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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-305-000]

Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

June 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 1, 2000, Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to be effective 
July 1, 2000.

Second Revised Sheet No. 12,
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 71,
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 72,
Sixth revised Sheet No. 73,
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 74,
Third Revised Sheet No. 126,
Third Revised Sheet No. 164,
First Revised Sheet No. 226A,
Original Sheet No. 226B,
Pro-Forma Sheet No. 10,
Pro-Forma Sheet No. 10A

    MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to enable MRT and its 
Transportation Customers, upon FERC authorization, the opportunity to 
negotiate a rate for transportation service that varies from the 
current Tariff rate. MRT also states that all customers under the 
Tariff would continue to have recourse to service at the traditional 
cost-based rate available under the Tariff for that service.
    MRT states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of 
MRT's customers and to the state commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and 
Missouri.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rimbs.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14566 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### § 160.107 Denial of entry.

Each District Commander or Captain of the Port, subject to recognized principles of international law, may deny entry into the navigable waters of the United States or to any port or place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and within the district or zone of that District Commander or Captain of the Port, to any vessel not in compliance with the provisions of the Port and Tanker Safety Act (46 U.S.C. Chapter 700) or the regulations issued thereunder.

[CGD 79-026, 48 FR 35404, Aug. 4, 1983, as amended by USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58280, Sept. 18, 2020]
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
#### PETER BOOS, Respondent, *v.*THE WORLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

*Evidence—when to he passed upon hy coun't, and when hy jury—Breach of warranty should, he pleaded.*

Whether there is any evidence in the case is a question for the court; whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a verdict is a question for the jury.

In order to avoid a policy of insurance on the ground of a breach of warranty, such breach should be pleaded.

Appeal from' a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury at the Kings county Circuit.

This action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of a policy *134of insurance, issued by the defendant upon the life of his (plaintiff ’s) father.

The defense was that Valentine Boos (the father) had falsely answered certain questions. The General Term, after a review of the evidence, was of opinion that the case was a proper one to be submitted to the jury, and affirmed the judgment, with costs.

*Joshua M. Van Cott*and *Wm. P. Prentice,*for the appellant.

*John H. Bergen,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present — Gilbert and Tappen, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(iii)A(55)



AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into on the date set forth below by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and Karen J. Holcom (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Change in Control Agreement, dated as of March 28, 2018 (“CIC Agreement”), providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated in connection with a Change in Control (as defined in the CIC Agreement); and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the CIC Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the CIC Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 3.1(b) is amended by adding a new subparagraph 3.1(b)(6) as follows:


(6) Any benefit payable in accordance with the terms of the Acuity Brands, Inc. 2002 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective July 1, 2019, except as otherwise noted (the “SERP”); provided that if Executive’s Termination Date occurs prior to the date that Executive has three (3) Years of Credited Service (as defined in the SERP), Executive shall be deemed to have earned three (3) Years of Credited Service thereunder. 
		
	2.
	This Amendment to the CIC Agreement shall be effective on August 20, 2019.  Except as hereby modified, the CIC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


    
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date(s) written below.
	
				
	 
	 
	COMPANY

	 
	 
	 

	EXECUTIVE
	 
	ACUITY BRANDS, INC.

	/s/ Karen J. Holcom
	 
	By:  
	/s/ Vernon J. Nagel

	Karen J. Holcom
	 
	 
	VERNON J. NAGEL

	 
	 
	 
	Chairman, President and CEO

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:   8/22/2019                                                         
	 
	Date:  8/20/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1999 AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,167
<PP&E>                                         275,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,859)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     285,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,004
<SALES>                                        383,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               383,255
<CGS>                                        (267,790)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (264,842)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (149,377)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (12,064)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (161,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (161,441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40934 Conference Calendar

JAMES L. SWEED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WARDEN ZELLER; MAJOR CAMPUZANO WILLISON; ANN RICHARDS, Governor, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-484

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James L. Sweed appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argued in the district court that the defendants denied him equal protection because they allowed Hispanic inmates to watch Hispanic rap music ontelevision but refused to allow black inmates to watch AfricanAmerican rap music. The magistrate judge dismissed Sweed’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, Sweed does not address the merits of the districtcourt's opinion. His appeal is frivolous and is dismissed

accordingly. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Sweed that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Sweed is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
- Skip to Content
    - navy.mil
    - navy.com
    - nko.navy.mil
    - Home
    - About Us        - Leadership
      - Organization
      - History
      - Diversity
      - Alumni 
    - News        - Public Affairs Officer
      - JAG TV
      - JAG Radio
      - JAG Magazine
      - Hot Topic 
    - Careers        - Navy Lawyers
      - Navy Paralegals
      - Navy Reserve
      - Civilians 
    - Legal Services
    - Courts        - NMCCA          - Opinion Archive
        - Oral Arguments
        - Digest
        - History 
      - Trial Judiciary 
    - Library        - FOIA          - FOIA FAQ 
      - Reading Room          - NMCCA Opinion Archive
        - JAGMAN Investigations
        - JAG References 
      - JAG / CNLSC Instructions
      - JAG / CNLSC Notices
      - Links 
    - Naval Justice School        - NJS Curriculum
      - NJS Publications 
    - Contact Us

# U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps

## The Navy JAG Library

      - Home  > 
      - Library  > 
      - JAG / CNLSC Instructions

## JAG / CNLSC Instructions

This section also includes administrative staff manuals and instructions, or portions thereof, that establish Department of Defense (DoD) policy or interpretations of policy that affect the public.

#### Directions:

To aid your search for information within the archive, the table below has a few key features:
        - Table Sort:  Click on a column heading to sort the table by that column.
        - Highlight:  Click on any row to highlight the information.
        - Search:  You can search any column for specific information. Choose a column name in the drop down box, enter your query and click the Search button. You can clear the search results using the Rest button.

### Get the Info You Need

        - FOIA
        - Reading Room
        - JAG / CNLSC Instructions
        - JAG / CNLSC Notices
        - Links

If the information you are looking for is not available here, you may submit a FOIA Request.

 Many of the publications available on this Web site are Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To view and print these documents, download and install the free Adobe Reader software.

    - Home  | 
    - About Us  | 
    - News  | 
    - Careers  | 
    - Legal Services  | 
    - Library  | 
    - Naval Justice School  | 
    - Contact Us  | 
    - Site Map  | 
    - Privacy Policy
    - 1322 Patterson Ave.  | 
    - Suite 3000  | 
    - Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066  | 
    - Contact Webmaster  | 
    - GILS Registration Number 45473

An Official Web Site of the United States Navy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

MARIEL TOLLINCHI,

REGINE MARIE RENE,

BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE,

MAURICE SHAZIER, and

ROBENSON LAUVINCE,

Defendants.

GOVERNMENT’S FIFTH DISCOVERY RESPONSE

The United States respectfully supplements our discovery response in this matter. The 

government has provided additional discovery to the defense as summarized in the attached 

inventory. The inventory is optimized to print on legal paper.

Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Marc Osborne

Assistant United States Attorney

Court ID# A5500796

500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Tel: (561) 209-1014

marc.osborne@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1





ADAMS RESOURCES & ENERGY, INC.
 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 Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, K. S. Adams, Jr., 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 to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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/ K. S. Adams, Jr.
 K. S. Adams, Jr.
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 Date:  May 13, 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5047

To impose restrictions on the use of amounts collected as fees at Cape

Hatteras National Seashore under the Recreational Fee Demonstration

Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. JONES of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To impose restrictions on the use of amounts collected as

fees at Cape Hatteras National Seashore under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF ADMISSION AND

4 USER FEES COLLECTED AT CAPE HATTERAS

5 NATIONAL SEASHORE UNDER REC6 REATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

7 Amounts collected as admission or user fees at Cape

8 Hatteras National Seashore under the Recreational Fee

9 Demonstration Program conducted under section 315 of
2

•HR 5047 IH

1 the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Ap2 propriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section 101(c) of

3 Public Law 104–134; 16 U.S.C. 460l–6a note) may not

4 be used—

5 (1) to conduct, or reimburse any other National

6 Park Service account to pay the costs of, any study

7 of the effects of off-road motorized vehicles on the

8 beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore;

9 (2) to develop or implement a management plan

10 for Cape Hatteras National Seashore that restricts

11 vehicle access to the beaches of the seashore or

12 beach driving at the seashore; or

13 (3) for any study of off-road vehicle use in Cape

14 Hatteras National Seashore unless the study is spe15 cifically authorized by a law enacted after the date

16 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32

<PAGE>





      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


R. Miles Ledgerwood,  President and Chief Executive Officer, and Norma J. Clute,
Chief  Financial  Officer and  Treasurer  of  Alamogordo  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company") each certify in his or her capacity as an officer of the Company that
he or she has reviewed  the Annual  Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended June 30, 2004 and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

October 12, 2004                           /s/ R. Miles Ledgerwood
----------------------------------         -------------------------------------
Date                                       R. Miles Ledgerwood
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

October 12, 2004                           /s/ Norma J. Clute
----------------------------------         -------------------------------------
Date                                       Norma J. Clute
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4878 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4878

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the percent 
 of hospital bad debt that is reimbursable under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2000

Mr. Greenwood (for himself, Ms. DeGette, Mr. English, and Mrs. Thurman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
  Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the percent 
 of hospital bad debt that is reimbursable under the Medicare Program.

    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 ``Hospital Indigent Care Relief Act of 
2000''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING THE PERCENT OF HOSPITAL BAD DEBT THAT IS 
              REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (T) of section 1861(v)(1) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)), as added by section 4451 
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) applies to 
cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
#### JAMES GOPSILL, Respondent, *v.*DAVID R. DECKER AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS.

*Undertaking—approval of sureties not indorsed upon—justification —waiver.*

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals an undertaking was given with two sureties, to whose sufficiency the plaintiff excepted; upon examination one of them was approved, and the other not being considered sufficient, an adjournment was had to give the defendant time to give additional surety. Subsequently it was agreed by the attorneys of the respective parties, that both the *626said sureties should be accepted, defendant’s attorney promising to have it so marked upon the undertaking by the court; which, however, was never done, although the appeal was taken as though it had been.

In this action brought upon, the undertaking against the sureties thereto, they claimed that it could not be maintained for the reason that the approval of the sureties had never been indorsed on the undertaking as required by section 196 of the Code. *Held,*that the objection could not be sustained: 1. Because it would enable the defendants to take advantage of their own wrong. 2. That the consent in writing by the plaintiff’s attorney, to accept the surety first objected to, was a waiver of the justification and no indorsement was necessary.

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, granting a new trial.

*Hatch & Van*Allen, for the appellants.

*E. A.*Doolittle, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.