alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.3240 Furnishing authorized items and services. ( a ) ( 1 ) VA providers, or eligible entities and providers as defined in § 17.4005, will prescribe items and services in accordance with § 17.3230(a) and will do so in consultation with the veteran.
( 2 ) Once the item or service is prescribed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, VA will either fill such prescriptions directly or will pay for such prescriptions to be furnished through a VA-authorized vendor.
( 3 ) The determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section of whether a prescription will be filled by VA directly or will be furnished by a VA-authorized vendor will be based on, but not limited to, such factors as the veteran's clinical needs, VA capacity and availability, geographic availability, and cost.
( b ) Except for emergency care under §§ 17.120 through 17.132, §§ 17.1000 through 17.1008, or § 17.4020(c), or urgent care under § 17.4600, prior authorization of items and services under § 17.3230 is required for VA to reimburse VA-authorized vendors for furnishing such items or services to veterans.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August
31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Balletto, Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Donald Balletto        
| | ---------------------------
| | Donald Balletto            
| | Principal Financial Officer
| |                            
| | October 14, 2010           

---
Amendment No. 2 to Trade Name License Agreement with Time Warner Inc.



  
 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO TRADE NAME LICENSE AGREEMENT 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 dated as of August 7, 2003 to the Trade Name License
Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of the 14th day of July 1998, by and between Time Warner Inc., a
Delaware corporation, located at 75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10019 (hereinafter “Licensor”), and Time Warner Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation and successor to Time Warner Telecom LLC, located at 10475 Park Meadow Drive,
Little, Colorado 80124 (hereinafter “Licensee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee entered into the Agreement for the use by Licensee of the name “Time Warner” for an Initial Term of four (4) years ending July 13, 2002; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee amended the Agreement extending the Initial
Term by two (2) years to a total of six years ending July 13, 2004 by executing AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TRADE NAME LICENSE AGREEMENT, dated as of April 17, 2001; and 
  

WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee wish to extend the Initial Term of the Agreement by two (2) years to a total of eight (8) years ending July 13, 2006.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	Section 3 (a) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date set forth on page one hereof and, unless
earlier terminated as provided herein, shall continue for a period of eight (8) years (hereinafter the “Initial Term”). 

  










	 	2.	Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement to be dully executed and delivered
by their respective officers, each of whom is duly authorized as of the date set forth on page one hereof. 
  

	 TIME WARNER INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Spencer B. Hays


	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Spencer B. Hays

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President



  

	 TIME WARNER TELECOM, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul B. Jones


	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Paul B. Jones

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.104 Binding nature of decisions. ( a ) *Binding decisions.* A decision of a VA rating agency is binding on all VA field offices as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA issues written notification in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 5104. A binding agency decision is not subject to revision except by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, by Federal court order, or as provided in §§ 3.105, 3.2500, and 3.2600.
( b ) *Binding administrative determinations.* Current determinations of line of duty, character of discharge, relationship, dependency, domestic relations questions, homicide, and findings of fact of death or presumptions of death made in accordance with existing instructions, and by application of the same criteria and based on the same facts, by either an Adjudication activity or an Insurance activity are binding one upon the other in the absence of clear and unmistakable error.
( c ) *Favorable findings.* Any finding favorable to the claimant made by either a VA adjudicator, as described in § 3.103(f)(4), or by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, as described in § 20.801(a) of this chapter, is binding on all subsequent agency of original jurisdiction and Board of Veterans' Appeals adjudicators, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. For purposes of this section, a finding means a conclusion either on a question of fact or on an application of law to facts made by an adjudicator concerning the issue(s) under review.
[29 FR 1462, Jan. 29, 1964, as amended at 29 FR 7547, June 12, 1964; 56 FR 65846, Dec. 19, 1991; 66 FR 21874, May 2, 2001; 84 FR 167, Jan. 18, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2288 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2288

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a civil penalty for 
 failure of certain employers to collect or make reasonable efforts to 
   collect an airport security badge from an employee on the date of 
           termination of employment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

Mr. Kirk (for himself and Mr. Lipinski) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a civil penalty for 
 failure of certain employers to collect or make reasonable efforts to 
   collect an airport security badge from an employee on the date of 
           termination of employment, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Badge Security Act''.

SEC. 2. FAILURE TO COLLECT AIRPORT SECURITY BADGES.

    Section 46301(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Failure to collect airport security badges.--
        Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any employer (other than a 
        governmental entity or airport operator) who employs an 
        employee to whom an airport security badge or other identifier 
        used to obtain access to a secure area of an airport is issued 
        before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph 
        and who does not collect or make reasonable efforts to collect 
        such badge from the employee on the date that the employment of 
        the employee is terminated and does not notify the operator of 
        the airport of such termination within 24 hours of the date of 
        such termination shall be liable to the Government for a civil 
        penalty not to exceed $10,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, T exas

January 27, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00313

- CR

David GREENWOOD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court

, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. CRW1707142 Honorable Lynn Ellison , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief is due on January 31, 2022

. On January 26, 2022 , appellant filed a second unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief . The motion is GRANTED

. Appellant’s brief is due no later than March 2 , 202 2

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### George Beck, Respondent, v. Sarah E. Cooke, as Executrix, etc., Appellant.

—Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of New York, affirming a in favor of plaintiff.

Appell & Reid, for Appellant; E. Benjamin, for Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
AAM-10-292-E June 14, 2010

Exemption No. 10080 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0568

Mr. William Pearson

Owner

Coastal Aviation 700 Airport Road Mount Pleasant, SC 29466

Dear Mr. Pearson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Coastal Aviation for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if gr anted, would allow Coastal Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Coastal Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Coastal Aviation an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Coastal Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Coastal Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Coastal Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 20, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### FRANKLIN V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 7, 1912.

Rehearing denied May 28, 1912.)

Appeal from Russell Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Mike Sollie.

Glenn & deGraffenried, for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J.

On the merits affirmed on the authority of *Isaiah v. The*State, 58 South. 53. As to sentence for costs, reversed and remanded on the authority of *Dowling v. City of*Troy, 1 Ala. App. 508.
# Official Journal C 401/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 401 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 583 December 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 401

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 583 December 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 401/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7542 — Griffin/Skanska/Starwood/Hotel Atrium) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 401/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7542 — Griffin/Skanska/Starwood/Hotel Atrium) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 401/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2015/C 401/3 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 401/2

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2015/C 401/3

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 401/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7834 — Sumitomo Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/PT Summit OTO Finance/PT OTO Multiartha) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2015/C 401/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7477 — Halliburton/Baker Hughes) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2015/C 401/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7837 — The Goldman Sachs Group/The Wellcome Trust) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2015/C 401/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7867 — KKCG/Foxconn/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 401/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7834 — Sumitomo Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/PT Summit OTO Finance/PT OTO Multiartha) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2015/C 401/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7477 — Halliburton/Baker Hughes) (
  1
  )

1

5

2015/C 401/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7837 — The Goldman Sachs Group/The Wellcome Trust) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

2015/C 401/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7867 — KKCG/Foxconn/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal L 146/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 146 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4931 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 146

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4931 May 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Decision No 771/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 establishing the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) — towards a just society (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Decision No 771/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 establishing the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) — towards a just society (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Jocylin E. KIMBLER v. The PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 14152.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 22, 1963.

Decided April 3, 1963.

*27James R. Orr, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

John M. Feeney, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Mc-Ardle, Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HASTIE, GANEY and ■SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This FELA action by a railroad employee for negligent injury was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in the recovery of a money judgment. The defendant railroad appealed.

When the appeal was originally called for argument, this court directed attention to the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered the case continued to permit the transcription of missing parts of the record which counsel thought would remedy this deficiency. However, it now appears that even with this additional material, including certain observations of the trial judge from the bench, we are unable to reach the merits of the case.

The evidence indicates that the plaintiff slipped and fell on icy steps. The principal question in dispute was whether the railroad failed to furnish some advance protection or to take some corrective action such as a reasonable person in its position would have done to prevent such a mishap. Until we know what significant facts, in the trial court’s view, were established by the evidence, and upon what facts and factual inferences the court based its conclusion that the defendant had not exercised due care, we cannot satisfactorily review the merits of the decision.

The judgment will be vacated and the cause remanded for the making of informative and dispositive findings of fact and conclusions of law.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132710 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SUSAN TKACHIK, Successor Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of JANET Justices ELAINE MANDEVILLE, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132710 

 COA: 270253 

Macomb CC: 03-178658-CZ 

FRANK MANDEVILLE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2006 

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

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

s0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
## EXHIBIT 32.2

## Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by FCCC, Inc. (the
Registrant), I, Martin Cohen, Chairman of the Board, Treasurer and Principal
Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 

| | Name: Martin Cohen                                                                                                                           
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Title: Chairman of the Board, Treasurer and Principal
                                                                      Financial Officer

Dated: February 13, 2006

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, William R. Sprow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 2002, that:  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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. /s/ William R. Sprow

William R. SprowChief Financial OfficerMay 28, 2004
 14
§ 382.10 Royalty fees for the digital performance of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings by preexisting subscription services. ( a ) *Royalty fees.* Commencing January 1, 2018, and continuing through December 31, 2027, Licensees must pay royalty fees for all Eligible Transmissions of sound recordings at the rate of 7.5 percent of Gross Revenues.
( b ) *Ephemeral recordings royalty fee.* ( 1 ) The fee for all Ephemeral Recordings is part of the total fee payable under this section and constitutes 5% of it. All Ephemeral Recordings that a Licensee makes that are necessary and commercially reasonable for making noninteractive Digital Audio Transmission as a PSS are included in the 5%.
( 2 ) The minimum fee is $5,000 per year.