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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38589-38590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7073]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Salvador Dali: The Late Work''

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, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be

[[Page 38590]]

included in the exhibition ``Salvador Dali: The Late Work,'' 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 High Museum of 
Art, Atlanta, GA, from on or about August 7, 2010, until on or about 
January 9, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 24, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-16208 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SUSAN K. SUMRALL,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv103-SPM

JOHN E. POTTER, 

Postmaster General, 

and the UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendants.

_______________________/

ORDER ALLOWING ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE

Upon consideration, the parties’ Joint Motion to Allow Counsel to Attend

Pretrial Conference by Telephone (doc. 74) is granted. At 1:30 p.m. on June 13,

2005, the parties and counsel must be present in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office and

remain ready to begin the pretrial conference. The Court will make the call for

the pretrial conference. 

SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00103-SPM-AK Document 77 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

EDWARD “EAGLE HEART” INGLETON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cv96-RH/WCS

JAMES CROSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 62), and the objections thereto (document 65). I have

reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment (document 54), as

supplemented (document 58), is DENIED. The clerk shall enter judgment stating,

“The complaint is dismissed as moot.” The clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cv-00096-RH-WCS Document 66 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, 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/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerJuly
      29, 2009
#### § 29.15 Department.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture.
COURT OF APPEALS 

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00239-CR 

RICHARD BROWN APPELLANT

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- 

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. 1250248D 

---------- 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

---------- 

In June 2012, Appellant Richard Brown pled guilty to indecency with a 

child by contact and true to a repeat offender allegation in exchange for eleven 

years’ confinement,2 and the trial court followed the plea bargain and sentenced 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 

2See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011) (providing 

indecency by contact is second-degree felony), id. § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 
2 

Appellant accordingly.3 The trial court’s certification states that this is a pleabargained case and that Appellant has no right of appeal.4 The certification also 

contains a boilerplate endnote, 

* . . . . In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s 

plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed 

to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only (A) those matters 

that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or 

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.5

On May 23, 2016, about forty-six months too late,6 Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal based on the apparent denial of his pretrial motion to quash. We 

informed Appellant by letter that his case was subject to dismissal based on the 

untimeliness of the notice of appeal unless he or any party desiring to continue 

the appeal showed grounds for continuing it. His response does not show such 

grounds. 

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is 

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.7 The Texas Court of Criminal 

 

2015) (providing defendant convicted of second-degree felony is punished for 

first-degree felony when prior felony conviction is also shown). 

3See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

4See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 

5See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). 

6See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (providing notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days of sentencing). 

7See id.
3 

Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion 

for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal.8

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this 

case for want of jurisdiction.9

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

DELIVERED: August 4, 2016 

 8Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

9See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
exv10w6



 






EXHIBIT 10.6




EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN OF

MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION

(the “Company”)




The Executive Bonus Plan of the Company in effect for 2004 (which is not contained in a formal plan
document), applied to certain officers of the Company, including the executive officers of the
Company identified in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Under the Executive
Bonus Plan, bonuses were awarded based on corporate performance and the individual performance of
the executive officer during the year. The maximum bonus that an executive officer could receive
ranged from 120% to 200% of the officer’s base salary as of the end of 2004. The officer could
elect to receive up to one-third of the bonus in restricted stock of the Company that vested in one
year. For each share of restricted stock so elected, the Company awarded one and one-half shares of
restricted stock that vested in three years.
#### § 1778.36 [Reserved]
‘ f hl IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0422

IN THE MATFER OF THE PETITION OF JENA R.AKIN 

# FILED APR 2 7 2021
Bowen Greenwood 

## beitAtker,mzouft

Jena R. Akin has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year test requirement for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for purposes ofapplying for admission by motion to the State Bar ofMontana. By rule,applicants for admission by motion must provide evidence ofthe requisite score on an MPRE taken "within three years preceding the date ofthe application for admission." Rule IV.A.3,Rules ofAdmission. Akin passed the MPRE in 2012 when seeking admission to the practice of law in the State ofColorado, where Akin was subsequently admitted. Akin was also admitted to the practice oflaw in the State ofWyoming. The petition states that, since 2012,Akin has "practiced law in Colorado and Wyoming without any ethical or disciplinary issues in any jurisdiction." Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition ofJena R.Akin to waive the three-year test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of a current application for admission by motion to the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. The Clerk shall mail a copy ofthis order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of the Board ofBar Examiners at the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this day ofApril, 2021.

ChiefJustice 04/27/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0422

# J-2„"/

(9-1 A4 442L

Justices
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements for Summit Tax Exempt L.P. II and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000792924
<NAME>                        Summit Tax Exempt L.P. II
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             249,192
<SECURITIES>                                   151,723,426
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,233,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    23,775
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,896,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              179,615
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,322,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,896,475
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,812,316
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,967,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,000,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,845,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,845,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

USA

VS CASE NO. 4:88cr4017-WS

DWAYNE GILYARD

REFERRAL AND ORDER

The motion/pleading was filed by defendant on 07/15/2005 (document #145), and

referred to Senior Judge William Stafford on 07/15/2005.

Summary of motion/pleading: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

WILLIAM M. MCCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Angie Maxwell

DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2005, the

requested relief is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant filed his notice of appeal and application

to appeal in forma pauperis (docs. 140 and 145) before the recommendation of the

magistrate judge was adopted. Docs. 146 (order adopting and 147 (judgment). The

recommendation was not appealable, and the notice of appeal did not perfect the

appeal as of the date of the judgment. Perez-Priego v. Alachua County Clerk of Court,

148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Defendant has 60 days from

the entry of judgment on July 19, 2005, to file a notice of appeal. F.R.App.P. 4(a); 2255

Rule 11. He may renew the motion to proceed in forma pauperis at that time. 

DONE AND ORDERED this July 21, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:88-cr-04017-WS-WCS Document 148 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 1
§ 3201.47 Gear lubricants. ( a ) *Definition.* Products, such as greases or oils, that are designed to reduce friction when applied to a toothed machine part (such as a wheel or cylinder) that meshes with another toothed part to transmit motion or to change speed or direction.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 58 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than October 27, 2010, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased gear lubricants. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of gear lubricants.
( d ) *Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product.* Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in some cases, overlap with the following EPA-designated recovered content product: Lubricating oils containing re-refined oil. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information for the BioPreferred Web site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product, information on whether or not the product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated re-refined lubricating oils and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph ( d
):
Biobased gear lubricant products within this designated item can compete with similar gear lubricant products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated re-refined lubricating oils containing recovered materials as items for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.11.
[74 FR 55093, Oct. 27, 2009]
EXHIBIT 10.102

                               [ HiEnergy Logo ]


April 12, 2004

Mr. Sean Moore
134 North Woodcrest Drive
Melrose, Massachusetts 02176

Dear Mr. Moore:

I am happy to offer you the position of Director of Sales and Marketing with
HiEnergy effective May 15, 2004 under the following terms and conditions:

     1.   Your initial annual salary will be $80,000;
     2.   You will receive 50,000 stock options per year under our Qualified
          Stock Option Program;
     3.   You will participate in the company's health and dental plan.

You will be reporting directly to me according to the list of tasks and
responsibilities to be mutually determined. Additional incentive bonuses will be
determined based on performance and once a specific product and sales plan has
been finalized. For your transition to California we will provide up to 30 days
of accomodation in Irvine, California.

We hope that you find our emerging technology exciting and your new position
challenging and such that would manifest your talents and experience at their
best.

Please confirm your acceptance of this appointment by co-signing this letter
below.

With best wishes for a successful career in this ground-breaking technological
venture of vital national interest.

Sincerely yours,
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc., by


          /s/
------------------------------------------
Bogdan Maglich
CEO


          /s/
------------------------------------------
Sean Moore
Page 1 of 2

1

 In addition, the report and recommendation has a scrivener’s error. The

reference to “Lee” on the first line of text on page 7 should read “Wyman.”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cr56-RH/AK

JOSEPH MICHAEL WYMAN,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 234), to which no objections have been filed. The

report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the opinion of the court,

except that I have not reviewed or given any weight to the materials in the

government websites cited in the report and recommendation.1

 It bears noting, too,

that a full and fair jury selection proceeding was conducted without any basis for

believing that any of the seated jurors was biased in any way. The defendant’s

contrary suggestions are simply incorrect. For these reasons,

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 237 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:01cr13-RH/WCS and 4:05cv25-RH/WCS

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The clerk must enter

judgment stating, “Defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document

202) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 24, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 237 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3121 Rule 18.

Any lot of tobacco containing 20 percent or more of green leaves, or any lot which is not crude but contains 20 percent or more of green and crude combined, shall be designated by the color symbol “G” in the X, C, and M groups and the combination color symbol “GF” and “GR” in the B and T groups.

[55 FR 40645, Oct. 4, 1990]
#### In re BROOKS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 8, 1906.)

in the matter of Susan R, Brooks.

No opinion, Motion denied. Order filed.
Ly nn,

Happy New Year to you. I hope you're doing well. My apologies for not getting this to you last night. I'm reforwarding m y original submission of November 21st. Please let me know if I can provide anything else. Best, David Garland

----- Forwarded Message ----- From : David Garland <dg1918@yahoo.com> To: "a - and - r- docket@epa.gov" <a - and - r- docket@epa.gov> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:29 PM Subject: Docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2010 - 1076 Subject: Docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2010 - 1076 The following comments are in response to Proposed Rule EPA- HQ - OAR- 2010 - 1076 - 0001, Air Quality: Wi despread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II W aiver. Although the official comment period has passed, we respectfully ask that the following comments b e adm itted to the docket. The "No - Go Nozzle" (U.S. Patent No. 6,962,177 B1) was originally designed to solve the billion dollar problem of drive - off gasoline theft at the pump, by locking the nozzle into the filler pipe until the transaction is paid for, at which point the locking mechanism is released. In addition to being the optimal solution to the problem of drive - off gasoline theft, the No - Go Nozzle has several substantial benefits from environmental and safety perspectives as well. By creating a me chanical seal on the opening of the filler pipe, and by virtue of the design of the No - Go Nozzle, this Nozzle could: 1) Improve vapor recovery on non - ORVR cars by 17 - 20%; 2) Generate a small but measurable improvement on ORVR car vapor recovery; 3) Improve EVR Vacuum Assist efficacy to nearly 100%; 4) Function as a dripless nozzle under "real - world" conditions; 5) Provide all of these environmental benefits with minimal additional cost to service stations. In addition, because the nozzle tube is con structed of stainless steel, the strength and durability of the nozzle has been improved significantly, minimizing damage and safety issues, and prolonging nozzle life. Furthermore, if the safety and environmental features of the No - Go Nozzle are damaged, the nozzle will not function in a compromised condition, i.e. it will need to be repaired or replaced. This is an im provement on current nozzle offerings which continue to operate in damaged condition, compromising both the environmental and safety featu res of these nozzles. Additional information can be found on the No - Go Nozzle at: www.no - gonozzle.comSubm itted by David Garland at dg1918@yahoo.com
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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
on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Kelso Capital Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James R. Maher, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Corinne Pankovcin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition
and consolidated results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ James R. Maher   
|Name:                 |  | James R. Maher         
|Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | May 2, 2013            
|                     
|/s/ Corinne Pankovcin
|Name:                 |  | Corinne Pankovcin      
|Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                 |  | May 2, 2013