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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 67725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27545]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8085]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Michelangelo's David Apollo''

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, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Michelangelo's David Apollo,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about December 13, 2012, until on or 
about March 3, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 6, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-27545 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D ELO RES EN O S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10024 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c r - 0 1 2 2 2 - NV W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona N e i l V . W a ke , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , a n d T A S H I MA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e lo r e s E n o s ap p e a ls f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to m o d if y ac o n d itio n o f

p r o b a tio n th a t p r o h ib its h e rf r o m h a v in g c o n ta c t w ith



# FI LED DE C 14 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE H / Res ea r ch 09- 10024 2 c hi l dr e n unde rthe a ge of 13 w i thoutpr i orpe rm i s s i on f r om the c ourt . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. E nos c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byde c l i ni ng t o m odi f ythe c ondi t i on of

pr oba t i on be c aus e the c ondi t i on i s di f f e r e ntf r om tha tt o w hi c h the pa rt i e s s t i pul a t e d i n he rR ul e 11( c ) ( 1) ( C ) pl e aa gr e e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not e rrin d e n y in g E n o s ’ m o tio n to m o d if yth e c o n d itio n s o f

h e rp r o b a tio n . See 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 3 ( c ) . A FFI R M ED .
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 88 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 88

 To authorize testimony and to authorize representation by the Senate 
                             Legal Counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 1 (legislative day, March 3), 1993

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and to authorize representation by the Senate 
                             Legal Counsel.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Armand D'Amato, Cr. No. 92-00274, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
        New York, the United States seeks the trial testimony of Senate 
        employees, Claudia Breggia and Shirley Tucker;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        requests for testimony made to them in their official capacities: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Claudia Breggia and Shirley Tucker are authorized to 
testify in United States v. Armand D'Amato, Cr. No. 92-00274 (E.D. 
N.Y.), except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Claudia 
Breggia and Shirley Tucker in connection with the testimony authorized 
by section 1 of this resolution.

                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

BENJAMIN PAUL ROMERO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0116 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR201980341

 V1300CR201980418

 V1300CR201980558

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott

By Larissa Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Benjamin Paul Romero, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 9-8-2022
STATE v. ROMERO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter 

B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Benjamin Paul Romero seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
EXHIBIT 10.10(a)

                            PARTIAL LOAN SATISFACTION


         Pursuant to the terms of that certain Loan Agreement dated July 27,
2000, (the "Loan") Instanz Nominees Pty. Ltd. (the "Lender") acknowledges that
on November __, 2002 it received a payment in the amount of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars [$100,000 (USD)] from I.T. Technology, Inc. (the "Borrower") in partial
satisfaction of the amounts due and owing by the Borrower to the Lender under
the Loan. The Lender also acknowledges and accepts that Ledger Technologies Pty.
Ltd, on or about the same date shall be receiving a payment in the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars [$200,000 (USD)] from the Borrower in connection with
its outstanding Loan Agreement with the Borrower.


                                    LENDER - INSTANZ NOMINEES PTY LTD.

                                                 By: /s/ Helen Abeles
                                                 Name: Helen Abeles
                                                 Its:

                                                 I. T. TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                                                 By: /s/ Yam-Hin Tan
                                                 Name: Yam-Hin Tan
                                                 Its:  Chief Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION**
     This Report on Form 10-Q of Tri-County Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.         Date: May 12, 2005   By: /s/ Michael L. Middleton               Michael L. Middleton       President and Chief Executive Officer         Date: May 12, 2005   By: /s/ William J. Pasenelli               William J. Pasenelli       Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6046

In Re: ANTHONY LEE THAMES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-122)

Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Lee Thames, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lee Thames petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging

the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing

the district court to act. As the district court recently took

significant action in the case by issuing an order to show cause on

March 17, 2003, and Thames filed his response to the motion on

April 9, 2003, we deny Thames’ petition as moot. We deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 22, 2014

d1015

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

149035

JENNIFER PAUL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149035

COA: 309927

Oakland CC: 2011-118814-CP

GLENDALE NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES,

P.C.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 193 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 193

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that the cost of Government 
  spending and regulatory programs should be reduced so that American 
         families will be able to keep more of what they earn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 1996

  Mr. DeLay (for himself, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bliley, Mr. 
Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ewing, 
Mr. Hoekstra, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. McIntosh, 
 Mr. Mica, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. 
 Barton of Texas, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Royce, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
  Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Cox of California, Ms. Dunn of 
Washington, Mr. Roth, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hastert, Mr. LaHood, Mr. 
   Packard, Mr. Allard, Mr. Heineman, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and Mr. 
    Armey) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that the cost of Government 
  spending and regulatory programs should be reduced so that American 
         families will be able to keep more of what they earn.

Whereas the total cost of Government spending and regulations (total cost of 
        Government) has increased from 48.2 percent of the net national product 
        (NNP) in 1989 to an estimated 50.4 percent of NNP in 1996;
Whereas the total cost of Government now exceeds $3,380,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed $730,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas the cost of Government in general and excessive regulations in 
        particular have placed a tremendous drain on the economy in recent years 
        by reducing worker productivity, increasing prices to consumers, and 
        increasing unemployment;
Whereas, if the average American worker were to spend all of his or her gross 
        earnings on nothing else besides meeting his or her share of the total 
        cost of Government for the current year, that total cost would not be 
        met until July 3, 1996;
Whereas July 3, 1996, should therefore be considered Cost of Government Day 
        1996; and
Whereas it is not right that the American family has to give up more than 50 
        percent of what it earns to the government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, as part of balancing the 
budget and reevaluating the role of government, Federal, State, and 
local elected officials should carefully consider the costs of 
Government spending and regulatory programs in the year to come so that 
American families will be able to keep more of what they earn.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015065EN.01005201.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/52

---

Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKEY)

(Case T-846/14)

(2015/C 065/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SPOKEY’ — Community trade mark No 6 777 312

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 525/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | if necessary, amend the contested decision insofar as it refers to specific goods within Class 18; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, amend the contested decision insofar as it refers to specific goods within Class 18;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of rule 50 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of rule 50 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.

---
exv10w33



 








EXHIBIT 10.33




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

RETENTION AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the Retention Agreement referred to herein below,
dated as of December 4, 2006, by and between eFunds Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Corporation”) and Paul F. Walsh (the “Executive”), recites and provides as follows:



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, Executive entered into a Retention Agreement with the Corporation on November 3, 2004
(such agreement referred to herein as the “Retention Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 the parties wish to amend the Retention Agreement as
provided below;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Company and the Recipient agree as follows:



AGREEMENT




     1. Amendment.




          Section 1 of the Retention Agreement is hereby amended to delete the words “third
anniversary” appearing therein and to substitute the words “fifth anniversary” therefor.



     2. Definitions. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment No. 1 shall
have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Retention Agreement.



     3. Continuing Effect of Retention Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein to
the contrary, the Retention Agreement shall remain unaffected and shall continue in full force and
effect after the date hereof.



     4. References to Retention Agreement. From and after the execution and delivery of
this Amendment No. 1, all references to the Retention Agreement in the Retention Agreement or any
other document executed or delivered in connection therewith shall be deemed a reference to the
Retention Agreement as amended hereby, unless the context expressly requires otherwise.



     5. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed by one or more of the



 









 




parties to this Amendment on any number of separate counterparts (including counterparts delivered
by telecopy), and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the
same instrument. Any such counterpart delivered by telecopy shall be effective as an original for
all purposes.




     6. Governing Law. This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to principles of conflict of
laws.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EFUNDS CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Laura DeCespedes	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	Name: Laura DeCespedes	 	 
	 	 	Title: EVP, Human Resources	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PAUL F. WALSH	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul F. Walsh	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 	 	 






2
Office of the Chief and Council

Kirk E Francis

Chief

BillThompson

Vice Chief

Wayne T Mitchell

Representative

February 27 2014

Hon H Curtis Spalding

Regional Administrator

EPA New England Headquarters

5 Post Office Square Suite 100

Boston MA 021093912

Re Water Quality Standards in the Penobscot Indian Reservation

Dear Regional Administrator Spaulding

Penobscot Nation

12 Wabanaki Way

Community Building

Indian Island Maine 04468

207 8277776

FAX 2078276042

This is in follow up to my letter to you of January 23 2014 notifying you that the Penobscot Nation is

promulgating water quality standards for application within the Penobscot Indian Reservation pursuant to

sections 303 and 518e of the Clean Water Act 33 USC §§ 1313 1377e

In that letter I

requested the EPA to consult further with the Penobscot Nation to address issues

surrounding any competing authorities between the EPA the State and the Penobscot Nation with respect

to the promulgation of water quality standards within the Reservation Having not heard back from you I

thought it appropriate to write again

We would welcome you and your staff to a meeting at the Penobscot Nation we could meet midway

between Boston and Indian Island in Portland or we could travel to Boston We would like to make this

as convenient for you as possible but we think important for us to discuss the Nations soon tobefiled

application in relation to the overall environmental regulatory regime within the Penobscot Indian

Reservation

I look forward to hearing from you

Sincerely

Kirk Francis

Chief Penobscot Nation

cc Tribal Council Penobscot Nation

John Banks Natural Resources Director Penobscot Nation

Mark Chavaree Esq

Jill Elise Grant Esq

Kaighn Smith Jr Esq

PN005430

EPA000528