alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 2.18** February 28,    2008     Capgemini    U.S. LLC        3500 Lenox Road    Suite G2    Atlanta, GA 30326    Attention: Mr. Dee Burger     Dear Dee:     Reference is hereby made to the letter agreement (the    “Letter Agreement”), dated January 17, 2008, by    and between Capgemini U.S. LLC (“Capgemini”) and    FairPoint Communications, Inc. (“FairPoint”).     In connection with the Order Approving Settlement Agreement with    Conditions (Order No. 24,823), dated February 25,    2008, issued by the State of New Hampshire Public Utilities    Commission, the parties desire to make certain amendments to the    Letter Agreement. Specifically, the parties agree that the    references to months 10, 14 and 15 under the caption “TSA    Payments” in Annex A to the Letter Agreement are    hereby amended and shall be replaced in all instances with    references to months 10, 11 and 12. In all other respects the    Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in    accordance with its terms.     Thank you for your time and efforts to date and we look forward    to working with you.     Very truly yours,     FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.     By: /s/  Walter    E. Leach, Jr.    Name:     Walter E. Leach, Jr.     Title:     Executive Vice President, Corporate Development Accepted and    agreed to as of the        date first written above:     CAPGEMINI U.S. LLC     By: /s/  Daniel    W. Burger III    Name:     Dee Burger    Title:     Vice President
#### § 65.3 Certification of foreign airmen other than flight crewmembers.

A person who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident alien is issued a certificate under subpart D of this part, outside the United States, only when the Administrator finds that the certificate is needed for the operation or continued airworthiness of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft.

[Doc. No. 65-28, 47 FR 35693, Aug. 16, 1982]
#### § 67.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes the medical standards and certification procedures for issuing medical certificates for airmen and for remaining eligible for a medical certificate.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart B of Part 97

#### Editorial Note:

The procedures set forth in this subpart were formerly carried as §§ 609.100 through 609.500 of this title and were transferred to part 97 as §§ 97.11 through 97.19, respectively, but are not carried in the Code of Federal Regulations. For Federal Register citations affecting these procedures, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 97.10 [Reserved]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4281 

To require a report to Congress on certain efforts in connection with the 

financial management systems of the Department of Defense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2020 

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a report to Congress on certain efforts in connection with the financial management systems of the Department of Defense. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON CERTAIN EFFORTS 

4 IN CONNECTION WITH THE FINANCIAL MAN5 AGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

6 DEFENSE. 

7 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—No later than 120 days 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

9 of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4281 IS

1 progress of the Department of Defense in modernizing its 

2 financial management enterprise. 

3 (b) ELEMENTS.—The report required by subsection 

4 (a) shall include following: 

5 (1) A description of the actions taken by the 

6 Department of Defense as part of the implementa7 tion of the Digital Modernization Strategy to mod8 ernize the data, architecture, and systems com9 prising its financial management enterprise. 

10 (2) The name of each financial management 

11 system in use by the Department, and an annotation 

12 of the data for which such system is the official sys13 tem of record. 

14 (3) The anticipated date of retirement for each 

15 system named pursuant to paragraph (2) that is 

16 planned to be retired. 

17 (4) A summary of the retirement plan for any 

18 system that will be retired, including the manner in 

19 which data in such system will be transferred to a 

20 different system. 

21 (5) In the case of a system that is not planned 

22 for retirement, a justification of the determination 

23 not to retire such system. 

24 (6) The amount spent by the Department on 

25 operating and maintaining financial management 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4281 IS

1 systems during the 5 fiscal years ending with fiscal 

2 year 2020. 

3 (7) The amount spent by the Department on 

4 acquiring or developing new financial management 

5 systems during such 5 fiscal years. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 404.19 Hearings. ( a ) Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5, United States Code, do not apply to hearings held under this part. As a fact-finding forum, each hearing held under this part is nonadversarial and there are no formal pleadings or adverse parties. Any rule issued in a proceeding in which a hearing is held is not based exclusively on the record of the hearing, but on the entire record of the rulemaking proceeding.
( b ) The Associate Administrator designates a representative to conduct any hearing held under this part. The FAA Chief Counsel designates a legal officer for the hearing.
[53 FR 11013, Apr. 4, 1988, as amended by Amdt. 404-2, 68 FR 35289, June 13, 2003]
#### STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Will B. McCOLLUM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-1036

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 27, 1975.

Samuel H. Wilkins, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., Edward J. Peters, Dist. Atty., Thomas R. Mayfield, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Charged with armed robbery in state court, Will B. McCollum filed a petition for removal of his criminal prosecution to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443 and alleging in effect that he was being denied a speedy trial.

> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443 provides as follows: Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

> (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citi*286zens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

> (2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.

We affirm the district court’s decision to remand the case to the Mississippi state court on the ground that the removal statute applies only to cases where civil rights are denied for racial re.asons, and not to an alleged deprival of the right to a speedy trial. In this case, the petitioner is white and alleges no racial motive in connection with the state’s actions.

In Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966), the United States Supreme Court said:

> On the basis of the historical material that is available, we conclude that the phrase “any law providing for equal civil rights” must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. Thus, the defendants’ broad contentions under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot support a valid claim for removal under § 1443, because the guarantees of those clauses are phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or citizens, rather than in the specific language of racial equality that § 1443 demands.

384 U.S. at 792, 86 S.Ct. at 1790.

It is thus apparent that the right to a speedy trial, not being a specific civil right couched in terms of equality but rather a broad constitutional guarantee of general application, cannot serve as the basis for removal under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1443. Naugle v. Oklahoma, 429 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir. 1970); New York v. Konigsberg, 305 F.Supp. 1201 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 418 F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 964, 90 S.Ct. 998, 25 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970).

Affirmed.
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 3984 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 033 - AD
§ 1470.44 Termination for convenience. Except as provided in § 1470.43 awards may be terminated in whole or in part only as follows: ( a ) By the awarding agency with the consent of the grantee or subgrantee in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated, or
( b ) By the grantee or subgrantee upon written notification to the awarding agency, setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. However, if, in the case of a partial termination, the awarding agency determines that the remaining portion of the award will not accomplish the purposes for which the award was made, the awarding agency may terminate the award in its entirety under either § 1470.43 or paragraph (a) of this section.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 137-002]

Take notice there will be a joint meeting of the Recreation and Ecological Resources subgroups of the Mokelumne Relicensing Collaborative on May 16, 2000. There will be meetings of the Ecological Resources subgroup on May 17-18, 2000, and a meeting of the Recreation subgroup on May 23, 2000. The Full Collaborative will meet on May 24-25, 2000. These meetings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at 2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, California. Expected participants need to give their names to David Moller (PG&E) at (415) 973-4696.

For further information, please contact Diana Shannon at (202) 208-7774.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12270  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**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 Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
      F. Schenkel, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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:





(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 F. Schenkel





Donald
      F.
      Schenkel


Chairman
      of the Board, President


and
      Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      11, 2006
#### Townsend *vs.*Cowen.

The defendant in a writ of error for error in fact is not entitled to judgment as in case of nonsuit if the plaintiff neglect to bring on to trial the issue joined pursuant to notice j but he is entitled to the costs of the circuit.

This was a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, *or*that the plaintiff pay the defendant the costs of preparing for the defence of the suit at the last December circuit held in and for the county of Yates. The suit is a writ of error prosecuted for *error in fact,*was noticed for trial by the plaintiff, and neglected to be brought on to trial when called on the calendar.

*J. L. Wendell,*for the defendant.

*H. Welles,*for the plaintiff.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, Ch. J.

It is well settled that either party may notice for trial an issue on error in fact. 2 Saund. 336, n. 4. *Dennis*v. *Dennis,*2 Archb. Pr. 240. 244. 2 Tidd, 1122. There is nothing in the suggestion that our statute, 2 R. S. 423, § 81, 82, has altered the practice in this respect, for it is but a copy of 14 Geo. 2, ch. 17. But under our practice, 18 Wendell, 519, and n., the defendant is entitled to the costs of the circuit and of this motion.

Ordered accordingly.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-086-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 1470.33 Supplies. ( a ) *Title.* Title to supplies acquired under a grant or subgrant will vest, upon acquisition, in the grantee or subgrantee respectively.
( b ) *Disposition.* If there is a residual inventory of unused supplies exceeding $5,000 in total aggregate fair market value upon termination or completion of the award, and if the supplies are not needed for any other federally sponsored programs or projects, the grantee or subgrantee shall compensate the awarding agency for its share.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0875-20

JACKIE LETT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

BURNET COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Dulin v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

Nos. PD-0856-19 & PD-1857-19, 2021 WL 1202400 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021), I 

respectfully dissent to the Court’s disposition of the State’s petition for discretionary 

review.

FILED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133062 & (55) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133062 

 COA: 264593 

Macomb CC: 2004-004313-FC 

MARTIN CHRISTIAN SORLIEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2006 

judgment 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. The motion to 

remand is DENIED. 

d0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated January 28, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on February 9, 2000, (65 FR 27), Mallinckrodt, Inc., 
Mallinckrodt & Second Streets, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made 
application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of dihydromorphine (9145), a basic 
class of controlled substance listed Schedule I.
    Mallinckrodt, Inc. plans to isolate dihydromorphine as a step in a 
multistep synthesis of hydromorphone.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt, 
Inc. to manufacture dihydromorphine is consistent with the public 
interest at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt, Inc. on a 
regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is 
consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above is 
granted.

    Dated: April 25, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-11411 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
§ 91.503 Flying equipment and operating information. ( a ) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot station of the airplane: ( 1 ) A flashlight having at least two size “D” cells, or the equivalent, that is in good working order.
( 2 ) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by paragraph (b) of this section.
( 3 ) Pertinent aeronautical charts.
( 4 ) For IFR, VFR over-the-top, or night operations, each pertinent navigational en route, terminal area, and approach and letdown chart.
( 5 ) In the case of multiengine airplanes, one-engine inoperative climb performance data.
( b ) Each cockpit checklist must contain the following procedures and shall be used by the flight crewmembers when operating the airplane: ( 1 ) Before starting engines.
( 2 ) Before takeoff.
( 3 ) Cruise.
( 4 ) Before landing.
( 5 ) After landing.
( 6 ) Stopping engines.
( 7 ) Emergencies.
( c ) Each emergency cockpit checklist procedure required by paragraph (b)(7) of this section must contain the following procedures, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Emergency operation of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical systems.
( 2 ) Emergency operation of instruments and controls.
( 3 ) Engine inoperative procedures.
( 4 ) Any other procedures necessary for safety.
( d ) The equipment, charts, and data prescribed in this section shall be used by the pilot in command and other members of the flight crew, when pertinent.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1217

___________

In re: Rhonda Lyn Mackey, also *

known as Rhonda L. Mackey; *

William Ralph Mackey, Jr., also *

known as William R. Mackey, Jr., *

*

Debtors, *

-------------------------------------------- *

*

William Ralph Mackey, Jr.; *

Rhonda Lyn Mackey, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

* for the Eighth Circuit.

Gilbert Elmore; Mackrene Elmore, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees, *

*

J. Kevin Checkett, *

*

Trustee. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2009

Filed: July 30, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Arthur B. Federman, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Debtors William and Rhonda Mackey appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s1

 order dismissing their

Chapter 13 case, and finding moot the Mackeys’ challenges to orders in their Chapter

7 case, which was dismissed during the pendency of this appeal. Having reviewed the

bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo,

see In re Vote, 276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2002), we agree with the BAP’s

analysis. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### § 102.3 Date of service.

Where service is made by mail, private delivery service, or email, the date of service is the day when the document served is deposited in the United States mail, is deposited with a private delivery service that will provide a record showing the date the document was tendered to the delivery service, or is sent by email, as the case may be. Where service is made by personal delivery or facsimile, the date of service will be the date on which the document is received.