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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2353 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain integrated machines for 

manufacturing pneumatic tires. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain integrated 

machines for manufacturing pneumatic tires. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN INTEGRATED MACHINES FOR MANU4 FACTURING PNEUMATIC TIRES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2353 IS

‘‘ 9902.84.10 Machines for molding or 

forming pneumatic tires 

(provided for in subheading 

8477.51.00) and containing 

in a single housing components for processing rubber, 

as well as components for 

positioning and assembling 

other tire components including but not limited to 

belts, cords and other reinforcing materials, and of 

curing materials, to produce 

finished pneumatic tires ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
98-1939.

#### State ex rel. Gonzalez v. McGough.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7927

ROGER STEVENSON, 

Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

APRIL SHOUP, Unit Manager at the Marion Correctional 

Institution; JASON DOBSON, Case Manager; TURNER SOUTH, 

Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00305-GCM) 

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roger Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Roger Stevenson appeals from the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. The district court 

entered judgment on October 9, 2009, and Stevenson noted a 

timely appeal on October 13, 2009. On October 22, 2009, 

Stevenson filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)-(b) and 

59(e), seeking to set aside and amend the district court’s 

findings and alter or amend the October 9 judgment. Defendants 

filed a response in opposition in November 2009. 

Stevenson’s motion remains pending in the district 

court, and the court has not indicated any inclination to grant

it. In the interest of avoiding further delay in this case, we 

order a limited remand and direct the district court to promptly 

consider the motion on its merits. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. 

Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999). If the court 

concludes that the motion is meritless, it should deny it; if 

the court is inclined to grant the motion, it should issue a 

short memorandum so stating. The record, as supplemented, will 

be returned to this court for further consideration after the 

district court’s ruling. In ordering this remand, we express no 

opinion as to the merits of Stevenson’s motion. 

REMANDED
ex10_1.htm


    
      
        
          

          

        

        Amendment
No. 1

         

        to
the

         

        OLED
TECHNOLOGY LICENSE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

        (originally
entered into July 28, 2008)

         

        by
and between

         

        Universal
Display Corporation (“UDC”)

         

        and

         

        Kyocera
Corporation (“Kyocera”)

        


        This
Amendment No. 1 shall amend and modify, to the extent of any inconsistency, the
provisions of the above-referenced OLED Technology License and Technical
Assistance Agreement (the “Agreement”).  This Amendment No. 1 is being
entered into retroactively as of December 31, 2008.

        


        1.           Article
11 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

        


        Article
11                      Effective
Date

        


        Except
for the provisions of this Article 11, this Agreement shall become effective
only when Kyocera gives a written notice to Universal Display on or before
December 31, 2009, [The confidential material contained herein has been omitted
and has been separately filed with the Commission.]

        


        


        2.           Except
as set forth in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

        


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No.1 to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives:

        


        
          
            
              
                
                  	
                          Kyocera
      Corporation

                        	 
      	
                          Universal
      Display Corporation

                        
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                          By:

                        	
                            
      /s/ Y. Matsumura

                        	 
      	
                          By:

                        	
                             
      /s/ Steven V. Abramson

                        
	
                          Name:

                        	
                            
      Yasushi Matsumura

                        	 
      	
                          Name:

                        	
                             
      Steven V. Abramson

                        
	
                          Title:

                        	
                            
      Executive Officer

                        	 
      	
                          Title:

                        	
                             
      President

                        
	 
      	
                              
      General Manager, Corporate Display Group

                        	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                          Date:

                        	
                            
      2009 Jan. 19

                        	 
      	
                          Date:

                        	
                             
      Jan. 22,
2009
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Mazur, Respondent, v Consolidated Carpentry, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 14, 1978, which affirmed a referee’s decision finding that the employer did not have knowledge and that subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. The board found: "based on the testimony of the employer and the claimant, that the employer did not have sufficient knowledge that claimant had a back condition, or a good faith belief in its permanency.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board. The resolution of questions of credibility and weight of the evidence are for the board *(Matter of Milner v Country Developers,*43 AD 2d 595). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Special Disability Fund against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BOBBI BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03cv307-RH/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST

INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF AND

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COMES NOW, the United States of America, by and through the

undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, which hereby gives

Notice of Service of its First Interrogatories to Plaintiff and

Request for Production of Documents to James V. Cook, Attorney

for Plaintiff, by United States Mail on the 1st of April, 2004.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY R. MILLER

United States Attorney

s/ Robert D. Stinson 

ROBERT D. STINSON

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Fla. Bar No. 319406

111 North Adams St., 4th Floor

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

850/942-8430
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed electronically

on this 1st day of April, 2004, and that James V. Cook, Attorney

for Plaintiff, is registered to be notified by the CM/ECF

electronic mail system.

s/ Robert D. Stinson 

Attorney
EXHIBIT
      32




Statement
      Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, each undersigned officer of NYSE Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      hereby certifies that, to such officer’s knowledge, the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained
      in
      the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
              November 10, 2006
            /s/
              John A. ThainJohn
                A. Thain
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              NYSE
                Group, Inc.Date:
                November 10, 2006
            /s/
              Nelson ChaiNelson
                Chai
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              NYSE
                Group, Inc.


The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
      and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 11, 2009
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date:  May 11, 2009
    /s/ Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 4, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          59,908
<SECURITIES>                                    51,782
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,405)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               229,511
<PP&E>                                         206,748
<DEPRECIATION>                               (112,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,714
<SALES>                                         76,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,194
<CGS>                                           51,972
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,021
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,970)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,970)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.79)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Zoo Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  November
      12, 2010/s/ Mark SeremetMark
      SeremetPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:  November
      12, 2010/s/ David FremedDavid
      FremedChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
§ 400.708 Post approval. ( a ) After a 508(h) submission is approved by the Board, and prior to it being made available for sale to producers: ( 1 ) The following must be executed, as applicable: ( i ) If required by FCIC, an agreement between the applicant and FCIC that specifies: ( A ) In addition to the requirements in § 400.709, responsibilities of each with respect to the implementation, delivery and maintenance of the 508(h) submission; and
( B ) The required timeframes for submitting any information and documentation needed to administer the approved 508(h) submission;
( ii ) A reinsurance agreement if the approved submission does not meet, or is not expected to perform in a financial manner consistent with the terms and conditions of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement or any other existing reinsurance agreement offered by FCIC in effect for the crop year, and that considers the interests of all participating AIPs; and
( iii ) A training package to facilitate implementation of the approved 508(h) submission;
( 2 ) The Board may limit the availability of coverage, for any policy or plan of insurance developed under the authority of the Act and this regulation, on any farm or in any county or area;
( 3 ) A 508(h) submission approved by the Board under this subpart will be made available to all approved insurance providers under the same reinsurance, subsidy, and terms and conditions as received by the applicant;
( 4 ) Any solicitation, sales, marketing, or advertising of the approved 508(h) submission by the applicant before FCIC has made the policy materials available to all interested parties through its official issuance system will result in the denial of reinsurance, risk subsidy, and A&O subsidy for those policies affected; and
( 5 ) The property rights to the 508(h) submission will automatically transfer to FCIC if the applicant elects not to maintain the 508(h) submission under § 400.712(a)(3) or fails to notify FCIC of its decision to elect or not elect maintenance of the program under § 400.712(l).
( b ) Requirements and procedures for approved index-based weather plans of insurance are contained in Procedures Handbook 17050—Approved Procedures for Submission of Index-based Weather Plans of Insurance. In accordance with the Board approved procedures, index-based weather plans of insurance are not eligible for federal reinsurance, but may be approved for risk subsidy and A&O subsidy.
Amendment No. 1 to Restated Executive Investment Share Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 COTT CORPORATION 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESTATED EXECUTIVE INVESTMENT SHARE

 PURCHASE PLAN 
 Pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Restated Executive Investment Share Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective December 28, 2008: 
  

	 	1.	Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “3.1 Enrollment for Fiscal Year. Eligible Employees who are designated as Active Participants for a Fiscal Year shall be automatically enrolled in the Plan for such Fiscal Year as of the date of
designation.” 
  

	 	2.	Section 3.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “3.2 Annual Performance Targets. No later than 90 days following the commencement of a Fiscal Year, each Eligible Employee will be informed in writing of his or her Annual Performance Targets for such
Fiscal Year.” 
  

	 	3.	Except as amended herein, all provisions of the Plan will remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized representative of the Human Resources and Compensation
Committee has executed this Amendment No. 1 on this 25th day of February 2009. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/    B.J. Hess

	Name:	 	Betty Jane Hess


  

 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr44/MCR

TOMMY LEE LOVETT III

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty of the Defendant, TOMMY LEE LOVETT III, to Counts One, Two and Three

of the Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court

for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of January 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00044-MCR Document 29 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frederick Mials, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 14, 1965, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, reversed on the law and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have not been considered. In the jury’s absence, a preliminary *Huntley*hearing was held as to the voluntariness of certain statements by defendant. The trial court found them voluntary and they were thereafter received in evidence without objection. The issue of voluntariness of the statements was not submitted to the jury by the court’s charge, despite the fact that this issue had been raised by the request for a preliminary *Huntley*hearing and by cross-examination of various witnesses as to defendant’s condition when he made the statements. Defense counsel did not except to the charge in this respect and did not request that the issue of voluntariness be submitted to the jury. Absent a clear concession of voluntariness or a clear waiver of the right to a jury trial of that issue, such issue must be submitted to the jury, despite the fact that it has preliminarily been passed upon by the trial court in the jury’s absence *(People*v. *Huntley,*15 N Y 2d 72; N. Y. Const., art. I, § 2). In our opinion, there has been here no concession of *945voluntariness and no clear, affirmative waiver of the basic right to have the issue of voluntariness submitted to the jury; and that issue has been preserved for appellate review, despite the failure to except to the charge or request addition of the issue to the charge *(People*v. *O’Neill,*11 N Y 2d 148; *People*v. *Coffey, 11*N Y 2d 142; cf. *People*v. *Friola,*11 N Y 2d 157; *People*v. *Rensing,*27 A D 2d 838; *People*v. *Castro,*19 N Y 2d 14; *People*v. *De Renzzio,*19 N Y 2d 45). Hence, the failure to submit this issue to the jury is prejudicial, reversible error. Even if we were to assume *arguendo*that the failure to except to the charge constituted a waiver of the error, we would nevertheless reverse and direct a new trial in the interests of justice, since this was a close ease and the error a serious one involving a constitutional right (cf. *People*v. *Rensing, supra; People*v. *Castro,*supra;*People*v. *De Renzzio, supra).*In view of our conclusion that a new trial is required for the reason hereinbefore stated, we do not reach or pass upon the other contentions of error urged by defendant. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

9
Mark McKinnon

Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

- 4832

United States

email: mark.mckinnon@dentons.com

T 703.336.8808

F 703.336.8750 Salans FMC SNR

Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

January 3, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: R esponse to request for clarification for Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 4767

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this o ffice represents P rivilege Underwriters, Inc. regarding the above

referenced Petition for Exemption . The m akes and models of UAS which Privilege Underwriters

seeks to operate is set forth in Section IV(A) of the Petition, and includes the DJI Phantom II,

Phantom II Vision+, and Phantom III

. All three vehicles have been previously approved for

operation:

DJI Phantom 2 : Exemption No. 11315 to The Climate Corporati on and Precision Planting,

LLC

.

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: Exemption No. 11224 to NextEra Energy , Inc.; Exemption No. 11230

to Montico, Inc

.

DJI Phantom 3 : Exemption No. 11783 to Precision Design and Drafting, Inc

.

If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please do not

hesitate to call.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for P rivilege Underwriters, Inc
TS120961 Attachment 5

- Sanitized