alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 103.11 Payment of final assessment. ( a ) *Time for payment.* Full payment of the civil penalty must be made within 30 days of the date upon which the final order becomes effective, or within the time specified in the order. Payment shall be made in the manner specified in the NOVA.
( b ) *Enforcement of order.* The Secretary, through the Attorney General, may file suit in an appropriate district court if necessary to enforce compliance with a final order issued pursuant to this part. This suit will include a claim for interest at current prevailing rates from the date payment was due or ordered or, if an appeal was filed pursuant to § 103.10, from the date of final judgment.
( c ) *Offsets.* The amount of any civil penalty imposed by a final order may be deducted from any sum(s) owed by the United States to a respondent.
§ 270.2a51-3 Certain companies as qualified purchasers. ( a ) For purposes of section 2(a)(51)(A) (ii) and (iv) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(51)(A) (ii) and (iv)], a company shall not be deemed to be a qualified purchaser if it was formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered by a company excluded from the definition of investment company by section 3(c)(7) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(7)] unless each beneficial owner of the company's securities is a qualified purchaser.
( b ) For purposes of section 2(a)(51) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(51)], a company may be deemed to be a qualified purchaser if each beneficial owner of the company's securities is a qualified purchaser.
[62 FR 17528, Apr. 9, 1997]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 10 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
STEVE ALLEN WELDON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE PENITENTIARY WARDEN, in his official capacity, also known as James Ferguson; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-8041 (D.C. No. 96-CV-176) (District of Wyoming)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of the appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.- 2 -

The matter is before us upon appellant’s petition for issuance of a certificate of appealability. Because his petition was filed before April 24, 1996, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1996) are not applicable, and a certificate of appealability is not required to establish jurisdiction in this court. Lindh v. Murphy , ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997). A certificate of probable cause is GRANTED , and we proceed to the merits of this case. After examination of Mr. Weldon’s brief and the record, we conclude the district court did not err in the dismissal of the petition. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s order of dismissal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via e-mail at                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*                     Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*Agreement No.:*                     011877-001.                

*Title:*                     Norasia/CMA-CGM Europe-USEC/USWC Slot Charter Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     CMA CGM, S.A. and Norasia Container Lines Limited.                

*Filing Party:*                     Walter H. Lion, Esq.; McLaughlin & Stern, LLP; 260 Madison Avenue; New York, NY 10016.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement deletes the United States Pacific Coast from the scope of the agreement and modifies the terms of the slot purchase.                

*Agreement No.:*                     011689-008.                

*Title:*                     Zim/CSCL Space Charter Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.; China Shipping Container Line Co., Ltd.; and China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.                

*Filing Party:*                     Brett M. Esber, Esq.; Blank Rome LLP; 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW.; Washington, DC 20037.                

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment adds China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) as a party to the agreement. The parties request expedited review.                

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: November 24, 2004.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-26427 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 10.3


 


2006 Bonus Plan


 


Establish
a Bonus Pool for executives with a target of 100% of salaries of the
executives. The actual Bonus Pool will be established at the end of 2006 by the
Committee, after considering the President’s recommendations, according to its
judgment of overall accomplishments against the 2006 Business Plan and growth
in the Economic Value of the Company of at least 20%. The Bonus Pool can range
from 0 to 2x the target. Individual executive bonuses from this Bonus Pool can
range from 0% of salary to 200% of salary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability—Fleet (AFV) report. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) (42 U.S.C. 13211-13219) as amended by the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-388), and Executive Order (EO) 13149, “Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency,” the Department of Transportation's FY 2003 annual alternative fuel vehicle report is available on the Department of Transportation Web site:                         *http://isddc.dot.gov/​OLPFiles/​OST/​010978.pdf*                        The report is also available at:                         *http://isddc.dot.gov*, follow the search instructions to search for “DOT FY03 AFV.”                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Kuehn, Office of Transportation and Facilities, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1614. 

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

Rita Martin, 

Director, Administrative Management Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. 04-2739 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOYDELL NUNN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and MICHAEL ADAM, Plaintiff,
v. WILLIAM DOWNWARD, individually and in their official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees, and COUNTY OF ORANGE; et al., Defendants. No. 11-56913 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02275-AG-JC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
JUN 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Ci rcuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 Submitted March 20, 2013 ** San Francisco, California Before: KLEINFELD, LUCERO *** , and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the lodestar amount for the award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). It properly determined reasonable hourly rates and a reasonable number of hours and “exclude[d] hours ‘that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” McCown v. City of Fontana , 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by reducing the award of a ttorney’s fees because of the “limited success” and lack of “meaningful public benefit.” Id. at 1103. The “amount [was] reasonable and the court fully explain[ed ] its reasoning,” so there was no abuse of discretion. Id. at 1102.3 The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Plaintiff’s counsel. See De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs. , 641 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011). The record supports the court’s finding thatPlaintiff’s counsel acted intentionally in violating court orders and rules, whic h justified the court’s use of its inherent authority to award sanctions. Fink v. Gomez , 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff’s opening brief failed to adequate ly argue the issues of costs and the motion for judgment as a matter of law, so we need not and do not reach those issues. Humble v. Boeing Co. , 305 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.7a-4 Calculation of time.

Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall be counted in computing the effective date of applications for qualification filed under section 307(a) of the Act. The twentieth day shall be deemed to begin at the expiration of nineteen periods of twenty-four hours each from 5:30 p.m., eastern standard time or eastern daylight-saving time, whichever is in effect at the principal office of the Commission on the date of filing.

[12 FR 2941, May 2, 1947]
|     |                                                                                                                                        |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|     |                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

|                          |
|--------------------------|
|                          |  |
| /s/ SHIRAZ Y. KAJEE |
| Name:                    | Shiraz Y. Kajee |
| Date:                    | March 4, 2020 |
#### § 38.351 Additional sources for compliance.

Applicants and designated contract markets may refer to the guidance and/or acceptable practices in appendix B of this part to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with the requirements of § 38.350.
EXHIBIT 32


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


      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned  officers of The Old Evangeline  Downs LLC, a Louisiana  limited
liability  company  (the  "Company"),  does  hereby  certify  to such  officer's
knowledge, that:

      The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended
September  30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  the
information  contained  in the  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in  all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





       November  14, 2003               /s/ M. Brent Stevens
                                        --------------------
                                        M. Brent Stevens
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Manager

       November  14, 2003               /s/ Natalie A. Schramm
                                        ----------------------
                                        Natalie A. Schramm
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### William J. Baumer et al., Respondents, v. Frances Picard, Appellant.

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, judgment in favor of plaintiffs unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order denying defendant’s motion to resettle said judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.3a40-1 Designation of financial responsibility rules. The term *financial responsibility rules* for purposes of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 shall include: ( a ) Any rule adopted by the Commission pursuant to sections 8, 15(c)(3), 17(a) or 17(e)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
( b ) Any rule adopted by the Commission relating to hypothecation or lending of customer securities;
( c ) Any rule adopted by any self-regulatory organization relating to capital, margin, recordkeeping, hypothecation or lending requirements; and
( d ) Any other rule adopted by the Commission or any self-regulatory organization relating to the protection of funds or securities.
(Secs. 3, 15(c)(3), 17(a) and 23 (15 U.S.C. 78c, 78o, 78q(a) and 78u))
[44 FR 28318, May 15, 1979]
#### Craig Rice-Bishop, Appellant, v. St. Nicholas Sports Arena, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Callahan, J. P., Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 961.]
#### § 38.1001 Additional sources for compliance.

Applicants and designated contract markets may refer to the guidance and acceptable practices in appendix B of this part to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with the requirements of § 38.1000 of this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.801 Form X-15AA-1, for application for registration as a national securities association or affiliated securities association.

This form shall be filed as an application for registration as a national securities association or as an affiliated securities association pursuant to Rule 15Aa-1 (§ 240.15Aa-1 of this chapter).

[33 FR 18995, Dec. 20, 1968]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form X-15AA-1, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3912 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3912

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 110 Mastic Road in Mastic Beach, New York, as the ``Brigadier 
           General Nathaniel Woodhull Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2012

Mr. Bishop of New York (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Israel, 
 Mr. Serrano, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Engel, Mr. Higgins, 
  Mr. Tonko, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. 
   Maloney, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Buerkle, Ms. Hayworth, Mrs. 
   McCarthy of New York, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Nadler, Mr. 
Gibson, Ms. Hochul, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Turner of New York, Mr. 
Reed, and Mr. Meeks) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 110 Mastic Road in Mastic Beach, New York, as the ``Brigadier 
           General Nathaniel Woodhull Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BRIGADIER GENERAL NATHANIEL WOODHULL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 110 Mastic Road in Mastic Beach, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Brigadier General Nathaniel Woodhull 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 ``Brigadier 
General Nathaniel Woodhull Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York Respondent, v Joseph A. Reid, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 16, 1975, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. On the record presented we hold that the jury’s verdict was not repugnant. If any error was committed by the trial court in submitting the possession counts to the jury, it was waived by defendant-appellant’s failure to object (see CPL 300.50, subd 1). However, the judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees cannot stand without modification. Defendant, on the facts of this case, could not have committed the crime of criminal possession of a .controlled substance in the third degree without also having committed the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. A verdict of guilty as to the greater count is deemed a dismissal of the lesser count (CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [b]). This is so even though defendant did not request that the inclusory count be charged in the alternative (see *People v Lee,*39 NY2d 388). Accordingly, the judgment must be modified by reversing defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree,

*612and the sentence imposed thereon. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 1004.1 General policies.

The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) will, in accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, provide the public with the fullest practical information regarding its decisionmaking processes while protecting the rights of individuals and its ability to carry out its responsibilities.
§ 201.470 Reconsideration. ( a ) *Scope of rule.* A party or any person aggrieved by a determination in a proceeding may file a motion for reconsideration of a final order issued by the Commission.
( b ) *Procedure.* A motion for reconsideration shall be filed within 10 days after service of the order complained of, or within such time as the Commission may prescribe upon motion for extension of time filed by the person seeking reconsideration, if the motion is made within the foregoing 10-day period. The motion for reconsideration shall briefly and specifically state the matters of record alleged to have been erroneously decided, the grounds relied upon, and the relief sought. A motion for reconsideration shall conform to the requirements, including the limitation on the numbers of words, provided in § 201.154. No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the Commission. Any response so requested shall comply with § 201.154.
[60 FR 32796, June 23, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 13180, Mar. 19, 2004; 70 FR 72570, Dec. 5, 2005]