alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(4910-13-P) r eDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0383; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-214-AD; Amendme

1&3& 1-

39-**; AD2010-**-*(Y' JDIO-/y-17

RIN 2120-AA64

1M-I-

~TI1oUS<Sll;

c..~

~~T~II'bJ0

1~IT1~LiilSl"

h ~ATe

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, b /2'110

I ROUTIN(, ,,'MIlOL

747-100B SUO, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-207F, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR, and 747S ,,~~- t

Series Airplanes I

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (t'AA). DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model

747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUO, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-4

unl'G \'••aoL

747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.This AD r~uires repetitive detailed inspections of

certain averwing intercostal webs, and related uwestigative and corrective actions If

I Mn

necessary. This AD results from reports of cracks in ovenving intercostal webs. We are

Isslllng this AD La detect and cOITectsuch cra+ng, which could grow and result in a

severed i.ntercostal. If an intercostal is severed, Icracks could develop in the adjacent

frame structure and skin, resulting in a rapid loss of cabin pressure.

DATES: This AD is effective [INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

0UT1s(; S\1>IBOL

~ITI•••LS:SIG

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of n

certain publication listed in the AD as of [INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE 0 ,",SY",BOL

PUBLICATION [N THE FEDERAL REGlSTER]. ''"'=-

ADDRESSES; For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing ...re

I

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, Me
#### § 101.1 Scope of rules.

The rules of procedure in this part supplement §§ 100.9 and 100.10 of this subtitle and govern the practice for hearings, decisions, and administrative review conducted by the Department of Education, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section 602, 78 Stat. 252) and part 100 of this subtitle.
NO. 07-05-0048-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 3, 2005

______________________________ ROY HAYES JOHNSON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 48,92 8-E; HONO RABLE DAVID GLEASON, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
Follo wing a plea of not guilty, appellant Roy Hayes Johnson was convicted of delivery of a control led subs tance and punishm ent was a ssessed a t 15 years confine ment. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 14, 20 05, and the reporter’s record was filed on April 4, 2005. T he clerk’ s re cord has not been filed and three requests for2

extensions of time have bee n filed al l indicating appellant has not paid nor made arrangeme nts to pay for the clerk’s record; the first twowere gra nted, and the third filed on August2, 20 05, is rendered moot by our disposition today. By letter dated July 6, 2005, the Court requested that retained counsel, Ronald T. Sprig gs, certify compliance with the Texas Rules of Appell ate Proce dure regarding the clerk’s record by July 26, 2005, and also extended the deadline in which to file the clerk’s record to August 1 , 2005. Counsel was notified that failure to comply might result in dismissal per Rule 37.3(b). Counsel did not respond and the clerk’s record has not been filed

. Accordingly, the appe al is di smissed f or failure to comply with a directive of this Court.
Per Curiam Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4725 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4725

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Chaplain 
           (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHAPLAIN (CAPT.) DALE GOETZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any references 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 
``Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
"s-J*
Clarence Leroy Dighton TDCJ #01367261

815 12th St. Huntsville Unit Huntsville, Texas 77348 January 11, 2015 Re: Notice of denial of PDR 

### The Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711 ol73-<2>g

Dear Sir or Madam: 

### I believe that on June 8, 2008 my PDR was either refused or denied. However, my attorney never notified me of the denial or refusal. 

### I am nowattempting to file a federal habeas corpus writ, and I will 

### have to argue equitable tolling. Will you provide me with a "white card" or other proof of notification that states the person's name and address that you notified of the denial or refusal of the PDR? Thank you in advance for your cooperation

CC//FILE Respectfully, 

### ULoJUA^jeJoC/J(-< Clarence Leroy Dighton

1 of 1 

### JAN202015 

### AbelAcosta,Clerk .s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 73401 / October 21, 2014

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-14594

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of : ORDER GRANTING

CREDIT SUISSE ALTERNATIVE : EXTENSION OF TIME

CAPITAL, LLC (f/k/a CREDIT : TO SUBMIT PROPOSED

SUISSE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL, : PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

INC.), CREDIT SUISSE ASSET :

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and :

SAMIR H. BHATT, : 

:

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested a fifth order for an 

extension of time, until April 15, 2015, to submit a proposed plan of distribution in the 

above-captioned matter pursuant to Rule 1101(a) of the Commission’s Rules on Fair 

Fund and Disgorgement Plans. In its request, the Division states that the violations in 

this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup 

Global Markets Inc. (the “Citigroup action” or the “civil action”) (11-cv-7387), a 

settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012. 

The SEC appealed the trial court’s rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit (“Second Circuit”), and a stay was entered on March 15, 2012 pending 

resolution of the appeal.1

 Oral arguments were heard before the Second Circuit on 

 1 See United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Docket No. 

11-05227 (2d Cir., Dec. 20, 2011).
2

February 8, 2013. On August 5, 2014, final judgment was entered by the Southern 

District of New York.2 

Now that the final judgment has been entered, the Division states that 

additional time is needed to determine the feasibility of a distribution to injured 

investors as well as the appropriate procedure and methodology to utilize.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Division’s request for an extension of time until April 15, 2015 to submit a proposed 

plan of distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 2 See Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-7387 (JSR) 

(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2014).
Exhibit 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  FreeStar   Technology
Corporation  ("Company")  on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter  ended  September 30,
2005 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  ("Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify
pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section
1350) that to their knowledge:

         1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: November 3, 2006                          By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                      Paul Egan
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 3, 2006                          By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                      Ciaran Egan
                                                      Secretary/Treasurer/
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-06-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,079
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,699
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,380)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,380)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.001)


</TABLE>
#### § 343b.4 Applicant outside of United States.

If the application is received by a DHS office outside the United States, an officer will, when practicable, interview the applicant before the application is forwarded to USCIS for issuance of the certificate. When an interview is not practicable, or is not conducted because the application is submitted directly to USCIS in the United States, the certificate may nevertheless be issued and the recommendation conditioned upon satisfactory interview by the Department of State. When forwarding the certificate in such a case, USCIS will inform the Secretary of State that the applicant has not been interviewed, and request to have the applicant interviewed regarding identity and possible expatriation. If identity is not established or if expatriation has occurred, the Department of State will return the certificate to USCIS for disposition.

[76 FR 53805, Aug. 29, 2011]
(No. 74-CC-0666

#### Metal-Air Corporation, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order denying rehearing filed September 15, 1978.*

This matter is before this Court on Claimant’s motion for rehearing of our order dismissing this case.

Oral arguments were made on July 18, 1978, and thereafter both Claimant and Respondent submitted memorandum of law.

The original Complaint was for damages in the sum of $12,514.65, allegedly due it because the State had caused Claimant a delay in performance of its contract of August 17, 1970. As a consequence of the delay, Claimant alleged it had to pay out higher labor costs. The contract itself was for $175,336.00 for certain rehabilitation work on the State Capitol Building.

A consent decree was entered by the Circuit Court of Sangamon County on July 18,1975, in a suit against various firms and individuals. The Complaint there was for an injunction and other relief under the “Illinois Anti-Trust Act.” Claimant here signed the consent decree which enjoined the firms and individuals (including Claimant) from engaging in any price fixing and from engaging in restrictions of open price competition. In other words, the injunction was *525against bid-rigging. Further, the decree ordered the defendants to pay the State $85,000.00 in lieu of any penalty prescribed for a violation of the “Illinois AntiTrust Act.”

The consent decree does contain language that the payment of the $85,000.00 shall in “no way be construed as an acknowledgment of guilt or liability...” It further states that the parties have consented to the decree “without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein and without this final judgment constituting evidence or any admission by any party with respect to any such issue.” Claimant argues that the foregoing qualifications contained in the decree forecloses it from being a bar to its suit for the alleged damages.

We agree with the Respondent that, “It is the purpose of this Court to recommend to the legislature those claims this Court feels to be meritorious.” The record before us sufficiently establishes that the claim is “tainted” by the obvious conduct of Claimant which prompted it to sign the consent decree. The language of the decree may be urged as a technical out for Claimant, but it cannot and does not absolve Claimant of *all*guilt. There is a residue of guilt that makes it unconscionable to recognize any merit to its present claim.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Meeting

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee January 19, 
2011 Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 
5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage 
Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for January 19, 
2011.
    Date: January 19, 2011.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Location: 8th Floor Board Room, United States Mint, 801 9th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Subject: Full CCAC review and consideration of the draft report: 
``A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in 
United States Coins and Medals,'' and discussion about preparing the 
CCAC 2010 Annual Report.
    Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update 
on meeting time and room location.
    In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
    <bullet> Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
    <bullet> Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the 
events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of 
commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the 
year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
    <bullet> Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level 
for any commemorative coin recommended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff Northup, United States Mint 
Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7200.
    Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the 
CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following 
number: 202-756-6830.

    Authority:  31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).

    Dated: January 10, 2011.
Andrew Brunhart,
Deputy Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2011-721 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Certificate Number: 05781-VAE-DE-035926845

Bankruptcy Case Number: 18-31615

05781-VAE-DE-035926845

CERTIFICATE OF DEBTOR EDUCATION

I CERTIFY that on August 18, 2021, at 2:56 o'clock PM PDT, Lisa Baker

completed a course on personal financial management given by internet by Sage

Personal Finance, a provider approved pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 111 to provide an

instructional course concerning personal financial management in the Eastern

District of Virginia.

Date: August 18, 2021 By: /s/Allison M Geving

Name: Allison M Geving

Title: President
#### Edward Maurice SINGLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7925.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Edward Maurice Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Edward Maurice Singleton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of his conviction and sentence. 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 United States v. Singleton,*No. CR-95-549 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2001). 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.*
Case 16-36099-KRH Doc 72 Filed 04/20/21 Entered 04/20/21 09:20:08 Desc MainDocument Page 1 of 1
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

**FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:** 85 FR 13691, March 9, 2020

**PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:** Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

**CHANGES IN THE MEETING:** The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., has been cancelled.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:** For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: March 10, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
MODIFICATION OF LEASE


     This is a modification  of the original Lease dated October 3, 1996 between
SERVICE REALTY COMPANY ("Landlord") and HARVEY ELECTRONICS, INC., ("Tenant") the
subject premises located at 19-23 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut.

     WHEREAS,  on October 3, 1996, the parties  entered into the  aforementioned
lease which  commenced  on or about  September 1, 1996 and expired on August 31,
2001,  hereinafter  known as "The  Lease",  copy of which is attached  hereto as
Exhibit A and made a part hereof.

                               W I T N E S S E T H

     That for and in consideration of the terms, covenants and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

     WHEREAS,  the parties have agreed to extend the dates and amounts of rental
payments  during the term of the next five years  commencing  on Sept.  1, 2001.
Thus the total payments for said years will be as follows:

  1st year -           $263,952.00 Annually               $ 21,966.00/monthly
  2nd year -           $271,870.56 Annually               $ 22,655.88/monthly
  3rd year -           $280,026.67 Annually               $ 23,335.55/monthly
  4th year -           $288,427.47 Annually               $ 24,035.62/monthly
  5th year -           $297,080.29 Annually               $ 24,756.69/monthly

     NOW  THEREFORE,  it is agreed that the terms of the extended  Lease are the
same terms as the original Lease, except for the aforementioned payment schedule
and  paragraph 3 of the  original  lease  which now  establishes  Net  operating
expenses at 4.50 per foot not including snow plowing.

     All other terms and  provisions  of the Lease shall  continue in full force
and effect and unchanged except for the changes set forth herein,  which changes
shall be  incorporated  therein by reference as if the same had been an original
part of the Lease, to be effective as of the date of this agreement.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have hereunto set their hands and
seals as of November 8, 2001.

                                        LANDLORD
                                        SERVICE REALTY COMPANY


                                        By:/s/
                                           ---------------------------
                                           a Partner


                                        Date:November 8, 2001
                                             ----------------


                                        TENANT
                                        HARVEY ELECTRONICS, INC.


                                        /s/
                                        ------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Markland Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert Tarini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/ Robert Tarini

Robert Tarini
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
May 23, 2005