alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §282c. Public access to funded investigators' final manuscripts

The Director of the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") shall require in the current fiscal year and thereafter that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

(Pub. L. 111–8, div. F, title II, §217, Mar. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 782.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2009, and also as part of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, and the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Allen, Appellant.

On the call of the calendar, appeal dismissed. Appellant failed to comply with an order of this court, dated February 5, 1962, requiring him to perfect the appeal for the May 1962 Term. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### International Harvester Company of America *v.*Adams.

Fish, C. J.

1. It was not cause for a new trial that the court permitted the defendant to testify to the effect that a ten-horse-power engine would operate a seventy-saw gin, and that the witness knew this from experience, as he had run a seventy-saw ■ gin with an engine that was rated at ten-horse-power; it appearing that the plaintiff introduced expert testimony that such a gin could be run by an engine of that horse-power.

*673September 24, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Rawlings. Screven superior court. August 9, 1911.

*White & Lovett,*for plaintiff. *H. A. Boykin,*for defendant.

2. The assignments of error upon the admission of other testimony were not meritorious; nor did the court err in the instructions of which complaint is made.

3. This case was before this court on a former occasion (135 *Ga.*104, 68 S. E. 1093). Subsequently to the decision then rendered, amendments were allowed to the defendant’s pleas; and upon the last trial there was evidence materially different from that on the former trial.

4. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

ORDER CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

In light of the pendency of discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge James, this Court

VACATES the case management conferences set in this and related matters. The case

management shall be CONTINUED until April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. An updated joint case

management statement shall be filed no later than April 2, 2010. If the discovery disputes are

resolved earlier, the parties shall immediately notify the Court and submit a joint case

management conference statement within 7 days of the resolution. The Court will then advance

the case management conference, if possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document 178 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
TS- EMLA50 /60/70/80

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the SubmitterTS- EMLA50 /60/70/80Attachment #4

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical**

**Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by the**  **Submitter** TS

- EMLA50/60/70/80Attachment #4

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical**

**Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter** 

**– Processing of Emulsifiers**  TS

- EMLA50/60/70/80
\fPA~f~~~ 

~tt,Mret~~ 

M MC~ f2M,v..- 12~ ~ 

l7 \AI,-;)-._k / ~ IL 

~~) 

Jc k CAJMJ_ -1- ~ ~ £(~ { ~th- ~ ~ ~ 

,M~~~~~~hi-W~~· 

of ~ lw-v ;W4-WVl- -}o ~ ~ ~ a-rJ ) ~~ ~ ~ 

~~~~~~T· 

9)~~~QM_~~~~1M 1 {o ~ CD)- ~ ~ ~ -f4T ;,._ ~ ctwt_ ~, 

~M~~~b.~~~ J.~ 

~ r ~ ~ 13-te. -te-~, ~ ;,_ .. 4~~J 

~ ~.hA"- ~~ 18o' .J. /M~ 5~~ D"'~J'ffoi. 

~ M~ -1 ~ f1A rAA ~ o( ~ ~ ~ ~ 

~r~~)M_~-fk.-~~-

r~~~kf~ t·~ ~~. 

(\~~~~~ LN'M-evUL.. ~~7 ~ 

r- ~ ~ ~ V>_ ''/J-C4Nt" ~ >NL ~ ~ ~ 

~~MF, 

f~~~~~~~~ 

~~aM~~~~~~h~ 

~r·
exv10w5






Exhibit 10.5




Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement




     This Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement is made effective on the 6th
day of August 2010, between Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation (“Company”) and Mitchell J. Krebs
(“Employee”).



     Whereas,
the parties executed an Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2005 (the
“Employment Agreement”), and



     Whereas the Employment Agreement was further amended and then subsequently restated effective
December 31, 2008 (“Restated Employment Agreement”), and



     Whereas the Restated Employment Agreement was further amended effective July 31, 2009 whereby
the term of the Restated Employment Agreement was extended through July 31, 2011, and



     Whereas the parties desire to further extend the term of the Restated Employment Agreement and
update the compensation as contemplated by the Restated Employment Agreement and as set forth
below;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained to be kept
and performed by the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows:



1. Term Of Employment. The Restated Employment Agreement shall be amended in Section 2 to
read that the term of employment shall be extended to the 31st day of December 2011,
unless sooner terminated as provided in the Restated Employment Agreement. It is further agreed
that the Restated Employment Agreement may be further considered for additional extension. It is
understood, however, that termination can occur in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of
the Restated Employment Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Third Amendment
to the Restated Employment Agreement.



2. Compensation. The Restated Employment Agreement shall be amended in Section 3 (a) to
read that the Employee shall receive a base salary of $289,000 annually. The Restated Employment
Agreement shall be amended in Section 3 (c) to read that the Employee shall have an opportunity to
earn a bonus during each calendar year targeted to be 50% of Employee’s then current annual salary,
which, at the date of this Agreement, is the potential sum of $144,500 and a maximum of $289,000
(AIP). In





 









 







addition, Employee shall be eligible to earn an award under the Company’s long-term incentive plan
with a target level of 190% or a potential $549,100 (LTIP). Such bonuses are at the discretion of
the board of directors.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment to the Restated Employment
Agreement as of the day and year first written above.



Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation




	 	 	 	 
	By  	/s/ Dennis E. Wheeler	 
	Dennis E. Wheeler, President and CEO 	 
	 
	/s/ Mitchell J. Krebs
 	 
	Employee
#### § 401.30 Proceedings under Article X.

When a question or matter of difference arising between the two Governments involving the rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to the other or to their respective inhabitants has been or is to be referred to the Commission for decision under Article X of the Treaty, the Commission, after consultation with the said Governments, will adopt such rules of procedure as may be appropriate to the question or matter referred or to be referred.
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 55 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 55 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 55 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-2272 VRW (EMC)

ORDER RE SCHEDULING RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 90)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel, which Judge Walker has referred to the undersigned

for resolution. See Docket No. 95 (referral). The parties have agreed to, and the Court hereby sets,

the following briefing and hearing schedule.

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be heard on February 10, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. 

Defendants’ oppositions to the motion to compel shall be filed and served by February 8, 2010. 

There shall be no reply.

(2) The February 11, 2010, date for Plaintiff’s opposition to Globe’s motion for summary

judgment is VACATED. At the February 10 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court will

discuss with the parties resetting the briefing date for Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for

summary judgment, as well as Globe’s reply. 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 97 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

(3) The above schedule shall have no effect on Northwest’s motion for summary

judgment, which remains set for hearing on March 11, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 97 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathan Finkel, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
### §3797u–7. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797u–7 was editorially reclassified as section 10618 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 706

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 706 appear at 84 FR 37751, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 706.3 Scope.

This part applies to all agency records in DFC's possession and control. This part does not compel DFC to create records or to ask outside parties to provide documents in order to satisfy a FOIA request. DFC may, however, in its discretion and in consultation with a FOIA requester, create a new record as a partial or complete response to a FOIA request. In responding to requests for information, DFC will ordinarily consider only those records within its possession and control as of the date of DFC's search. If any other date is used, DFC will inform the requester of that date. A record that is excluded from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), is not considered responsive to a request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 706

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 706 appear at 84 FR 37751, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 706.10 Publicly available records.

Records that the FOIA requires agencies to make available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through DFC's FOIA Web site at *www.dfc.gov.* Records identified as of interest to the public and appropriate for public disclosure are also available, along with an index. These include annual reports and financial statements, program handbooks, press releases, application forms, claims information, and annual FOIA reports. DFC will review and update its Web site of posted records on an ongoing basis. Persons seeking information are encouraged to visit DFC's Web site to see what information is already available before submitting a request; DFC's FOIA Office and FOIA Public Liaison are available to assist individuals in locating records.

[82 FR 20434, May 2, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019]
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10112

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL PINEA FLORES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-48-ALL

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Pineda Flores, Jr., appeals his conviction of being a convicted felon

in possession of a firearm. Flores contends that the evidence did not support the

district court’s finding that he intended to cause bodily harm and that, therefore,

the district court incorrectly sentenced him pursuant to the aggravated assault

guideline; that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level for discharge

of a firearm; that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level for more

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10112

2

than minimal planning; and that the evidence did not show that a child inside

the house incurred a bodily injury.

In the district court, Flores objected to the application of the aggravated

assault guideline solely on the basis that the evidence did not support a finding

that he fired shots into a private residence. By rejecting Flores’s argument, the

district court necessarily found that Flores discharged a firearm. The district

court’s finding is plausible in light of the testimony at Flores’s trial and the

information in Flores’s presentence report and passes muster under the clear

error standard of review. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th

Cir. 2005).

Flores’s remaining contentions challenge factual findings of the district

court and are raised for the first time on appeal. Those contentions are reviewed

under the plain error standard. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d

804, 806 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 625 (2008). “Questions of fact capable

of resolution upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain

error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
#### A & B Home Improvement Corporation v. Hyman Artz.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 31, 1960, with notice of argument for the February 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to he argued or submitted when reached.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7557]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Wonder of the Age: Master Painters of India, 1100-
1900''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Wonder of the Age: Master Painters of 
India, 1100-1900,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, 
from on or about September 28, 2011, until on or about January 8, 2012, 
and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, 
is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-21129 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### § 1470.1 Purpose.

The regulations contained in this subchapter are intended to implement the provisions of section 4110 of title 22 of the United States Code. They prescribed procedures and methods which the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel may utilize in the resolution of negotiation impasses.
##### 



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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lason,
Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, each of the undersigned hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our respective knowledge and
belief, that:



|(1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lason, Inc. for the
quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Lason, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The
foregoing Certification is subject to and qualified by the
disclosures in Part I, Note 2 and in Part 1, Item 2 which provides that while the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements of registrant included in this quarterly report have been
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for
interim financial information, they are not in conformity with the instructions
for Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulations S-X, as registrant has not
presented comparable information for the nine months ended September 30, 2002.
Reference is made to Part 1, Note 2: Basis of Presentation and Part 1, Item
2: Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations  Fresh Start Reporting and Factors that Affect Comparability of
Financial Information for a more complete discussion.

November 12, 2003
    
    /s/
    
    Ronald D. RisherRonald D. RisherChief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2003
    
    /s/
    
    Douglas S. KearneyDouglas S. KearneyChief Financial Officer


1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2594 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2594

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gains tax 
           treatment for certain self-created musical works.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. 
Cooper, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Ford, Mr. Foley, Mr. 
   Doggett, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. 
 Hayworth, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, 
  Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Hall, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Engel, Mr. 
   Coble, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Franks of 
    Arizona, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
  Kucinich, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Herger) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gains tax 
           treatment for certain self-created musical works.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Songwriters Capital Gains Tax Equity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN SELF-CREATED MUSICAL WORKS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1221 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to capital asset defined) is amended by 
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after 
paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Sale or exchange of self-created musical works.--At 
        the election of the taxpayer, paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
        subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any sale or 
        exchange of musical compositions or copyrights in musical works 
        by a taxpayer described in subsection (a)(3).''.
    (b) Limitation on Charitable Contributions.--Subparagraph (A) of 
section 170(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
inserting ``(determined without regard to section 1221(b)(3))'' after 
``long-term capital gain''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 96.29 Scope.

The provisions in this subpart provide the standards for accrediting agencies and approving persons.

[79 FR 40634, July 14, 2014]
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Date:
        August 11, 2008


*/s/
                Roger Casas*Roger
                CasasChief
                Executive Officer




The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.