alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | Registration      Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-164796) of NextWave Wireless    Inc., |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-144549) pertaining to the NextWave Wireless      Inc. 2007 New Employee Stock IncentivePlan, |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-139169) pertaining to the PacketVideo      Corporation 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of NextWave Wireless Inc.      and, |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-142542) pertaining to the NextWave Wireless      Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, Cygnus Communications, Inc. 2004 Stock      Option Plan, PacketVideo Corporation 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, NextWave      Wireless Inc. 2007 New Employee Stock Incentive Plan, GO Networks, Inc.      Employee Stock Bonus Plan of NextWave Wireless  Inc.; |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Updated 6/7/1999**Healthy    People 2000     Reviews**
Healthy    People 2000 Review 1998-99. 246 pp. (PHS) 99-1256.     2.9 MB **(This report can be viewed only with    Adobe Acrobat 3.0.)**Healthy    People 2000 Review 1997. 236 pp. (PHS) 98-1256.     2.5 MB **(This report can be viewed only with    Adobe Acrobat 3.0.)****Healthy People 2000    Review, 1995-96**.    208 pp.    3.1 MB  Healthy People    2000 Review, 1994. 149 pp. (PHS) 95-1258-1    1.1 MB 
**[textline.htm]** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 32.2****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, Dana C. Russell, Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify that, to my knowledge: (1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2007 (the“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.* * *   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     /s/ DANA C. RUSSELL Dana C. Russell     Date: June 8, 2007
§ 767.153 Sale of real estate inventory property. ( a ) *Pricing.* ( 1 ) The Agency will advertise property for sale at its market value, as established by an appraisal obtained in accordance with § 761.7.
( 2 ) Property sold by auction or sealed bid will be sold for the best obtainable price. The Agency reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
( b ) *Agency-financed sales.* The Agency may finance sales to purchasers if: ( 1 ) The Agency has direct or guaranteed FO loan funds available;
( 2 ) All applicable loan making requirements are met; and
( 3 ) All purchasers who are not beginning farmers or socially disadvantaged farmers make a 10 percent down payment.
( c ) *Taxes and assessments.* ( 1 ) Property taxes and assessments will be prorated between the Agency and the purchaser based on the date the Agency conveys title to the purchaser.
( 2 ) The purchaser is responsible for paying all taxes and assessments after the Agency conveys title to the purchaser.
( d ) *Loss or damage to property.* If, through no fault of either party, the property is lost or damaged as a result of fire, vandalism, or act of God before the Agency conveys the property, the Agency may reappraise the property and set the sale price accordingly.
( e ) *Termination of contract.* Either party may terminate the sales contract. If the contract is terminated by the Agency, the Agency returns any deposit to the bidder. If the contract is terminated by the purchaser, any deposit will be retained by the Agency as full liquidated damages, except where failure to close is due to Agency non-approval of credit.
( f ) *Warranty on title.* The Agency will not provide any warranty on the title or on the condition of the property.
[72 FR 63358, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 74345, Dec. 8, 2008]
#### § 52.50 Travel and other expenses.

Charges may be assessed to cover the cost of travel time incurred in connection with the performance of any inspection service, including appeal inspections, as described in § 52.42. This includes time spent waiting for transportation as well as time spent traveling, but not to exceed eight hours of travel time for any one person for any one day: And provided further, that if travel is by common carrier, no hourly charge may be made for travel time outside the employee's official work hours.

[79 FR 67321, Nov. 13, 2014]
#### Rakesh Ahuja et al., Appellants, v Ian Schrager Hotels, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 62]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of plaintiffs’ motion as sought to vacate a default judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to appear at a preliminary conference, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, plaintiffs failed to establish that they possessed a valid assignment of certain rights from Equinox 63rd Street under the guest fee agreement on which the complaint is based, and thus did not establish standing. The guest fee agreement was between Equinox 63rd Street and the prior owner of the hotel. The assignment on which plaintiffs rely was from Equinox Holdings, and purports to convey not only that assignor’s rights, but also that of its subsidiaries to the subject claim. However, courts will not allow a parent to pierce the corporate veil it created for its own benefit, so as to assert the claims of its subsidiary *(see generally Minerals Tech, v Pfizer Inc.,*309 AD2d 525 [2003]; *Boise Cascade Corp. v Wheeler,*419 F Supp 98, 102 [SD NY 1976], *affd*556 F2d 554 [2d Cir 1977]). Here, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Equinox Holdings possessed the right to exercise dominion and assignment authority over Equinox 63rd Street’s claims under the guest fee agreement. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3402

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3402 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3402.21 Confidential aspects of applications and awards.

When an application results in a grant, the application and supporting information become part of the record of NIFA transactions, and available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the application. The original copy of an application that does not result in a grant will be retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such an application will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
PROB 22 DOCKET NUMBER (Trim. Court)

(Rev. 2/88) 2:06cr169-008-WKW

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION DOCKET NUMBER (Rec. Court)

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROBATIONER/SUPERVISED RELEASEE DISTRICT DIVISION

Middle District of Alabama Northern

NAME OF SENTENCING JUDGE

Demetria Mills Honorable W. Keith Watkins

DATES OF PROBATION! FROM TO

SUPERVISED RELEASE

Probation 01/30/2008 01/29/2011

OFFENSE

Use of Communications Facility—Controlled Substance [2 1:841(b)]

PART 1- ORi)ER TRANSFERRING JURISDiCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Middle DISTRICT OF Alabama

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3605, the jurisdiction of the probationer

or supervised releasee named above be transferred with the records of this Court to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama upon that Court's order

of acceptance ofjurisdiction. This Court hereby expressly consents that the period of probation or

supervised release may be changed by the District Court to which this transfer is made without further

inquiry of this court. *

;7 ' c.

_________________

Date United States District Judge

*This sentence may be deleted in the discretion of the transferring Court.

PART 2- ORDER ACCEPTING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern DISTRICT OF Alabama

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction over the above-named probationer/supervised

releasee be accepted and assumed by this Court from and after the entry of this order.

__________

--- - 

i4i

Effective Date United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 592 Filed 03/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50467 Conference Calendar

MARIO ROMO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RONNIE EARL, District Attorney; GARY COBB, Assistant District Attorney, Travis County; MINDY MCCRAKEN, Assistant District Attorney, Travis County; STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-154-LY

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mario Romo, Texas prisoner # 1015586, appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court declined to construe Romo’s complaint as a habeas corpus petition and, to the extent that he sought such relief, the district court dismissed those claims without prejudice.No. 04-50467 -2- Romo has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief incorporated in his appellate brief. For the first time in his proposed supplemental brief, Romo seeks to add new parties and to raise new claims. These issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, his motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. Romo has not challenged in this court the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, it is as if Romo had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Romo’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Romo’s complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Romo is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED;
MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.
52.237-2 Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation.       As prescribed in 37.110(b), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for services to be performed on Government installations, unless a construction contract is contemplated:          Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation (Apr 1984)          The Contractor shall use reasonable care to avoid damaging existing buildings, equipment, and vegetation on the Government installation. If the Contractor’s failure to use reasonable care causes damage to any of this property, the Contractor shall replace or repair the damage at no expense to the Government as the Contracting Officer directs. If the Contractor fails or refuses to make such repair or replacement, the Contractor shall be liable for the cost, which may be deducted from the contract price.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.237 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 

CASE NO. 3:21-cv-0173-TKW-EMT 

DAVID POSCHMANN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

TACM, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this 

action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) 

with each side to bear his/its own fees and costs except as otherwise agreed. 

 Dated: February 24, 2021 

 s/Drew M. Levitt 

 Drew M. Levitt 

 Florida Bar No. 782246 

 drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

 Lee D. Sarkin, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 962848 

 Lsarkin@aol.com 

 4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard 

 Suite 302 

 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

 Telephone (561) 994-6922 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:21-cv-00173-TKW-EMT Document 4 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 131-2 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Eugene J. Miller (Admitted as Eugene Miller), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 30, 1970.

*John G. Bonomi*of counsel *(Ronald Eisenman*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

No appearance by respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the December 1952 Term of the Second Department. He is charged with having neglected to prosecute a claim for property damage *142for which he had been retained and having subsequently abandoned his office in January of 1967, without notifying his clients and making any arrangements to prosecute their interests. Following the initiation of charges against him every effort was made to locate respondent and apprise him of the charges made. Letters were written to every possible source or lead, and all were returned. Respondent failed to answer or appear at the hearings and was not represented by counsel or otherwise.

The Referee has sustained the charges. The findings of the Referee are confirmed.

The Referee noted in his report that the disappearance without trace of respondent constituted a perplexing riddle, inasmuch as the record before him indicated that respondent was young, seemingly successful,“with no record of previous discipline. He was reputed to be popular, had friends, and no known enemies. No foul play was indicated. There was no suggestion of turpitude, except the possible receipt of $250 as a retainer in connection with the first charge. Notwithstanding, the findings of the Referee now confirmed establish that respondent engaged in a course of conduct reflecting indifference to the interest of his clients who reposed their confidence in him. His failure to appear in this proceeding ostensibly further demonstrates respondent’s'" indifference "to''the consequences of an adverse determination”. *(Matter of Schner,*5 A D 2d 599, 600.) However, there is a possibility that respondent is a victim of circumstances, and, therefore, we believe at this stage w.e should be inclined toward leniency. Professional standards must nevertheless be maintained, and towards that end we feel that respondent should be suspended for two years. *(Matter of Higgins,*27 A D 2d 340.)

Upon any application for reinstatement, respondent will be requi-red to explain his failure to appear and answer the charges.

Stevens, P. J., Eager, MoGtvern, Nunez and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years, effective June 1, 1970.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 272]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ272.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1757]]

Public Law 107-272
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6910 South Yorktown Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ``Robert Wayne 
       Jenkins Station''. <<NOTE: Oct. 30, 2002 -  [H.R. 4851]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6910 
South Yorktown Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and known as the Southside 
Station, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert Wayne Jenkins 
Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert Wayne Jenkins 
Station''.

    Approved October 30, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4851 (S. 2828):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Oct. 1, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement--Robert McCadden



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is
entered into between Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, a Pennsylvania business trust (“Company”), and Robert F. McCadden (“Executive”), effective as of May 6, 2009. 
 BACKGROUND 
 Executive and Company are party
to an Employment Agreement, as amended and restated on December 30, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), which sets forth the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment with Company. Executive and Company wish to amend the
terms of Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement to correct a scrivener’s error in the preparation of that Section, as set forth below. Hereafter, references to the “Employment Agreement,” “Agreement,”
“herein” or words of like import in the Employment Agreement shall refer to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby or by any written subsequent amendment thereto. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 
 1. Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “2.1 Term. The initial term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall begin on the Effective Date and last until
December 31, 2009 (the “Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated in accordance with the other provisions hereof. Except as hereinafter provided, on the Expiration Date and on each subsequent anniversary thereof, the Term (as
hereinafter defined) shall be automatically extended for one year unless either party shall have given the other party notice of non-renewal of this Agreement at least 120 calendar days prior to the expiration of the Term. The initial term of
employment under and each Term extended is a “Term.” If a non-renewal notice is given as provided above, Executive’s employment under this Agreement shall terminate (within the meaning of Section 4.8 hereof) on the last calendar
day of the Term. If the non-renewal notice is given by Company, such termination of employment shall be a termination by Company without Cause, within the meaning of Section 4.4 hereof.” 
 2. Except as amended hereby, all terms and conditions as set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 







 3. This amendment may be executed in a number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all
of which together shall constitute one instrument. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and Company have caused this Amendment to be executed as
of the date first above written. 
  

			
	PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE
	INVESTMENT TRUST
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bruce Goldman

	Name:	 	Bruce Goldman
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President & General Counsel
	
	 /s/ Robert F. McCadden

	Robert F. McCadden


  

 2
42.1107 Contract clause.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.242-2, Production Progress Reports, in solicitations and contracts when production progress reporting is required; unless a construction contract, or a Federal Supply Schedule contract is contemplated.                                          (b) 						            When the clause at 52.242-2 is used, the contracting officer shall specify appropriate reporting instructions in the Schedule (see 42.1106(a)).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 42.11 - Production Surveillance and Reporting
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 1 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 2 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 3 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 4 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 5 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 6 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 7 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 8 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 9 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 10 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 11 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 12 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 13 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 14 of 15
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/26/98 Page 15 of 15
#### § 766.155 Conflict with State law.

If there is a conflict between a borrower's homestead protection rights and any provisions of State law relating to redemption rights, the State law prevails.