alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 224.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held: ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
#### § 270.8b-1 Scope of §§ 270.8b-1 through 270.8b-31.

The rules contained in §§ 270.8b-1 through 270.8b-31 shall govern all registration statements pursuant to section 8 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8), including notifications of registration pursuant to section 8(a), and all reports pursuant to section 30(a) or (b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(a) or (b)), including all amendments to such statements and reports, except that any provision in a form covering the same subject matter as any such rule shall be controlling.

[83 FR 40880, Aug. 16, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 26109, May 1, 2020]
#### § 223.1 General.

The following procedures are hereby established with respect to the administrative enforcement of restrictions on post-employment activities (18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b) or (c)) and implementing regulations published by the Office of Government Ethics (5 CFR part 737).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antwain Lamont PAULINGS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-4944.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2007.

Decided: May 8, 2007.

Randolph M. Lee, Law Offices of Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antwain Lamont Paulings appeals from his 115-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Paulings acknowledges that the Sentencing Guidelines range of 95-115 months was properly calculated, but asserts that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court gave excessive weight to the Sentencing Guidelines range. Paulings further argues that this court’s presumptively reasonable standard for sentences imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range conflicts with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See United States v. Johnson, 445*F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.2006) (“sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”). We have carefully reviewed the record and Paulings’ contentions and find that the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. *See United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (noting that sentencing courts should determine the sentence range under the Guidelines, consider other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). Further, it is unnecessary to rely on presumptive reasonableness because the district court sufficiently articulated its reasons for imposing the sentence. *See id.*Accordingly, we affirm Paulings’ sentence. 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.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Cohen, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered November 7, 1975, convicting defendant after trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in.the third degree and sentencing defendant as a *791predicate felon to a term of imprisonment with a minimum of three years and maximum of six years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed. The Trial Justice instructed the jury that under the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law, § 265.02), a person "violates this section of the law by mere possession of a loaded .firearm. A person does not have to have any intent to possess the firearm nor does he have to have any knowledge that he is carrying the firearm to violate the statute”. To this charge defense counsel excepted. The court refused to charge the jury, as requested by defense counsel, that in order to convict defendant they must find knowing possession. The court charged properly that possession was an element of the crime, and that possession means "to have physical possession or otherwise exercise dominion and control over tangible property” (Penal Law, § 10.00, subd 8). However, as the District Attorney concedes, the court erroneously negated the statutory requirement (Penal Law, § 15.00, subd 2) that awareness of possession was a necessary element for liability under section 265.02 of the Penal Law, when it informed the jury that defendant could be convicted of possession even if he had no knowledge that a gun was in his car and in refusing to charge that in order to convict defendant the jury must find he had knowing possession. We find that the court properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact whether the weapon was a firearm, i.e., whether it was "concealable on the person” (Penal Law, § 265.00, subd 3). We conclude, further, that the prosecutor’s summation was within proper bounds. Because we find that the police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant, we order a new trial. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
ucc3q10ex107_4.htm


 



	 EXHIBIT 10.7.4
	
 Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries


 







 



Fourth Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement












This Fourth Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”), dated as of December 31, 2007, is entered into by and between Union Carbide Corporation, a New York corporation (the “Lender”) and The Dow Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) effective as of August 1, 2010.







WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower are parties to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement dated as of November 1, 2005 and amended by the First Amendment dated the 31st day of December 2007 (the “Loan Agreement”);







WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower wish to change a component of the Interest Rate, as defined in the Loan Agreement and as contemplated herein;







NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the following terms and conditions and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:









	
  

	
1.

	
To delete the current Definition 1.14 “TDCC Refinance Rate” in the Loan Agreement and replace it with the following:







 




“TDCC Reference Rate” means the interest rate established for intercompany financing transactions by the Corporate Treasury Department of The Dow Chemical Company (Borrower).  This rate is set to LIBOR plus 90 basis points as of the effective date of this Amendment, any future changes to this rate will be effective if agreed between the Lender and the Borrower in writing.”


 



	
  

	
2.

	
No Other Amendment or Waiver.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.













	
  

	
3.

	
Execution in Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement.  Signature pages may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are attached to the same document.













	
  

	
4.

	
Governing Law.  This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties to this Amendment will be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.













	  	
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY


 


 


By: /s/ ANDREAS UNTERSTE           


Name:    Andreas Unterste


Title:      Director of Financial Operations, Compliance


               and Technology

	
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION


 


 


By: /s/ EUDIO GIL                


Name:    Eudio Gil


Title:      Chief Financial Officer, Vice President


               and Treasurer







 




  





28
#### Melissa MITCHELL, Jennifer Frietsch, and Scott Oros, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-3737.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 28, 2007.

Before: COOK and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges, and EDGAR, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Hon. R. Allan Edgar, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The district court addressed all issues in this case in a comprehensive, well reasoned opinion entered on March 31, 2006, granting Abercrombie *&*Fitch Co.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing all claims under federal and Ohio law. This Court AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment on the basis of that opinion. This Court notes, however, that without saying so explicitly, the district court in effect declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims under Pennsylvania law. As acknowledged by counsel for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. at oral argument, the plaintiffs’ claims under Pennsylvania law are deemed to have been dismissed without prejudice by the district court.
# - 01/21/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS III 001;003

U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT**O~'** 

### TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC**********~****************************.L\f~** 

### 2 1. 

### 2010 In the Matter of:

### \··iE~{:~J\JNG 

## DOCKeT FAA DOCKET 

### Bud Fiske Raymond, FAA CASE NO. 

### 2009WP210026 Respondent. 

# C PIO \.flip DDD( / dO/V

# -tJDf't; ********************************* JUDGE NOT ASSIGNEDANSWER TO COMPLAINT Respondent files his answer to the Complaint as follows. For stylistic convenience the same nunibering will be used as to the Complaint's equivalent 

### paragraphs. I. 

### 1. Denied. II. 1. Denied. 2. Denied. 

### 3. Denied. 4. Denied. 5. Denied. 6; Denied. 

### 7. Denied.01/27/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA "" OMS 

### III 002/003

III.
a. Denied. b. Denied. 

### AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:
. 1, The alleged violation did nottake place. The alleged violation is based on a false accusation**m~de** to the key P

### AA inspector in retaliation t()r and part of an unlawful attempt to coerce and resolve a cIvil dispute between Respondent and a third party. 2. Before the institution ofthe instant action, the foregoing information was communicatedto the Complainant which failed, refused and neglected to investigate the underlying facts even after they were broughtto**it~** attention. 3. The true culprit in this case is notRespondent, but, instead, a maintenance facility. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted,

A ur Wasserman Esq.
. Attorney for Respondent LAW OFFICE OF ARTIIUR WASSERMAN 16380 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 120 Van Nuys, California 91406
DATED: January It, 2010 2003/003 01/27/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on this date 1have sent 

### by facsimile and placed in the United States 

### mail, postage prepaid, certified 

### mail- return receipt**reqllested~** the execllted original and one copy, 

### and faxed one copy 

### ofthe Answer To Complaint addressed as follows: 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W 1000 Facsimile: (202) 493-5020
I further certifythat on this date I have placed in the United States**m~lil,** postage prepaid, certifiedmail- return receipt requested, and via facsimile a true copy ofthe Answer, addressed as follows: JeffKamberg, Legal Technician 

### Office of

### the Regional Counsel- 

### AWP-7 Federal AviationAdministration 

### P.O. Box 90009-2007 Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 Facsimile: (310) 725-6826 DATED: January 11,2010

### (!,~**i;:[A,./!.tA -/** **)}1.;;~L/** Christina Merrick LAW OFfi'ICE OF ARTHUR WASSERMAN 16380 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 120 VanNuys, California 61406-1221

3
§ 504.15 Penalties. ( a ) An employee who discloses official records or information or gives testimony relating to official information, except as expressly authorized by the BBG, or as ordered by a Federal court after the BBG has had the opportunity to be heard, may face penalties as provided in any applicable enforcement statute.
( b ) A current BBG employee who testifies or produces official records and information in violation of this part shall be subject to disciplinary action and, if done for a valuable consideration, may subject that person to criminal prosecution.
September 2, 2015

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 New JerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590 

# Wlsec
CONSULTANTS 1427 Kensington Square Court Murfreesboro, TN 37130 wwiserconsul:ants.com T 615-278-1500 F 61S-2 17-8J3Q

Re: Wiser Consultants, LLC's Petition for Exemption to Operate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Enclosed is AppendixA to Wiser's Petition for a 333 Exemption. This document is being submitted underseparate cover due toj.>roprietary contentthat should not be released to the publicwithout prior approval.
FAA Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3703

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER Wiser Consultants, LLC Attn: Cyrus W. Wiser, Jr. 1427 Kensington Square Court Murfreesboro, TN 37130 615.278.1500 cwwiser@wiserco.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 271 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 271 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 271 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 3
### §300d–20. Prohibition against certain false statements

#### (a) In general

#### (1) False statements or representations

A person may not knowingly and willfully make or cause to be made any false statement or representation of a material fact in connection with the furnishing of items or services for which payments may be made by a State from amounts paid to the State under section 300d–11(a) of this title.

#### (2) Concealing or failing to disclose information

A person with knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting the right of the person to receive any payments from amounts paid to the State under section 300d–11(a) of this title may not conceal or fail to disclose any such event with the intent of fraudulently securing such amount.

#### (b) Criminal penalty for violation of prohibition

Any person who violates a prohibition established in subsection (a) may for each violation be fined in accordance with title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1220, as added Pub. L. 101–590, §3, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2925.)
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUNTER FAE JAMESON,

Defendant. /

No. CR 08-0077 WHA

ORDER TERMINATING

SUPERVISED RELEASE

The Court is satisfied that Mr. Hunter Jameson has successfully completed his

conditions of supervision and appears to be committed to his continued rehabilitation. In light

of his successful rehabilitation, and given the non-opposition by the Office of Probation and the

government, Mr. Jameson’s term of supervised release is terminated effective immediately. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the pending violations on the Form 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00077-WHA Document 57 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 1
tm 

## t^rfk Gs\*u*r ^ \?3S-?\I S^ I)flrrJn«+in S.o<ici 

### •TT^noifij-y |_\ «P.o\^ 

# Ak*A tcoS-U, C.\*rU "Te.^..c Cot^r-^ «P Gir^/^A .Arh^«^U 

## Las^o.T*. -7ff7/l £E ^-0535-1^ Glow -, SkU, l\-oc*-/)^JoHCoAr ^0^35°^ l)]il-- CV. ho^koH^v C&^At, .Tc^^i O -/ 1 ' 

### •Ddaj- Cl^T-W^ Y\^o-ie_ no-b- -r^fl ^U«iy« - rin.W fc gAAhlsj rKa.flo?.<; o

^ A« ctiij^ ko<s Werx r^a.Aji Oppn5'->p rn.-^rs^«\ W>r»^ E>P<LO fV&\\ri#Hi . "TV\o^V ^f-i)^ \ \ ~J 1 \£-e<-<r>«»c-V'UjU.j \ - J i



### ~ --^ 

# ^onwwaviwv SIOZ 9 ffWaddVIVNIWI?1 "-- N10H*-'- . .-
### §3333. Metropolitan expediters

Upon the request of the duly authorized local officials of the central city in any metropolitan area, and after consultation with local governmental authorities throughout the metropolitan area with respect to whether or not the Secretary should make an appointment under this section (and with respect to the individuals who might be so appointed), the Secretary may appoint a metropolitan expediter for such area whenever he finds a need for the services specified in this section. The metropolitan expediter shall provide information, data, and assistance to local authorities and private individuals and entities within the metropolitan area, and to all relevant Federal departments and agencies, with respect to all programs and activities conducted within such metropolitan area by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and with respect to other public and private activities and needs within such metropolitan area which relate to the programs and activities of the Department.

(Pub. L. 89–754, title II, §203, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1262.)
Exhibit 99.1

                         Janus Hotels and Resorts, Inc.

                                  News Release

For Immediate Release: May 9, 2000



Contact: Louis S. Beck, Chairman
Telephone (561) 994-4800
E-mail lbeck@janushotels.com


Boca Raton,  Fla.: (May 9, 2000) - Janus Hotels and Resorts,  Inc.  (JAGI-NASDAQ
SmallCap),  a Florida based hospitality  company,  announced today that James E.
Bishop has  resigned as President of the Company and from the Board of Directors
effective April 30, 2000.

Louis S. Beck,  Chairman of the Board, has formed a search committee to identify
a new  President  of the  Company.  In the  interim,  Mr.  Beck will  assume the
responsibilities for the day-to-day operations and management of the Company.

Mr. Beck and the Board of Directors thanked Mr. Bishop for his leadership in the
formation  and growth of Janus  during  his years of service  and wished him the
best in his new endeavors.

When used in Janus' press releases and in oral statements made with the approval
of an authorized  executive  officer of Janus,  the words or phrases  "expects",
"plans",  "outlook",  will  likely  result"  or similar  expressions  (including
confirmations  by  an  authorized   executive  officer  of  Janus  of  any  such
expressions  made by a third  party  with  respect  to Janus)  are  intended  to
identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities
Litigation  Reform Act of 1995.  Janus  wishes to caution  readers  not to place
undue reliance on any such forward-looking  statements, each of which speak only
as of the date made.  Janus has no obligation to publicly release the results of
any  revisions  which may be made to any  forward-looking  statements to reflect
anticipated or unanticipated events or circumstances occurring after the date of
such statements.

L.G. Zangani, LLC provides financial public relations service to the Company. As
such, L. G. Zangani,  LLC and/or its officers,  agents and  employees,  receives
remuneration  for public  relations  and/or  other  services  performed  for the
Company.  This  remuneration  may take the  form of cash,  capital  stock in the
Company, or warrants and/or options to purchase stock in the Company.

                                      (end)
### §407. Assignment of benefits

#### (a) In general

The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

#### (b) Amendment of section

No other provision of law, enacted before, on, or after April 20, 1983, may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section.

#### (c) Withholding of taxes

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit withholding taxes from any benefit under this subchapter, if such withholding is done pursuant to a request made in accordance with section 3402(p)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by the person entitled to such benefit or such person's representative payee.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title II, §207, 49 Stat. 624; Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 666, title II, §201, 53 Stat. 1362, 1372; Pub. L. 98–21, title III, §335(a), Apr. 20, 1983, 97 Stat. 130; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, §4005(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–911.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c), is classified generally to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Codification

In subsec. (b), "April 20, 1983" substituted for "the date of the enactment of this section", which was translated as meaning the date of enactment of this subsection, as the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–277 added subsec. (c).

1983—Pub. L. 98–21 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1939—Act Aug. 10, 1939, amended section generally, incorporating provisions of former section 408 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1983 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–21, title III, §335(c), Apr. 20, 1983, 97 Stat. 130, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply only with respect to benefits payable or rights existing under the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 20, 1983]."

#### Effective Date of 1939 Amendment

Act Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 666, title II, §201, 53 Stat. 1362, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective Jan. 1, 1940.
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy T. Yates, Chief Financial 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:



By:

/s/TIMOTHY T. YATESTimothy T. Yates
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      Dated: November 7, 2007


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Monster Worldwide,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks