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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20313]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 25

[ET Docket No. 10-142; Report 2932]

Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands 
at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 
MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz; Petition for Reconsideration

AGENCY: Federal Communication Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration

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

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) 
have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning 
Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 
1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 
MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz and published pursuant to 47 
CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.4(b)(1).

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed by August 25, 2011. 
Replies to an opposition must be filed by September 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Holmes, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-0564.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 6, 2011, the Commission, via the 
Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau released In the Matter of 
Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 
1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 
MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, FCC 11-57, Report and Order, 
adopted April 5, 2011, published at 76 FR 31252, May 31, 2011. This is 
a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 2932, released July 
29, 2011. The full text of document Report No. 2932 is available for 
viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not 
send a copy of document Report No. 2932 pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because it does not have an impact 
on any rules of particular applicability.
    Subject: In the Matter of Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile 
Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-
1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (ET 
Docket No. 10-142).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2011-20313 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
#### BLOOM-ROSENBLOOM-KLINE CO v UNION INDEMNITY CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21537.

Decided June 12, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 Ic) Under an automobile insurance policy wherein the company insured against loss from liability imposed by law upon the assured for damage? accidentally suffered or alleged to have been accidentally suffered by any person or persons, *380caused by the automobile vehicles described or referred to in said policy, and agreed, if suit be brought to enforce such claim for damages, to “defend such suit whether groundless or not” arid bear the expense incurred by it in defending such suit, the company is required to defend a suit wherein the cause of action is based upon a claim for damages covered _by the policy, and if the company failed to comply with that provision of the policy it is liable to the assured for the cost and expense of making its defense in such case, notwithstanding the suit was groundless and was defeated.

The petition in such action by the assured to recover from the company the cost and expense of maintaining its defense in the' suit brought by the party claiming to have been injured, states a cause of action even though it does not contain an averment that the automobile covered by the policy was in fact involved in the accident resulting in the injury complained of. .

Marshall, CJ, Robinson and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade, Jones and Day, JJ. dissent.
### Floods of 1950-51 in the Catskill Mountain region, New York

By: J. V. B. Wells

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1227C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
(76 South. 999)

#### RANDALL & EDWARDS v. SPARKS et al.

(7 Div. 473.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 5, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on motion.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 1 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT L. SIEDSMA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-3216 (D.C. No. 95-10034) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Siedsma appeals from his conviction upon a plea of guilty of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 110 months imprisonment and now appeals based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. His claim is based on counsel’s prediction of a base offense level of 28, whereas the base offense level used for sentencing was 32. The appeal must be dismissed because the- 2 -

ineffectiveness claim must be brought in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Galloway , 56 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). This is not one of those rare ineffectiveness claims that may be reviewed on direct appeal, particularly given that Mr. Siedsma is represented on appeal by counsel below. See Beaulieu v. United States , 930 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir. 1991). All pending motions are DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7278

LEONARD PAUL CIRINCIONE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL SMITH; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-328-AW)

Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: September 14, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Allen Nathans, Jason D. Tulley, BENNETT & NATHANS, L.L.P.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Paul Cirincione appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Cirincione v. Smith, No. CA-99-

328-AW (D. Md. July 30, 1999). We grant Cirincione’s motion to

file a supplemental brief and have considered his brief in reviewing this appeal. We deny Cirincione’s motion to remand. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.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 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2020 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

 

/s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President on behalf of Simmons Bank, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust
Dated: September 28, 2020 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
Exhibit 10.4.2


 


June 26, 2014


 


		Re:	PAXmed Inc.



 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to those certain warrants (“Warrants”)
to purchase shares of common stock, par value $0.001 (“Common Stock”), of PAXmed Inc. (“Company”) held
by the undersigned.


 


The Company hereby acknowledges and agrees that,
so long as the Warrants are held by the undersigned or its permitted transferees (as defined in the registration statement for
the Company’s initial public offering), the Company shall allow the undersigned to exercise the Warrants by surrendering
such Warrant for that number of shares of Common Stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (x) the product of the number
of shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrant, multiplied by the difference between the exercise price of the Warrants and the
“Fair Market Value” (defined below) by (y) the Fair Market Value; provided, however, that no cashless exercise shall
be permitted unless the Fair Market Value is higher than the exercise price of the Warrants. The “Fair Market Value”
shall mean the average reported last sale price of the Common Stock for the 10 trading days ending on the day prior to the Company’s
receipt of the applicable exercise notice. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Company shall not be required to
net-cash settle the Warrants.


 


	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	 	PAXMED INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Lishan Aklog, MD
	 	 	Name:	Lishan Aklog, MD
	 	 	Title: 	Chairman & CEO


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


 


PAVILION VENTURE PARTNERS LLC


 


 


	By:	/s/ Lishan Aklog, MD	 
	 	Name:	Lishan Aklog, MD	 
	 	Title: 	Manager
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2004/C 208/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p.18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgment delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94, ECR I-2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgment confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA - ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year - registration number - Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----
§ 541.605 Fee basis. ( a ) Administrative and professional employees may be paid on a fee basis, rather than on a salary basis. An employee will be considered to be paid on a “fee basis” within the meaning of these regulations if the employee is paid an agreed sum for a single job regardless of the time required for its completion. These payments resemble piecework payments with the important distinction that generally a “fee” is paid for the kind of job that is unique rather than for a series of jobs repeated an indefinite number of times and for which payment on an identical basis is made over and over again. Payments based on the number of hours or days worked and not on the accomplishment of a given single task are not considered payments on a fee basis.
( b ) To determine whether the fee payment meets the minimum amount of salary required for exemption under these regulations, the amount paid to the employee will be tested by determining the time worked on the job and whether the fee payment is at a rate that would amount to at least the minimum salary per week, as required by §§ 541.600(a) through (c) and 541.602(a), if the employee worked 40 hours. Thus, for example under the salary requirement described in § 541.600(a)(2), an artist paid $600 for a picture that took 20 hours to complete meets the $1,128 minimum salary requirement for exemption since earnings at this rate would yield the artist $1,200 if 40 hours were worked.
[69 FR 22260, Apr. 23, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 32551, May 23, 2016; 84 FR 51308, Sept. 27, 2019; 89 FR 32972, Apr. 26, 2024]
§ 2706.160 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the handicapped person.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf person (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and adminstrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 2706.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, handicapped persons receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Law Offices 

## R OLLER 

## & B

AUER, PLLC

Lee A. Bauer Moffett B. Roller Washington Dulles International Airport 45005 Aviation Drive; Suite 200 Dulles, VA 20166 Phone: 202-331-3300 Fax: 202-331-3322 airlaw@rollerbauer.com October 28, 2010
Mr. George Wellington Chief, Foreign Carrier Licensing Division Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Result of Poll Relating to Application of Jestar Airways Pty. Limited for Statement of Authorization and Exemption; Docket DOT-OST-2010-0265 Dear Mr. Wellington: Jetstar Airways Pty. Limited has polled the U.S. carriers on the Service List that was attached to the Application of Jetstar for Statement of Authorization and Exemption that was filed on October 21, 2010. None of those carriers has any objection to DOT approval of the Application. Jetstar therefore requests expedited approval of the Application so that American Airlines and Jetstar can implement as soon as possible this important expansion of American's service to points within New Zealand. We are serving copies of this letter by email on all parties that were served with the Application. Respectfully submitted, ROLLER & BAUER, PLLC Attorneys for Jetstar Airways Pty. Limited
By:

___________________________ Moffett B. Roller

cc: Service List
§ 2570.49 Limits on the effect of exemptions. ( a ) An exemption does not take effect with respect to the exemption transaction unless the material facts and representations contained in the application and in any materials and documents submitted in support of the application were true and complete at the time of the submission of such material.
( b ) An exemption is effective only for the period of time specified and only under the conditions set forth in the exemption.
( c ) Only the specific parties to whom an exemption grants relief may rely on the exemption. If the notice granting an exemption does not limit exemptive relief to specific parties, all parties to the exemption transaction may rely on the exemption.
( d ) For exemption transactions that are continuing in nature, an exemption ceases to be effective if, during the continuation of the exemption transaction, there are material changes to the original facts and representations underlying such exemption or if one or more of the exemption's conditions cease to be met.
( e ) The determination as to whether, under the totality of the facts and circumstances, a particular statement contained in (or omitted from) an exemption application constitutes a material fact or representation is made by the Department in its sole discretion.
#### § 511.4 Compensation of committee members.

Each member of an industry committee will be allowed per diem compensation at the rate specified in Chapter 304 of the Department of Labor Supplement to the Federal Personnel Manual for each day actually spent in the work of the committee, and will, in addition, be reimbursed for necessary transportation and other expenses incident to traveling in accordance with Standard Government Travel Regulations then in effect. All travel expenses will be paid on travel vouchers certified by the Administrator or an authorized representative. Any other necessary expenses that are incidental to the work of the committee may be incurred by the committee upon approval of, and shall be paid upon, certification of the Administrator or an authorized representative.

[58 FR 34524, June 28, 1993]