alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.96 Who are not proper claimants. ( a ) Governments of foreign nations, their agencies, political subdivisions, or municipalities.
( b ) Agencies and nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the U.S. Government including the District of Columbia government.
( c ) Inhabitants of foreign countries.
( d ) The state, territory and its political subdivisions whose Air National Guard member caused the loss.
( e ) Subrogees of the claimants in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
[81 FR 83697, Nov. 22, 2016]
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**PROMISSORY NOTE**

**WITH RIGHTS OF CONVERSION**

 

| $200,000 | July 1, 2005 |
|----------|--------------|

 

**THE UNDERSIGNED**, promises to pay to the order of Venture Resources, Inc., at such place as the holder (“Holder”) hereof may designate in writing, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) apr, principal and interest due upon demand.

 

Prepayment of this note, with interest to the date of payment, may be made at any time without penalty.

 

This Note is convertible into shares of commons stock of the Undersigned at the conversion price of par value per share, provided, however, such conversion may be made in amounts that do not result in the issuance more than 4.9% of issued and outstanding common stock at any given time..

 

In the event of commencement of arbitration or suit to enforce payment of this note, the undersigned agrees to pay costs incurred and such additional sum as attorney’s fees as the court may adjudge reasonable.

 

Effective the 1st day of July, 2005.

Matrix Energy Services Corp.

By:/s/ James Anderson                                                                                                                        James Anderson, President
§ 516.77 Procedures for exemption. ( a ) Active duty soldiers served with a summons to serve on a state or local jury will promptly advise their commander and provide copies of pertinent documents.
( b ) Unit commanders will evaluate the summons considering both the individual soldier's duties and the unit mission. Coordination with the servicing judge advocate or legal adviser and with the appropriate state or local official may be necessary to determine any impact on the soldier's duties or on unit readiness. ( 1 ) If the soldier is not exempt under § 516.75 (b) or (c), the commander will process the soldier for permissive TDY in accordance with AR 630-5, Leaves and Passes.
( 2 ) If the soldier is exempt under § 516.75 (b) or (c), the commander will forward the summons and any related documentation, with recommendations, through the chain of command to the commander with exemption determination authority over the soldier concerned.
( c ) The commander with exemption determination authority over the soldier concerned will determine whether the soldier is exempt. His determination is final.
( d ) The exemption determination authority will notify responsible state or local officials whenever a soldier summoned for jury duty is exempt. The notification will cite 10 U.S.C. 982 as authority.
exv10wc



 







EXHIBIT 10.C




AMENDMENT TO




VIAD CORP

1997 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT FOR DIRECTORS

AS ADOPTED FEBRUARY 23, 2005




          Director, ___, and Viad Corp mutually agree to the following amendment to
the Restricted Stock Agreement for the award of restricted stock granted to Director on February
22, 2006 (the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used herein will
have the same meanings as in the Agreement.




          1. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended by deleting it in its entirety, and replacing it
with the following:





“(a) Termination of Service. Except as provided in this paragraph 3 and in paragraph
8 below or as otherwise may be determined by the Board in its absolute discretion on a case by
case basis, if the Director’s service ceases with the Corporation for any reason (other than
termination for Cause, as defined in the Plan), full ownership of the Shares will occur upon
lapse of the Restriction Period as set forth in paragraph 2 and dividends will be paid through
such period, in each case on a pro rata basis, calculated based on the percentage of time such
Director served as a director of the Corporation from the Commencement Date through the date
such Director ceases to be a director of the Corporation; provided, however, that full
ownership of the shares (versus pro rata ownership) will occur upon lapse of the Restriction
Period if the Director has reached age 60 at the time of service termination and such
termination of service is at least 2 years subsequent to the date of grant; the director has
reached age 65 at the time service terminates and such termination of service is at least 6
months subsequent to the date of grant; or such termination of service is at least 6 months
subsequent to the date of grant and Director has terminated service due to unforeseen hardship
or circumstances beyond the control of Director, as reasonably determined by the Human
Resources Committee of the Board, in its absolute discretion.”



          2. This Amendment shall be effective as of March 28, 2006.




          3. Except as otherwise expressly modified or amended herein, all terms and conditions
contained in the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly
executed.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:	 	 	 	, 2006	 	 	 	 	 	VIAD CORP
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	General Counsel or Assistant Secretary	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	ACCEPTED:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Director
Exhibit 13.1

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 of Sasol Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending 30 June 2015, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



Date: 9 October 2015By:

/s/ DAVID EDWARD CONSTABLEDavid Edward Constable President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: 9 October 2015By:

/s/ BONGANI NQWABABABongani Nqwababa Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by Sasol Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even if the document with which it is
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO MONTES RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72620 

Agency No. A072-228-513 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Julio Montes Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) order reinstating his 2001

order of removal, and an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination that he did not 

have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. Our review of DHS’ reinstatement order is “limited to confirming 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72620 

the agency’s compliance with the reinstatement regulations,” and we review de 

novo due process claims and questions of law. Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 

1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review.

Montes Ramirez has waived review of the IJ’s determination under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and 

thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. See Rizk v. Holder, 

629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are 

waived).

The DHS did not err in issuing Montes Ramirez’s reinstatement order, 

where the record shows, and Montes Ramirez does not contest, that he is an alien, 

he was subject to a prior order of removal in 2001, and he illegally reentered the 

United States subsequent to that order. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1137

(listing the three determinations underlying a reinstatement order that may be 

reviewed); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (if the DHS “finds that an alien has reentered the 

United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, 

under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original 

date”).
3 15-72620 

We lack jurisdiction to review Montes Ramirez’s collateral challenges to the 

underlying 2001 removal order because this petition for review is not timely as to 

that decision, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and Montes Ramirez has not established a 

gross miscarriage of justice so as to permit review, see Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d 

at 1138 (while a petitioner is generally prevented from collaterally attacking an 

underlying removal order on constitutional due process grounds, § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

permits some measure of review if the petitioner can demonstrate a “gross 

miscarriage of justice” in the prior proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
Press release

 

**For Immediate Release: 6th October, 2006**

 

**Announcement of Arcelor Mittal financial calendar**

 

Today, Arcelor Mittal announces the financial calendar for 2007 and the remainder of 2006. 

 

**Earning results announcement**

| 7th November 2006  | Results for 3rd quarter 2006 and 9 months 2006  |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| 21st February 2007 | Results for 4th quarter 2006 and 12 months 2006 |
| 16th May 2007      | Results for 1st quarter 2007                    |
| 1st August 2007    | Results for 2nd quarter 2007 and 6 months 2007  |
| 14th November 2007 | Results for 3rd quarter 2007 and 9 months 2007  |
|                    |                                                 |

 

**Dividend payment**

| 15th December 2006  | Quarterly dividend (old policy)                     |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| 15th March 2007     | 1st quarterly payment of base dividend (new policy) |
| 15th June 2007      | 2nd quarterly payment of base dividend (new policy) |
| 17th September 2007 | 3rd quarterly payment of base dividend (new policy) |
| 17th December 2007  | 4th quarterly payment of base dividend (new policy) |
|                     |                                                     |

 

**Contact at Investor Relations**

| Continental Europe | +352 4792 2414   |
|--------------------|------------------|
| UK/Asia/Africa     | +44 207 543 1172 |
| Americas           | +1 312 899 3569  |
| Retail             | +352 4792 2434   |
| SRI                | +352 4792 2902   |
|                    |                  |
§ 229.19 Report. ( a ) Each Federal land manager, when requested by the Secretary of the Interior, will submit such information as is necessary to enable the Secretary to comply with section 13 of the Act and comprehensively report on activities carried out under provisions of the Act.
( b ) The Secretary of the Interior will include in the annual comprehensive report, submitted to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate under section 13 of the Act, information on public awareness programs submitted by each Federal land manager under § 229.20(b). Such submittal will fulfill the Federal land manager's responsibility under section 10(c) of the Act to report on public awareness programs.
( c ) The comprehensive report by the Secretary of the Interior also will include information on the activities carried out under section 14 of the Act. Each Federal land manager, when requested by the Secretary, will submit any available information on surveys and schedules and suspected violations in order to enable the Secretary to summarize in the comprehensive report actions taken pursuant to section 14 of the Act.
#### In the Matter of 636 Terminal Rest. & Bar, Inc., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of the New York State Liquor Authority dated February 18, 1963, disapproving petitioner’s application for a retail license, unanimously annulled, on the law and on the facts, and the proceeding remanded to the respondent for the purpose of reconsideration and the making of appropriate findings, without costs to either party. If respondent credited the homosexual incident, its action was arbitrary; there is insufficient evidence as a matter of law with respect to the occurrence. Since the respondent made no express finding but only an oblique reference *530with respect to the incident, the matter should be remanded for a redetermination. It may be, in the opinion of the Authority, that the prior history of the licensee standing alone might not have warranted the determination to refuse the renewal of the license. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 576 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 576

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
    against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2017

    Mr. Johnson (for himself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. 
   Baldwin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
    against prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Follow the Rules Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION BASED ON ORDERING INDIVIDUAL TO 
              VIOLATE RULE OR REGULATION.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 2302(b)(9) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, rule, or regulation'' 
after ``law''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Such subparagraph is further amended by 
striking ``for''.
    (c) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any personnel action (as that term is defined in section 
2302(a)(2)(A) of such title) occurring after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Discovery Oil, Ltd, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew V. Ippolito, President and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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





/s/ Andrew V. Ippolito

By  __________________________________

Andrew V. Ippolito

President, Chairman of the Board

Date:  May 15, 2009









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. and will be retained by Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         132,208
<SECURITIES>                                   491,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,107
<PP&E>                                         255,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                 225,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 803,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,632,998
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,851,691)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   803,643
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (79,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (79,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (79,156)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Matthew Israelson, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Nathan Israelson, et al., Respondents, v. New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him due to the alleged negligence of the defendant, and by his father to recover damages for loss of the infant’s services and for medical expenses incurred, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 30, 1959, after a jury trial, upon a verdict of $125,000 for the infant and a verdict of $25,000 for the father. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of the infant plaintiff, Matthew Israelson, affirmed, without costs. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of the father, Nathan Israelson, reversed on the facts and, as to said plaintiff the action is severed and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 10 days after the entry of the order hereon, he shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in his favor to $10,000, in which event the judgment with respect to him, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. The accident happened immediately after the infant plaintiff, a passenger, had departed from one of the defendant’s railway ears at the Tompkins Avenue station in Brooklyn. Upon the train conductor’s closing of the gate of the car from which the infant plaintiff had just made his exit, a schoolmate passenger grabbed onto and held said plaintiff’s hand. The train started to leave the station and to proceed on to its next scheduled stop, and said plaintiff was dragged onto the catwalk at the end of the Tompkins Avenue station platform. These events occurred in the presence of the train conductor or guard. Under the circumstances, we believe it was within the province of the jury to find that the guard’s signal to start the train or, if it had started, his failure to stop it by pulling the emergency cord, constituted negligence. It is also our opinion, that while the amount of the verdict for the infant plaintiff is supported by the record, the amount of the verdict for the father is not; it is grossly excessive. Nolan, P. J., Christ, Pette and *800Brennan, JJ., concur; Beldock, J., dissents and votes for the unconditional reversal of the judgment as to both plaintiffs and to grant a new trial, on the ground that the verdicts are contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
### §3122. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §852(a), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1171

Section, Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1407, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 986; Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1407, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1299; Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1405, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1545; Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1604(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3706; Pub. L. 102–237, title IV, §§402(1), 407(1), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1863, 1864; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1012(d), (e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 712, related to establishment of Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.