              WITNESSETH

              


              WHEREAS,
                the Company established the Plan for its eligible employees effective
                as
                of September 1, 1968, and amended and restated as of September 1,
                2000;
                and

              


              WHEREAS,
                the Company reserved the right in Section 16.1 of the Plan to amend
                the
                Plan at any time; and 

              


              WHEREAS,
                the Company now desires to amend the Plan to freeze participation
                in the
                Plan as to new hires effective as of April 15, 2006.

              


              NOW,
                THEREFORE,
                the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below.

              


              1.     Section
                1.20, Definition of “Eligible Employee” is amended by adding the following
                to the end thereof: Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Employee hired
                on or
                after April 15, 2006 shall not be eligible to participate in the
                Plan.

              


              2.    Section
                2.3 of the Plan is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:
                Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Employee hired on or after April
                15,
                2006 shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan.

              


              IN
                ALL OTHER RESPECTS,
                this Plan is continued in full force and effect. In order to maintain
                the
                terms of the Plan in a single document, this Amendment may be incorporated
                into the most recent restatement of the Plan.

              


              IN
                WITNESS WHEREOF,
                the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed by its
                duly
                authorized officer this 5th day of April,
                2006.

            


    

     

     

    


    
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              ATTEST:

            	 	
              Met-Pro
                Corporation

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              By

            	/s/
              Gary J. Morgan	 	
              By

            	/s/
              Raymond J. De Hont
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Title:

            	 	
              Vice
                President-Finance

            	 	Title:	 	
              President
#### WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Clara R. Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC., f.k.a. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., W. Wayne Woody, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-13633.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 11, 2011.

Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly M. Donaldson, Kimberly M. Kimmel, Chimicles *&*Tikellis, LLP, Haverford, PA, Krissi T. Gore, Robert Ware Killorin, Meryl W. Roper, Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Aya Bouchedid, Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Lawrence P. Kolker Alexandra R. Silverberg, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Joseph V. Sternberg, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Gregory E. Keller, Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, Great Neck, NY, Thomas C. Michaud, Jack Timmony, Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

*869Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Candice Chiu, King & Spalding, LLP, Washington, DC, Michael J. Cates, Bethany Marie Rezek, Michael R. Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Kimberly L. Myers, Tony G. Powers, Rogers & Hardin LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before MARTIN, FAY and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the certification of a class in a securities fraud case. Appellant challenges three rulings of the district court which can be summarized as: (1) That the presumption of reliance as set forth in *Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States,*406 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972), is applicable; (2) The plaintiffs are “typical” as required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3); and (3) The plaintiffs will adequately represent the class as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).

After studying the briefs and the record and hearing oral argument, we affirm the rulings as to numbers (2) and (3). The problem with number (1) is that the complaint does not support the ruling made by the district court on the presumption of reliance. We do not decide whether a class is supportable without the presumption of reliance nor whether a class would be supportable under allegations in an amended complaint consistent with the arguments presented to the district court and this court.

We vacate the certification of the class and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION OF:

Z.E.G.

PETITION OF: T.J.K. :

:

:

:

: No. 227 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION OF:

K.N.G.

PETITION OF: T.J.K. :

:

:

:

: No. 228 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2019

t0722 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2019

158146

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158146

COA: 337365

Allegan CC: 16

- 019935

- FH

RUDY FRANK FABELA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 201 8

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. It appearing to this Court that the case

of People v Betts (Docket No. 148981) is pending on appeal before this Court and that

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present applicati on for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in

that case.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3791.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 13, 2011.

Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable James L. Graham, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

Ronald Wright challenges his classification as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Relying on binding precedent, we affirm.

Wright pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In calculating his sentence, the district court determined (1) that he was subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), requiring a statutory minimum of 180 months, and (2) that his guidelines range was 180-210 months. The court imposed a 180-month sentence.

On appeal, Wright argues that neither of his two fourth-degree burglary convictions under Ohio law, *see*Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2911.12(A)(4), amounted to a “violent felony” under ACCA. Wright did not raise the objection below, and accordingly plain error applies.

No plain error occurred because there was no error. In *United States v. Skipper,*552 F.3d 489, 492-93 (6th Cir.2009), we held that a conviction under the same Ohio law amounts to a “crime of violence” *516under the career offender designation in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. *See also United States v. McBee,*364 Fed.Appx. 991 (6th Cir.2010) (same). Because, as relevant here, “we treat a ‘crime of violence’ under § 4B1.1(a) of the guidelines the same as a ‘violent felony’ under [ACCA],” *United States v. Ford,*560 F.3d 420, 421 (6th Cir.2009), *Skipper*governs this case.

In asking us to overrule (or sidestep) *Skipper,*Wright asks us to do what we cannot. Only the *en banc*process, a material intervening Supreme Court decision or a relevant change to the guidelines or ACCA would permit us to override *Skipper. See Sykes v. Anderson,*625 F.3d 294, 319 (6th Cir.2010); *see also*6th Cir. R. 206(c). Nor does *Chambers v. United States,*555 U.S. 122, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009), decided the same day as *Skipper,*count as intervening Supreme Court precedent. *Chambers*asked whether a statutory offense could contain multiple categories of offenses, and Wright does not argue that Ohio Rev.Code § 2911.12(A)(4) presents a categorization problem. His complaint about *Skipper*goes to its application of *Begay v. United States,*553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), which the Supreme Court decided nine months *before Skipper.*

Because the district court properly sentenced Wright to the statutory minimum sentence, his reasonableness challenge is also meritless. *See United States v. Higgins,*557 F.3d 381, 398 (6th Cir.2009).

For these reasons, we affirm.
----

----

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 of FindEx.com, Inc. (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 FindEx.com, Inc. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Steven Malone                                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Steven Malone                                          |
|   |   | President                                              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) |

----

----
#### Kamal K. PATEL, Appellant, v. E.J. PRINCE, Clinical Director, FCI-Forrest City; United States, Appellees.

No. 07-1939.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2008.

Filed: May 5, 2008.

Kamal K. Patel, Butner, NC, pro se.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Kamal Patel appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal with prejudice of his civil complaint. In dismissing the complaint, the court instructed Patel to amend the complaint in one of his other pending actions, thereby apparently treating the instant complaint as duplicative and frivolous. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (court shall review, before docketing or as soon as possible after docketing, civil complaint by prisoner filed against government entity or employee), (b)(1) (court shall dismiss complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted); *cf. Aziz v. Burrows,*976 F.2d 1158, 1158-59 (8th Cir.1992) (affirming 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissal on ground that “district courts may dismiss a duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to issues in another pending action brought by the same party”); *Van Meter v. Morgan,*518 F.2d 366, 367-68 (8th Cir.1975) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s § 1915 dismissal of complaint as frivolous where district court explained that petitioner had previously been permitted to file three complaints, one of which was against same defendant and appeared to be based on same conduct as in dismissed complaint).

Upon review, we conclude that, under the present circumstances, the district *532court abused its discretion in dismissing Patel’s complaint, because it appears from record information brought to our attention by Patel that his complaint differs significantly from the complaints in his other pending actions. *See Aziz,*976 F.2d at 1159 (dismissal of duplicative complaint reviewed for abuse of discretion); *Van Meter,*518 F.2d at 368 (same); *cf. I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank,*793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir.1986) (general rule for determining duplicative litigation is whether parties, issues, and available relief do not significantly differ between two actions; finding actions not duplicative when parties and issues were substantially different); *Complaint of Bankers Trust Co. v. Chatterjee,*636 F.2d 37, 40 (3rd Cir.1980) (it is important that only truly duplicative litigation be avoided); *see also Miller v. Norris,*247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir.2001) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed).

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Patel’s complaint and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also grant Patel’s “motion for judicial notice.”
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2719 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make modifications to the passenger facility charge program administered by the Federal Aviation 

Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2021 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. AMODEI) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make modifications to the passenger facility charge program administered by the Federal Aviation Administration, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rebuilding America’s 

5 Airport Infrastructure Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 40117 of title 49, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2719 IH

1 (1) in subsection (b)— 

2 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘of $1, 

3 $2, or $3’’ and inserting ‘‘described in para4 graph (4)’’; 

5 (B) by striking paragraph (4) and insert6 ing the following: 

7 ‘‘(4) PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE AMOUNT.— 

8 The maximum amount of a passenger facility charge 

9 imposed under paragraph (1) shall be— 

10 ‘‘(A) for a 1-year period beginning on Jan11 uary 1, 2023, $5.50; 

12 ‘‘(B) for a 1-year period beginning on Jan13 uary 1, 2024, $6.50; 

14 ‘‘(C) for a 1-year period beginning on Jan15 uary 1, 2025, $7.50; and 

16 ‘‘(D) on and after January 1, 2026, $8.50 

17 (adjusted annually for inflation).’’; 

18 (C) in paragraph (6)— 

19 (i) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1) and 

20 (4)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’; and 

21 (ii) by striking ‘‘or (4)’’; and 

22 (D) in paragraph (7)(A)— 

23 (i) by striking ‘‘, (4),’’; and 

24 (ii) by striking ‘‘or (4)’’; and 

25 (2) in subsection (d)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2719 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (2)(C) by striking the 

2 semicolon and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

3 (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

4 and inserting a period; and 

5 (C) by striking paragraph (4). 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply with respect to passenger facility 

8 charges imposed on or after January 1, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2676 

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to require that any legislative 

recommendation of the Federal Trade Commission be accompanied by 

an economic analysis and include a description of the rationale for 

the recommended legislation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2021 

Mr. BUCSHON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to require 

that any legislative recommendation of the Federal Trade 

Commission be accompanied by an economic analysis 

and include a description of the rationale for the recommended legislation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Revealing Economic 

5 Conclusions for Suggestions Act’’ or the ‘‘RECS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2676 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE FOR 

2 LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

3 Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

4 (15 U.S.C. 46(f)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘That the 

5 Commission’’ the following: ‘‘shall not submit any rec6 ommendations for legislation (including any legislation to 

7 provide the Commission with additional regulatory or en8 forcement powers) without an economic analysis by the 

9 Bureau of Economics of the Commission sufficient to 

10 demonstrate that the Commission has identified a problem 

11 it determines should be addressed, including the rationale 

12 for the Commission’s determination that private markets 

13 or public institutions could not adequately address the 

14 issue, and that its recommended legislation is based on 

15 a reasoned determination that the benefits of the rec16 ommended legislation outweigh its costs: Provided further, 

17 That the Commission’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50678-50679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23797]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1186-1187 (Review)]

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From China and 
Taiwan; Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain 
stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted these reviews on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16226) and 
determined on July 7, 2017 that it would conduct expedited reviews (82 
FR 37237, August 9, 2017).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations

[[Page 50679]]

in these reviews on October 27, 2017. The views of the Commission are 
contained in USITC Publication 4737 (October 2017), entitled Certain 
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from China and Taiwan: 
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1186-1187 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 27, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-23797 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
Order entered October 2, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01540-CV

STEVEN V. TIPPS, Appellant

V.

PURPLE TREE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04540-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 25, 2019 third motion to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is DENIED. 

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Magno certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TrimFast
Group, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

         4. Both myself and the chief financial officer are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

                  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. Based on our most recent evaluation:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. We have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls and in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.


<PAGE>

Date: March 12, 2004


/s/ Michael Magno

-------------------------------------------------
Michael Magno, president, chief executive officer
TrimFast Group, Inc.