alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 1.7



                                    Autoriteit
                                    Financiet Markten





Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing
institution

<PAGE>

Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing
institution



Part 1


1.  Name of issuing institution:                       New Skies Satellites N.V.

2.  Name of person obliged to notify:                  New Skies Satellites N.V.


Sort of security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.  Sort of security: Ordinary shares

    (Share/Bond/Option/Warrant/other)

4.  To be filled out if applicable:

      Nominal value of the security:                   0.05 EUR

      Optional series (call option/put option):

      Exercise price:

      Expiration date:


Transaction in the security indicated in questions 3 and 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5.  Date of the transaction: 13-03-03

6a. Number of securities acquired in the transaction:  11,670

 b. Number of securities sold in the transaction:

7.  Price of the securities:                           3.80EUR

8. Open/Close (in case of options)




To the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that the information set forth
in this statement is true, complete and correct:


Mary J. Dent, General Counsel of New Skies Satellites N.V.,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Name

Rooseveltplantsoen 4                                              14 March 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------       --------------
Address                                                           Date

2517 KR The Hague
-----------------------------------------------------------       --------------
Postal code & city & country                                      Signature
§ 21.440 What are the standards for selecting and appointing grants officers and agreements officers? In selecting grants officers and agreements officers, DoD Components must use the following minimum standards: ( a ) In selecting a grants officer, the appointing official must judge whether the candidate has the necessary experience, training, education, business acumen, judgment, and knowledge of assistance instruments and contracts to function effectively as a grants officer. The appointing official also must take those attributes of the candidate into account when deciding the complexity and dollar value of the grants and cooperative agreements to be assigned.
( b ) In selecting an agreements officer, the appointing official must consider all of the same factors as in paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, the appointing official must consider the candidate's ability to function in the less structured environment of technology investment agreements, where the rules provide more latitude and the individual must have a greater capacity for exercising judgment. Agreements officers therefore should be individuals who have demonstrated expertise in executing complex assistance and acquisition instruments.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                               18 June 2003



             CHANGE OF DATE FOR SECOND QUARTER RESULTS ANNOUNCEMENT


Metro International S.A. ("Metro"), the international newspaper group, today
announced that it will release its results for the second quarter and six months
ended 30 June 2003 on Thursday 24th July 2003, earlier than the previously
announced date of Tuesday 5th August 2003.



For further information, please visit www.metro.lu, email info@metro.lu or
contact:
Pelle Tornberg, President & CEO                      tel: +44 (0) 20 7016 1300
Matthew Hooper, Investor & Press Relations           tel: +44 (0) 20 7321 5010

Metro is the world's largest free newspaper, publishing and distributing 25
editions in 16 countries in 14 languages: Stockholm, Prague, Gothenburg,
Hungary, the Netherlands, Helsinki, Malmo, Santiago, Philadelphia, Toronto,
Rome, Milan, Warsaw, Athens, Montreal, Barcelona, Boston, Madrid, Copenhagen,
Aarhus, Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Hong Kong and Seoul.

Metro International S.A. `A' and `B' shares are listed on the Stockholmsborsen
`O-List' and on the Nasdaq stock market under the symbols MTROA and MTROB.

This press release contains certain "forward-looking statements" with respect to
our expectations and plans, strategy, management's objectives, future
performance, costs, revenues, earnings and other trend information. It is
important to note that our actual results in the future could differ materially
from those anticipated in forward-looking statements depending on various
important factors. Please refer to the documents we have filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, including our most recent annual report on Form 20-F, for a
discussion of certain of these factors.

All forward-looking statements in this press release are based on information
available to us on the date hereof. All written or oral forward-looking
statements attributable to Metro International S.A, any Metro International S.A.
members or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their
entirety by the factors referred to above. We do not intend to update these
forward-looking statements.
### **CHAPTER 1021—PRIVILEGES AND LEASES**

Sec.
102101.
General provisions.
102102.
Authority of Secretary to enter into lease for buildings and associated property.
#### LEONARD, Respondent, v. DONOGHUE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Julia Leonard, by David Leonard, her guardian ad litem, against Francis X. Donoghue.

No opinion. Motion denied.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28997]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

RIN 3145-AA58


Notice on Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary 
Penalties

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice announcing updated penalty inflation adjustments for 
civil monetary penalties for 2021.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF or Foundation) is 
providing notice of its adjusted maximum civil monetary penalties, 
effective January 15, 2021. These adjustments are required by the 
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 
2015 (the 2015 Act).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bijan Gilanshah, Assistant General 
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: 703.292.5055.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 27, 2016, NSF published an interim 
final rule amending its regulations to adjust, for inflation, the 
maximum civil monetary penalties that may be imposed for violations of 
the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 
2401 et seq., and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 
31 U.S.C. 3801, et seq. These adjustments are required by the 2015 Act. 
The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make subsequent annual 
adjustments for inflation. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated December 23, 
2020, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2020 is 1.01182. 
Accordingly, the 2021 annual inflation adjustments for the maximum 
penalties under the ACA are $17,791 ($17,583 x 1.01182) for violations 
and $30,107($29,755 x 1.01182) for knowing violations of the ACA. 
Finally, the 2021 annual inflation adjustment for the maximum penalty 
for violations under PFCRA is $11,803 ($11,665 x 1.01182).

    Dated: December 28, 2020.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2020-28997 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Exemption No. 8465C
#### WHITE, Respondent, v. WHITE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by Elizabeth N. White against John H. White. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 32

CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Andrew F. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Phillip A. Reinsch, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Capstead Mortgage Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended by this Form 10-K/A, of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: May 13, 2013 |  | By: |  | /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBS                                
|                   |  |     |  | Andrew F. Jacobs                                    
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President               
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 13, 2013 |  | By: |  | /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCH                              
|                   |  |    
|                   |  |     |  | Phillip A. Reinsch                                  
|                   |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit No. 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the
Report) of The Peoples BancTrust Company, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby each certify that
to the best of our knowledge:



| | (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 Company as of and for the periods covered
in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don J. Giardina                              
|Don J. Giardina                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                                                 
|/s/ Thomas P. Wilbourne                          
|Thomas P. Wilbourne                              
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Accounting Officer)                   

April 30, 2007

(Date)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1334 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1334

Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is 
 in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain 
                               subpoena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

Mrs. Luna submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is 
 in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain 
                               subpoena.

Whereas, on February 27, 2024, Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United 
        States, was duly served with a subpoena to produce a narrow and specific 
        set of materials possessed by the Department of Justice and related to 
        Special Counsel Robert K. Hur's investigation of President Joe Biden's 
        ``willful'' mishandling of classified documents to the Committee on the 
        Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Oversight 
        and Accountability of the House of Representatives in Washington, DC;
Whereas Attorney General Garland has, in disobedience of such subpoena, failed 
        to produce the set of materials; and;
Whereas the set of materials possessed by the Department of Justice is material 
        and necessary in order that the House of Representatives may properly 
        execute the functions imposed on it and may obtain information necessary 
        as a basis for such legislative and other action as the House of 
        Representatives may deem necessary and proper: Now, therefore be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, 
        is found in contempt of the House of Representatives for 
        disobeying the February 27, 2024, subpoena; and
            (2) Attorney General Garland shall be fined $10,000 per day 
        until he complies with the subpoena.
                                 <all>
```
#### Geo. M. Fish, Jr., *vs.*James Toner.

March 7, 1889.

Unlawful Detainer — Dismissal on Appeal — Restitution. — Upon proceedings in justice court, under the statute relating to the unlawful detainer of lands, the plaintiff recovered judgment and the possession of the premises. The defendant having appealed to the district court, the action was dismissed, upon motion of the plaintiff. *Held,*that in the judgment of dismissal it was proper to award restitution of possession to the defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Traverse county, and from an order by *G. L. Brown,*J., denying his motion to modify the judgment.

*Cliff á Crawford*and *J. G. Grace,*for appellant.

*J. W. Reynolds,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.

This proceeding was instituted in justice court under Gen. St. 1878, *c.*84, for an alleged unlawful entry and detainer *212of real property. In that court, .judgment of restitution in favor of the plaintiff was rendered, and carried into execution. The defendant appealed to the district court upon questions of law and fact. The cause coming on to be heard in that court, the plaintiff moved that the action be dismissed. Judgment was entered upon such motion, dismissing the action, and awarding restitution of the premises to the defendant. The plaintiff, having appealed from that judgment, and from an order denying a modification of it by striking out that part of the judgment awarding restitution, now claims that that part of the judgment was unauthorized.

The judgment was right. This proceeding, pursuant to the statute, was designed for the purpose of recovering the possession of real estate by judicial means. The plaintiff recovered possession from the defendant only through the judgment of the justice’s court. Upon the cause being appealed to the district court, the cause became *lis pendens*in that court. The plaintiff, who was the respondent in that court, should not be heard to ask and obtain the dismissal of his action, and at the same time retain the property which he had acquired ■only by means of the judgment, upon which alone, so far as appears, his right of possession rested. But the result would be the same whether the action was dismissed upon the motion of the plaintiff, or for any other sufficient cause. This was the same action in which the judgment of restitution had been rendered. Upon the dismissal of the action the judgment could no longer stand, and the,property, which had been delivered to the plaintiff only by force of the judgment, should be restored.

Judgment affirmed;
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of LancerCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004,as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Freitas, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| March 16, 2005 |                     | /s/ MARK L.  FREITAS |   |
|----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|           | Mark L. Freitas,         |
|           | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
#### Robert Evans, Respondent, v Margaret Sedgwick, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 9, 1978, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that there was valid substituted service of process pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd 4) on defendant on May 19, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted to dismiss the complaint as time barred. Contrary to the holding of Special Term, the defendant’s eventually receiving the summons does not validate improper service *(McDonald v Ames Supply Co.,*22 NY2d 111; *Jacobs v Zurich Ins. Co.,*53 AD2d 524). Defendant’s apartment is on the fourth floor of 11 Gramercy Park South. It thus became imperative for the process server to nail under CPLR 308 (subd 4) on the door of the apartment unless stopped at the door of the apartment building *(duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794; *Merchandise Nat. Bank of Chicago v Lister,*5 AD2d 653; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 308.13; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, CPL 308, C308:2). There is no claim here that the door of defendant’s apartment was not available—the plaintiff himself resides on the same floor—but we find the process server’s contention that he nailed on the apartment door unworthy of belief. On the traverse to the summons he testified that he nailed on both the apartment and the building doors, but, although an experienced process server, he could give no satisfactory explanation why he nailed on the building door when able to effect sufiicient service by nailing on the other. Although able to describe the building door, he was unable to describe the apartment door. Defendant’s husband testified that he found no summons on the apartment door. Another witness, Mr. Williams, who took the summons from the building door and slipped it under the apartment door—the summons defendant eventually received—found no process attached to the apartment door. Most conclusively, the affidavit of service makes no mention of the apartment door but recites only nailing to the door of 11 Gramercy Park South. The incredibility of the proof offered by the process server avoids the necessity for a remand for further findings (McCarthy *v Port of New York*Auth., 30 AD2d 111, 114). Concur-Evans, Markewich, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.

Kupferman, J. P., concurs in the result only.
M. P. No. 77-116.

#### Henri Berthiaume *et al. v.*School Committee of the City of Woonsocket.

*Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik and Lipsey, Lynette Labinger, Richard A. Sklonik,*for petitioners.

*Richard R. Ackerman,*for respondent.

Petition for certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.
From: Thomas Finseth

To: Jordan, Ronald ; Craig, Nathan D ; joseph.potts@duke-energy.com

Cc: Stenger, Jennifer A ; Kennedy, William ; Delis, Brandon ; Schroeder, Cuc ; Flanders, Phillip ; Dan-Tam Nguyen

Subject: RE: Topics for EPA-Duke Energy call about Miami Fort FGD data

Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:13:03 PM

Attachments: Non-CBI_Miami Fort SER_Final.pdf

Joe/Nathan,

In follow up to the discussion this morning, attached please find a copy of the Non-CBI Miami Fort

Sampling Episode Report. Page 3-4 of the report identifies which generating units were sampled

during the EPA sampling conducted July 12-16, 2010. The specific language is included below.



### The samples of the influent to the FGD wastewater treatment system that were collected

represent the FGD scrubber purge from the specific unit that was purging at the time the

samples

were collected. The following identifies which units are represented by each day of sampling:

Day 1

– Unit 8;

Day 2

– Unit 7;

Day 3

– Unit 8; and

Day 4

– Unit 7.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

TJ Finseth

ERG

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 633-1698 (phone)

(703) 263-7479 (fax)

thomas.finseth@erg.com

From: Jordan, Ronald [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:32 PM

To: Craig, Nathan D

Cc: Stenger, Jennifer A; Kennedy, William; Delis, Brandon; Schroeder, Cuc; Flanders, Phillip; Thomas

Finseth; Dan-Tam Nguyen; Yan Zhuang

Subject: Topics for EPA-Duke Energy call about Miami Fort FGD data

Nathan,

Please see the attached file containing topics we’d like to discuss during our call next Thursday.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification in advance of the call.

Regards,

Ron
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13991

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN DWAYNE JOHNSON, SR., 

a.k.a. Justin Johnson,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00043-WWB-DAB-1

USCA11 Case: 22-13991 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13991

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the sentence appeal waiver in Johnson’s plea agreement is 

GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 

(11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was 

made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 

399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal 

includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal 

issues or even blatant error). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13991 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023 Page: 2 of 2
### [§8524. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–373, title I, §107, Aug. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 701]

Section, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 591, provided that a payment to ex-servicemen for unused accrued leave was to be deemed to continue Federal service during period after termination with respect to which the serviceman received payment and that such payment was to be deemed Federal wages subject to regulations concerning allocation over the period after termination.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 91–373, title I, §107, Aug. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 701, provided that the repeal is effective with respect to benefit years which begin more than 30 days after the date of enactment of Pub. L. 91–373, which was approved on Aug. 10, 1970.