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

....... :""~, r-1 :· !'A'1 7·· ·'II "EN·r a·~ t U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO~:;t'!::\r)Ab?)ATI()~J 0 , · '· .,[ Vll I 1,,/i ffice ofHearmgs :{c·l··· tloccp.•,/·l(")t'''S Washington, D.C. ,., ....... r .. 111 , .• " · 

Kalitta Air, LLC RECEIVED 

FAA Docket No. ____ _ 

(EIR 2011-GL-23-0099) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

. AUG- 7 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Administrative Law Judge:-------

NOTICE AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE 

TO THE CLERK OF SAID COURT: 

The appearance of the undersigned attorney for the above-named Respondent, Kalitta Air, 

LLC, in the above-entitled cause is hereby filed. 

Dated: July 27, 2012 

~·~· ·-"·~·1'~6: ...... Chris G. zur~ies ... ····· 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

"../ 

~ 

........ ~/ 

~,/::--- ..• / 

~;~:f~iawaroup,z 

( George W. Kelsey (MI Bar# P15855) 

Attorney for Respondent 

2395 S. Huron Parkway, Suite 200 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

(734) 973-1222 Telephone 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned appears herein as attorney for the abovenamed Respondent, Kalitta Air, LLC, in the above-entitled cause. 

Dated: July 27, 2012 

~~ George W. Kelsey (MI Bar# P15855) 

Attorney for Respondent 

2395 S. Huron Parkway, Suite 200 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

(734) 973-1222 Telephone 

_ .. -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice and Entry of Appearance has been mailed this 

27th day of July, 2012, by First Class Mail to: 

Original and One Copy: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilber Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

One Copy: 

Chris G. Zurales 

Senior Attorney 

... -.f~Q.~ral_J~.yiation Administr~tion. 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Phone: (847) 294-7713 

Fax: (847) 294-7498 

Dated this 27th day of July, 2012 

Renee C. Alexander 

Legal Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.A.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 764 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.M.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 765 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: P.E.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.G.P., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 766 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 10.1

# FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EXECUTIVEEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This
Amendment is made as of this 8th day of July 2003, between THERAGENICS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation (the Company) and M. CHRISTINE JACOBS (the
Executive).

# INTRODUCTION

The
Company and the Executive are parties to that certain executive employment agreement dated
April 13, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Executive Employment
Agreement). The parties now desire to amend the Executive Employment Agreement to
provide as follows:

NOW
THEREFORE, the parties amend the Executive Employment Agreement as follows:

|1. | By substituting the following for Section17 (h):                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|   | (h)        Business of the Company means any business that involves the
  manufacture, production, sale, marketing, promotion, exploitation, development and distribution of palladium-103 or temporary or permanently implantable
  devices for use in the treatment of cancer, restenosis or macular degeneration.

| | Except
as specifically amended hereby, the Executive Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as prior to this Amendment.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and
the Executive have each executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first shown
above.

| | THE COMPANY                       
| | ----------------------------------
| |                                   
| | THERAGENICS CORPORATION           
| |                                   
| | By:     /s/    M. Christine Jacobs
| |                                   
| | Title:  CEO, President            

ATTEST:

/s/      Tracy M. Culver

Title:  General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

[CORPORATE SEAL]

| | EXECUTIVE                       
| | --------------------------------
| |                                 
| | By:    /s/    James A. MacLennan
| |                                 
| | Title:  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Metal Management, Inc.
(the "Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.



  /s/ Albert A. Cozzi
--------------------------------------------
Albert A. Cozzi
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 19, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00243

- CV

Edythe PRINCE and Jared Prince,

Appellants

v.

Sharon L. PETERS , Individually; Sharon Peters Real Estate, Inc.; Christopher Russo, Individually; Christopher Russo Home Inspections, PLLC; Timothy Brown; and The Agency Austin, Inc., d/

b/a The Agency San Antonio, n/k/a The Agency Texas, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVOC

- 20

- 0000305 Honorable M. Rex Emerson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 3, 2021, this court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. A motion for rehearing was due on November 18, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1

On the due date, Appellant s filed a motion for a twenty

- one

- day extension of time to file a motion for rehearing and a motion for en banc reconsideration.
Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ motion for rehearing and motion for en
banc reconsideration must be filed with th is court not later than December 9, 2021

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel. Joint T-32 Review.
    Date: November 2, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hotel Lombardy, 2019 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529. (301) 
496-5388. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0176686475696e7371416f686f65722f6f68692f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4d3cdc1d0cccbd6d4e4cacdcac0d78acacdcc8ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24171 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS IN THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED AUGUST
31, 1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,619,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  313,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,261)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,133,456
<PP&E>                                       1,511,609
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,012,986)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,877,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,389,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,062
<COMMON>                                        73,563
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,877,760
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,471,103
<CGS>                                        1,805,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  550,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (897)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                143,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            143,162
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,090
<INVENTORY>                                     20,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,492
<PP&E>                                          18,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           269
<OTHER-SE>                                    (47,729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,670
<SALES>                                        129,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,040
<CGS>                                           99,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (85)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
42790.

#### HAMMETT v. THOMPSON.

Hall, Judge.

1. This action and cross action arose out of a collision between a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff and an automobile driven by the defendant. Although there was conflict in the evidence, it supported the verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant’s enumerations of error on the grounds that the verdict and judgment were contrary to law and the evidence are without merit. *Medlin v. Bickford,*106 Ga. App. 859, 861 (128 SE2d 531).

2. Tire trial court excluded from evidence a diagram representing the scene of the accident and the path traveled by and the position of the vehicles. In *Rouse v. Fussell,*106 Ga. App. 259, 263 (126 SE2d 830), this court held that when a witness testified as to distances and locations of items shown on a sketch, it was admissible in evidence over an objection similar to that made here. In the present case there was no preliminary proof or testimony sufficient to show that the diagram offered was a fair or accurate representation of the scene it purported to portray. Therefore the trial court did not err in excluding it from evidence. *Johnson v. State,*158 Ga. 192, 198 (123 SE 120); *Owensby v. Jones,*109 Ga. App. 398 (8) (136 SE2d 451); *Langran v. Hodges,*60 Ga. App. 567, 573 (4 SE2d 489); Green, Georgia Law of Evidence, 197, 202, 207, §§ 83, 86, 87.1.

3. The defendant enumerates as error the court’s refusal to charge the defendant’s requested charge that the speed limit *763is 35 miles per hour in a business or residential district together with a definition of a business or residential district. There was insufficient evidence to show that the place where this collision occurred was within a business or residential district as defined by law. The court’s refusal to charge was not error.

*Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*

Argued May 3, 1967

Decided May 10, 1967

Rehearing denied May 22, 1967.

*Merritt & Pruitt, J. Ray Merritt,*for appellant.

*Cheeley & Merritt, Joseph E. Cheeley,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 294 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 294

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the automobile 
               assistance program for disabled veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

  Mrs. Kelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the automobile 
               assistance program for disabled veterans.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE AUTOMOBILE ADAPTIVE ASSISTANCE BENEFIT 
              DIRECTLY TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

    (a) Authority To Provide Payment to Lender Rather Than Seller.--
Section 3902(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new sentence: ``Under regulations prescribed 
by the Secretary, a payment under this subsection may be made to the 
lender of a loan made for the purpose of financing the purchase of the 
automobile or other conveyance, rather than to the seller.''.
    (b) Authority To Provide Payment After Purchase.--Section 3902 of 
such title is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(e) In the case of an eligible person who makes a purchase for 
which assistance could be provided under subsection (a) but who, as 
determined by the Secretary, does not apply for such assistance in a 
timely manner due to lack of knowledge of the availability of such 
assistance, the Secretary may provide such assistance after the 
purchase by payment directly to that person upon application made 
within 90 days after the date of the purchase.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
DATED MARCH 11, 2004 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-43925, No. 333-48172, No. 333-94223, and No.
333-98123) of CDW Corporation of our reports dated January 16,
2004, except for Note 15, as to which the date is February 12, 2004  relating to
the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this
Form 10-K. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPChicago,
Illinois  March 11,
2004
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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

GUILLERMO LOPEZ , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 20

- 0125 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 200 3

- 006174

- 001 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy , Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Andrea L. Kever Counsel for Respondent
Guillermo Lopez , Florence Petitioner FILED 6-4-2020STATE v

. LOPEZ Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N , Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Guillermo Lopez seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s fifth successive 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 disc retion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Eswatini

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Eswatini			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Eswatini 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Eswatini

During the review period, budget documents were available to the public.  However, the executive budget proposal and the end-of-year report were not available online within a reasonable period.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available online.  While budget documents provided a general picture of government revenues and expenditures, expenditures for royal emoluments were not broken down.  Information in the budget was considered generally reliable.  The government’s supreme audit institution published an audit report within a reasonable period, however it lacked independence that met international standards and its audits did not cover the entire annual executed budget.  The government outlined in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts, but the opacity of the procedures cast doubt on whether the government followed the law in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not always publicly available.  It is not clear whether sovereign wealth funds had sound legal frameworks, and they did not disclose sources of funding or general approaches to withdrawals.

Eswatini’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing the executive budget proposal and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period;
- Including comprehensive expenditure information for royal emoluments in budget documents;
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and its reports cover the entire annual executed budget;
- Ensuring laws for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses are followed in practice;
- Making basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available; and
- Ensuring sovereign wealth funds have a sound legal framework and disclose their sources of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Eswatini 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEswatini

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future