alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021513EN.01000204.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/2

---

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges

(2021/C 513/05)

At a meeting on 8 October 2021, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Arabadjiev as President of the First Chamber, Ms Prechal as President of the Second Chamber, Ms Jürimäe as President of the Third Chamber, Mr Lycourgos as President of the Fourth Chamber and Mr Regan as President of the Fifth Chamber for the period from 8 October 2021 to 6 October 2024.

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40364 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Wilfredo Amarildo Luna**

**- Reyes,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 629

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Wilfredo Amarildo Luna

- Reyes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Luna

- Reyes has not filed a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 18, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40364 Document: 00516169520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2022No. 21

- 40364

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for app ellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-40364 Document: 00516169520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
§ 1249.19 Additional provisions. ( a ) *Additional requirements.* In any case or any class of cases arising under this part, an Enterprise may require such additional evidence and a bond of indemnity, with or without surety, as may in the judgment of the Enterprise be necessary for the protection of the interests of the Enterprise.
( b ) *Notice of attachment for Enterprise Securities in Book-entry System.* The interest of a debtor in a Security Entitlement may be reached by a creditor only by legal process upon the Securities Intermediary with whom the debtor's securities account is maintained, except where a Security Entitlement is maintained in the name of a secured party, in which case the debtor's interest may be reached by legal process upon the secured party. These regulations do not purport to establish whether a Federal Reserve Bank is required to honor an order or other notice of attachment in any particular case or class of cases.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2513 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2513

To require advertising for any automobile model to display information 
 regarding the fuel consumption and fuel cost for that model, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2007

Mr. Hall of New York (for himself and Mr. Welch of Vermont) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require advertising for any automobile model to display information 
 regarding the fuel consumption and fuel cost for that model, 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. FUEL CONSUMPTION INFORMATION IN ADVERTISING FOR AUTOMOBILES.

    (a) Notice Requirement.--Within 1 month after the date of enactment 
of this Act, any advertisement for any model of automobile or light 
duty truck (as defined by rule by the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency) shall include within such 
advertisement the Environmental Protection Agency's Combined Miles Per 
Gallon Rating, City Miles Per Gallon Rating, Highway Miles Per Gallon 
Rating MPG, and Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Rating for that model.
    (b) Enforcement.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be treated as 
a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice 
prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission 
Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall 
enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of 
this Act.
    (c) Definition of Advertisement.--As used in this Act, the term 
``advertisement'' includes any advertisement broadcast on network 
television, cable television, or radio, and any advertisement placed on 
the Internet or in any newspaper or magazine.
                                 <all>
```
Kiakakr ro ak

R iver 

Ko go sukruk

River 

Fish

Creek 

Judy Creek 

Col v il le 

Ikpikpuk 

River 

Ri v e r 

Maybe Creek 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Har rison

Bay 

Pitt Point 

Tangent Point 

Be au fo rt Se a 

Dease Inlet 

A R C T I C O C E A N

Cape Simpson 

Smith Bay 

Cape Halkett 

Teshekpuk Lake 

Prudhoe Bay 

Deadhorse 

NUIQSUT SUBSISTENCE USE AREA 

Bird Harvest Area 

Moose Harvest Area 

Nuiqsut Community Harvest Area 

Native Corporations Surface Ownership 

0 6 12 18

Miles 

Source: Pedersen 1979; Hoffman, Libbey, and Spearman 1988

Map 3-36. Nuisut Subsistence Use Areas for Moose and Birds in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
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 Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
    May 12, 2006
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated April 1, 2015, is by and between Diamond Offshore Management Company (“Company”)
and the undersigned employee (“Executive”). Company and Executive are referred to individually herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” 

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of January 3, 2007 (as amended and extended, the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the Agreement to expire by its terms on
April 1, 2017. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in full as follows: 


2.1 Term. Unless sooner terminated pursuant to other provisions hereof, Company agrees to employ Executive for a
period beginning on the Effective Date and concluding on April 1, 2017 (“Term”). Should Executive remain in the employ of Company (or any affiliate) beyond the Term, Executive will be deemed an “at will” employee. 

 

	2.	Section 2.5 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

  

	3.	Section 5.11 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the first sentence. 

  

	4.	Except as set forth above, the other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. 

 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	 DIAMOND OFFSHORE

MANAGEMENT COMPANY
				EXECUTIVE
				
	By:		 \s\ Aaron Sobel
				 \s\ Beth G. Gordon

							Beth G. Gordon
§ 1236.2 Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, terms used in this part have the meanings that they have in part 1201 of this chapter, in the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4501 *et seq.,* or in the Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1421 *et seq.* *Extraordinary growth* — ( 1 ) For purposes of 12 U.S.C. 4513b(b)(3)(C), means: ( i ) With respect to a Bank, growth of non-advance assets in excess of 30 percent over the six calendar quarter period preceding the date on which FHFA notified the Bank that it was required to submit a corrective plan; and
( ii ) With respect to an Enterprise, quarterly non-annualized growth of assets in excess of 7.5 percent in any calendar quarter during the six calendar quarter period preceding the date on which FHFA notified the Enterprise that it was required to submit a corrective plan.
( 2 ) For purposes of calculating an increase in assets, assets acquired through merger or acquisition approved by FHFA are not to be included.
*Standard(s)* means any one (or more) of the prudential management and operations standards established by the Director pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4513b(a). Standard includes the introductory statement of general responsibilities of boards of directors and senior management of the regulated entities set forth in the appendix to this part.
[77 FR 33959, June 8, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 2324, Jan. 11, 2013; 80 FR 72336, Nov. 19, 2015; 89 FR 3539, Jan. 19, 2024]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09-2053

THE TOWNSHIP OF LYNDHURST, NEW JERSEY

on behalf of itself and all similarly situated taxing

authorities within the State of New Jersey,

Appellant

v.

PRICELINE.COM INC.; LOWESTFARE.COM; TRAVEL WEB LLC;

TRAVELOCITY.COM, INC.; TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P.; SITE59.COM,

LLC; EXPEDIA, INC.; HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE INC.;

TRAVELNOW.COM, INC.; ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.;

TRAVELPORT AMERICAS, LLC; TRIP NETWORK, INC., doing

business as CHEAP TICKETS, INC.; ORBITZ, LLC

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-08-cv-03033)

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

 

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

_______________________________ O R D E R _______________________________

The Court, on its own motion, recalls the mandate. The Court's opinion, filed

August 2, 2011, is hereby vacated and panel rehearing is granted. An amended

precedential opinion, containing clarifying and typographical changes, will be issued

forthwith. Upon filing of the Court's opinion, the mandate will be issued. 

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: September 14, 2011

tmm/cc: John M. Angnello, Esq. 

James E. Cecchi, Esq. 
2

Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. 

William P. Deni, Jr., Esq. 

Michael R. Griffinger, Esq. 

Randolph K. Herndon, Esq. 

Karen L. Valihura, Esq. 

Brian S. Stagner, Esq. 

Scott R. Wiehle, Esq. 

Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq. 

Michael W. Weaver, Esq. 

Melissa Fulton, Esq. 

Lazar P. Raynal Esq.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793024
<NAME> KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                         198,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,265
<INVENTORY>                                    117,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,250
<PP&E>                                         171,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 594,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,854
<BONDS>                                        207,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,894
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   594,854
<SALES>                                        304,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,557
<CGS>                                          254,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    964
<INCOME-TAX>                                       377
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
PLEADING.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1891.]

Cox, Smith and Swing,. JJ.

#### F. J. BERGER ET AL. v. MOESSINGER, FRITSCH & CO.

Defense of Another Action Pending is Bad Unless Court is Specified.

Where a defense is set up, “that at the commencement of this action, there was, and still is, another action pending between the same parties, and for the same subject matter,” . it is bad. To constitute a good defense it should also aver in what other court such action is pending, and that it is a court of this state; no reply is needed.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

John J. Gasser, for plaintiffs in error.

J. H. Charles Smith, *contra.*

SMITH, J.

F. J. Berger et al., the defendants below, by their answer, first denied all the material facts set out in the petition, and in addition averred “that at the commencement of this action there was and still is another action pending between the same parties, and for the same subject-matter.” No reply was filed. The case proceeded to trial, and verdict was rendered for plaintiffs. The bill of exceptions certified to contain all the evidence, shows that no testimony was offered by either party as to any such previous pending action. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendants, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and that there was error in the rulings of the court at the trial, but no claim seems to have been asserted on the ground now urged until the case came into this court.

We are of the opinion that if the answer of the defendants, which was not denied by reply of the plaintiffs, made a good defense to the action, and was well pleaded, that it could now be taken advantage of, and that the judgment in such case would have to be reversed. But we think that the answer was not sufficient. Technically it did not follow the language of sec. 5068, Rev. Stat., which makes it a good ground of demurrer to a petition where it appears on its face “that there is another action pending.between the same parties for the same causeand if it does not appear on the face of the petition, the fact, if true, makes a good defense, and may be set up by answer. It may be that the averment of this answer, that it was for the same subject-matter, is equivalent to the same cause. But it wholly failed to state where, or in what court such action was pending. It may have been in a foreign country, in a court of the United States, or of a sister state, and this does not constitute a defense. 5 Sanf., 330; 31 Barb., 364; How. Prac.. Rep. 51; and the form given.for this defense in Swan’s Plead. and Prec., 510, Bates’ Plead., 905, specifies the court of the state of Ohio in which the action is pending.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, but without penalty.

(Other grounds of error assigned were overruled.)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 190 (Friday, October 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23774]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11886 and <greek-i>11887]


Georgia Disaster Number GA-00027

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1858-DR), dated 09/24/
2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 09/18/2009 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/25/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/23/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/24/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Georgia, dated 09/24/2009 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Bartow, Catoosa, Coweta, Dekalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, Heard, Newton, 
Rockdale, Walker.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Georgia: Barrow, Butts, Clayton, Dade, Fayette, Hall, Henry, 
Jackson, Jasper, Meriwether, Morgan, Spalding, Troup, Walton, 
Whitfield.
    Alabama: Dekalb.
    Tennessee: Hamilton.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)


James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-23774 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### § 150.520 What happens if I am placed in receivership or voluntary liquidation?

If the OCC appoints a conservator or receiver, or if you place yourself in voluntary liquidation, the receiver, conservator, or liquidating agent must promptly close or transfer all fiduciary accounts to a substitute fiduciary, in accordance with OCC instructions and the orders of the court having jurisdiction.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2631

To provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered 

to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan under the Federal employees 

health benefits program shall be at least equal to the actuarial value 

of the prescription drug benefits offered by such plan to its enrollees 

generally. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2003

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of 

Virginia, and Mr. MORAN of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug 

benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan 

under the Federal employees health benefits program 

shall be at least equal to the actuarial value of the 

prescription drug benefits offered by such plan to its 

enrollees generally.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2631 IH 

1 SECTION 1. NEGOTIATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

2 MANAGEMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8902 of title 5, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(p)(1) A contract may not be made or a plan ap7 proved which does not offer to Medicare eligible enrollees 

8 prescription drug benefits the actuarial value of which is 

9 at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription 

10 drug benefits which are offered to enrollees under the plan 

11 generally. 

12 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, the Director of 

13 the Office of Personnel Management shall establish proc14 esses and methods for determining the actuarial value of 

15 prescription drug benefits.’’. 

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

17 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contract years 

18 beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 26, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00491-CV 

LAGATHRE DENISE MOORE, Appellant 

V. 

BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND BRADLEY BOYTE, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 10-15441-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

 Appellee Baylor Health Care System moves to dismiss this appeal, noting appellant has 

failed to pay the fee for the clerk’s record despite being cautioned that the appeal would be 

dismissed for want of prosecution if she did not pay the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). 

The motion reflects Baylor’s counsel conferred with appellant’s counsel, and appellant does not 

oppose the motion. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). 

130491F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LAGATHRE DENISE MOORE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00491-CV V. 

BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND 

BRADLEY BOYTE, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 10-15441-E. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellees Baylor Health Care System and Bradley Boyte recover their 

costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Lagathre Denise Moore. 

Judgment entered February 26, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE