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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 82128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7279]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Vishnu: Hinduism's Blue-Skinned Savior''

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, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Vishnu: Hinduism's Blue-Skinned Savior,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Frist Center 
for the Visual Arts, Nashville, TN, from on or about February 20, 2011, 
until on or about May 29, 2011; at the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY, 
from on or about June 24, 2011, until on or about October 2, 2011, and 
at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is 
in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is 
ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-32890 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### In the Matter of Rodney E. Bigler, Petitioner, v Cornell University, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 472]

—Application pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis York, J.], entered March 12, 1999) to annul respondent medical college’s determination terminating petitioner’s tenured employment on its faculty, unanimously denied, and the petition dismissed, without costs.

The petition should not have been transferred to this Court because it does not seek review of a determination made “as a *93result of a hearing held * * * pursuant to direction by law” (CPLR 7803 [4]), and also because the hearing on the charges against petitioner was not determinative but merely advisory to respondent’s President and Board of Trustees *(see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker,*42 NY2d 835). This Court will nevertheless undertake the review that should have been done by Supreme Court *(see, Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth.,*24 NY2d 174, 180). It is well settled that courts should not “invade, and only rarely assume academic oversight, except with the greatest caution and restraint, in such sensitive areas as faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure, especially in institutions of higher learning” *(Matter of Pace Coll, v Commission on Human Rights,*38 NY2d 28, 38; *see also, Gertler v Goodgold,*107 AD2d 481, 486, *affd*66 NY2d 946; *Matter of Loebl v New York Univ.,*255 AD2d 257). The findings of the hearing board that petitioner had failed to fulfill his faculty duties over an extended period of time were amply supported by the evidence, and the determination by the Board of Trustees to revoke petitioner’s tenure and dismiss him from the faculty was not arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker, supra).*Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4435 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4435

To prohibit the closure of postal facilities during the COVID-19 public 
                           health emergency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2020

Mr. Manchin (for himself and Mr. Peters) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the closure of postal facilities during the COVID-19 public 
                           health emergency.

    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 ``Protect Our Services Today Act of 
2020'' or the ``POST Act''.

SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON POSTAL FACILITY CLOSURES.

    (a) In General.--During the COVID-19 public health emergency 
period, the United States Postal Service may not close any facility of 
the Postal Service.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``COVID-19 
public health emergency period''--
            (1) means the period of the public health emergency 
        declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
        section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) 
        with respect to COVID-19, including any renewal of that 
        declaration; and
            (2) includes any part of the period described in paragraph 
        (1) that occurred before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, and as of the end of the
period covered by the Report:

|/s/ David W. MontgomeryDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer
November 25, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks
October 22, 2015

Brian Greer

2200A Chavis Drive

Greenville, NC 27858

Dear Mr. Greer :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not proc ess your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 22 , 2015 exemption request filed in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 33 63 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further , you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html

. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the pro posed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely

, /s/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
180218 ORD RE HR'G AND REQ CLARIFICATION VERSION FEBRUARY 18, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al. 

 Debtors.1

PROMESA 

Title III 

Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as representative of 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, 

 Debtor. 

PROMESA 

Title III 

Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS 

ORDER REGARDING OVERSIGHT BOARD’S 

AND AAFAF’S URGENT APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF REVISED 

PROPOSED $300 MILLION LOAN FROM COMMONWEALTH TO PREPA 

 The Court has received and reviewed the Oversight Board’s and AAFAF’s Urgent 

Application and Notice of Revised Proposed $300 Million Loan from Commonwealth to PREPA 

 

1

 The Debtors in the jointly-administered Title III cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number 

listed as a bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal 

tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Employees 

Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 

BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (iv) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); and 

(v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits 

of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2543 Filed:02/18/18 Entered:02/18/18 22:04:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180218 ORD RE HR'G AND REQ CLARIFICATION VERSION FEBRUARY 18, 2018 2 

(the “Urgent Joint Application,” Docket Entry No. 727), as well as the oppositions and replies filed 

in connection with the Urgent Joint Application. The Court has determined that a hearing on the 

Urgent Joint Application is not necessary and will take the matter on submission. 

 For the sake of clarity, the Movants are directed to review the language in paragraph 

11 of the proposed order (Docket Entry No. 740-1) for grammatical and typographical errors. The 

Movants shall file an informative motion, no later than February 19, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. (prevailing 

Eastern Standard Time), setting forth their final proposed version of paragraph 11. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2543 Filed:02/18/18 Entered:02/18/18 22:04:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T NOV 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 10 16 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 0 3- 23 26 9- CV-J AL KOBARID HOLDINGS, SA, a Lux em bo rg Co rp or at io n, TAMBOURINE COM ERCIO, INTERNATIONAL SA, a Po rtu ge se Co rp or at io n, et . al.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,

ve rs us
EDW ARD MERRI T REIZEN,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 1 8, 2 00 8)
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:In th is ap pe al , we are cal le d up on to ad dr es s whe th er th e App el le e Hawks ba y

Ltd . ( “ Hawks ba y ”) pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt a jury ve rd ic t an d fin al jud gm en t of al m os t $4 0 m il li on ren de red ag ai ns t App el la nt Edwar d M erri t Rei zen ( “ Rei zen ”) in th is di ve rs it y act io n. Hawks ba y cl ai m ed th at Rei zen br each ed hi s
fid uc ia ry du ty, en ga ge d in frau d, frau du le nt co nc eal m en t, co nv ers io n, ci vi l th eft , an d
ai de d and ab et te d a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty in vi ol at io n of Fl or id a la w. On ap pe al , Rei zen cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by d en y in g hi s (1 ) mo t i o n f o r a ne w t ria l

o n t h e br each of fid uc ia ry du ty co un t, (2 ) m ot io n fo r a di rect ed ve rd ic t or ne w t ri a l

on th e frau d, frau du le nt co nc eal m en t, co nv ers io n, ci vi l th eft , an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty co un ts , an d (3) m ot io n for a ne w tri al or r em it ti tu r on th e
pu ni ti ve da m ag e award . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew of th e reco rd an d hav in g t ak en ora l

arg um en ts , we affi rm

th e fi na l ju dg m en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i n a ll res pe ct s.
W e are sa ti sf

ie d th at th ere was suf

fic ie nt ev id en ce add uc ed at tri al to su pp or t
Hawks ba y ’s cl ai m s of frau d, frau du le nt co nc eal m en t, co nv ers io n, ci vi l th e f t , a nd
ai di ng an d a b et ti ng a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty. W e are al so co nv in ced th at th e

ev id en ce p res en te d a m

pl y su pp or te d t he jury’ s awa rd of d am ag es
. AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 32.1

     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 Annual Report of 1st Net Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James H. Watson, Jr., Chief Executive 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) 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 result of operations of the
Company.




Dated:  April 12, 2005        By:  /s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   James H. Watson, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
                                   Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
                                   the Registrant
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 12, 2018

No. 04-18-00418-CV

IN RE WOOD GROUP PSN INC., Miller Environmental Services L.L.C., Star Tex Gasoline 

& Oil Distributors Inc., Basic Energy Services Inc., Cameron Inc., Chacho’s Vacuum Service 

Inc., Coastal Chemical Co. L.L.C., Flint Energy Services Inc., FTS International Services L.L.C., 

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Mission Petroleum Carriers Inc., Murphy 

Exploration & Production Company - USA, Murphy Oil Corporation, Plains All American 

Pipeline L.P.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice (dissenting)

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice2

Irene Rios, Justice

On October 3, 2018, this court conditionally granted in part and denied in part relators’ 

petition for writ of mandamus. On November 2, 2018, the real party in interest filed a motion for 

rehearing, which was denied on November 9, 2018. On November 16, 2018, the real party in 

interest filed a motion to confirm the stay of the underlying proceedings. On November 19, 

2018, the real party in interest filed a motion for en banc reconsideration.

After considering the motion for en banc reconsideration, the motion is hereby DENIED. 

The real party in interest’s motion to confirm the underlying stay is DENIED AS MOOT.

It is so ORDERED on December 12, 2018.

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-05-11980-DCVAJA, styled County of Dimmit v. Murphy Exploration 

& Production Co., et al., pending in the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas, the Honorable Amado 

J. Abascal, III presiding.

2 Not participating.
PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: __________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Form of Retention Bonus Letter Agreement Addendum



 
EXHIBIT 10.4

 
RETENTION BONUS LETTER AGREEMENT ADDENDUM

 
Subparagraph (iii) of Paragraph A of
Part Two of your January 20, 2003 retention bonus letter agreement with the Company contains an incorrect formula for determining your bonus allocation in the event the change in control proceeds payable in connection with an acquisition of Legato
Systems, Inc. are more than $ 1 Billion but less than $1.25 Billion. The correct formula is set forth below and replaces and supersedes the formula contained in your retention bonus letter agreement. 
 
New Formula 
 
(iii) If the Change in Control Proceeds are
more than $1 Billion but less than $1.25 Billion, then the applicable percentage in effect for your Bonus Allocation will be determined on the basis of a straight linear declining rate pursuant to the following formula: 
 
X = Y - [(Y - Z) x
        A         ], where 
                             $0.25 Billion 
 
X is the applicable percentage of the Change in Control
Proceeds which will serve as your Bonus Allocation, 
 
Y is the percentage which would be in effect for your Bonus Allocation were the Change in Control Proceeds $1 Billion or less. 
 
Z is the percentage which would be in effect for your Bonus Allocation were the Change in Control Proceeds $1.25 Billion, 
 
A is the dollar amount by which the Change in Control
Proceeds exceed $1 Billion. 
 
Except for the foregoing revisions,
all the terms and provisions of your January 20, 2003 retention bonus letter will continue in full force and effect. 
 

	 LEGATO SYSTEMS, INC.

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/    George I.
Purnell        


	 	 	 George I. Purnell

	
	 Title:
	 	 Vice President Human Resources
 And Chief Learning Officer

	 Dated:
	 	 January 23, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
October 31, 2018
No. 04

- 18

- 00651

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.B., B.N.B., AND T.L.S., CHILDREN , From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 02206 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R In this accelerated appeal of the trial court’s o rder terminating Appellant’s parental rights , Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney filed a n Anders brief . In the brief, counsel states that after a professional evaluation of the record, counsel finds no reversible error , concludes the appeal is without merit and frivolous , and attached a motion to withdraw

. Se e Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in a parental rights termination appeal ). Couns el informed A ppellant of her right to file a pro se brief and her right to a free copy of the appellate record

. The State filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee ’ s brief unless A ppellant files a pro se brief. If A ppellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appell ant to d o so within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.6(a). If A ppellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no t later than TWENTY DAYS after A ppellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b). The motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pen ding further order of this court

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 31st day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
## The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States Distri ct Judge for the Western 1 

## District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. No. 97-1575

___________ United States of America, *

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States v. * Western District of Missouri Tony O. Armstrong, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] "Tony O", also known as "T", *

Defendant-Appellant. * * * District Court for the *

*

___________ Submitted: September 8, 1997 Filed: September 11, 1997

___________ Before McMillian, Bright, and Murphy, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tony Orla ndo Armstrong appeals the sentence imposed by the district court for his convictions of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1 §2113 and use of a fi rearm in commission of a violent felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c). Armstrong was sentenced to 188 months for the bank robb eryconviction to run concurrently with a sentence of 300 month s imposed previously for a different bank robbery in the

## Arms trong also complains that the sentence imposed in Texas exceeded th e 2 

## statutory maximum, but that is not a matter for this court. -2- Norther nDistrict of Texas. He was also sentenced to 60 months for th e firearm violation to run consecutively to the terms for the bank robberies . Armstr ong argues that imposing a consecutive 60 month sentence fo r violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c) produces a result th at Congress could not have int endedbecause the Texas bank robbery was committed subsequent to th e §924(c) offense. 2 Congress explicitly provided that using a firearm in the commission of a viole nt crime carries a sentence of 60 months that may not "ru n concurrentlywith any other term of imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. §924(c) . This language is clear and does not permit any d iscretion since a sentence under §92 4(c) may not be concurrent with "any other term." U.S. v . Gonzales , --- U.S. ----; 117 S.Ct. 1032, 1035 (1997); U.S. v. Murphy , 69 F.3d. 237, 244 (8th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.