alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4(c).8.2
 nationalgrid
 Sir John Parker FREngChairmanD: +44 (0) 20 7004 301024 March 2009
    
    F: +44 (0) 20 7004 3012M: +44 (0) 7831 496201Mr Robert B. Catell
    
    john.parker@ngrid.com62 Osborne RoadGarden CityNew York  11530 USA
 Non-Executive Director Contract for Services
 Company Non-Executive Director
 Appointment
 Time Commitment  1 2
  1 of 4




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 4(c).8.2
  Role
  
    
    provides effective business leadership of the Company within a framework of prudent
and effective controls which enable risk to be assessed and managed;
    
    sets the Companys strategic aims, ensures that the necessary financial and human
resources are in place for the Company to meet its objectives, and reviews management
performance; and
    
    sets the Companys values and standards and ensures that its obligations to its
shareholders and others are understood and met.
  
    
    Strategy:Non-Executive Directors should constructively challenge and contribute to
the development of strategy;
    
    Performance:Non-Executive Directors should scrutinise the performance of
management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitor the reporting of
performance;
    
    Risk:Non-Executive Directors should satisfy themselves that the financial function
of the Company is professionally managed and that financial controls and systems of
risk management are robust and defensible; and
    
    People:Non-Executive Directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels
of remuneration for Executive Directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where
necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.
 Committees and other roles
 Fees
  2 of 4




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 4(c).8.2
    Independence  not
 Outside Interests
 Confidentiality
   Insurance
 Indemnity
 3 of 4




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 4(c).8.2
  Independent Professional Advice
 Governing Law
 Entire Agreement
 Counterparts
  NATIONAL GRID PLC
 /s/ Sir John Parker  Sir John Parker
  /s/Robert B. Catell  Robert B. Catell
 4 of 4
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44041-44042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-922-06-1310-FI-P; NDM 94462]

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
NDM 94462

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation timely 
filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease. NDM 94462, 
Mountrail County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rental 
accruing from the date of termination.
    No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to 
new lease terms for rental and royalty of $10 per acre and 16\2/3\ 
percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. 
The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of 
the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice.

[[Page 44042]]

    The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per 
Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). 
We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of 
termination subject to:
     The original terms and conditions of the lease;
     The increased rental of $10 per acre for the lease;
     The increased royalty 16\2/3\ percent or 4 percentage 
above the existing competitive royalty rate for the lease; and
     The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, 
Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5098.

    Date: July 27, 2006.
Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication section.
[FR Doc. 06-6663 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-M
```
§ 51-5.4 Purchase exceptions. ( a ) A central nonprofit agency will normally grant a purchase exception for a contracting activity to procure from commercial sources commodities or services on the Procurement List when both of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The central nonprofit agency or its nonprofit agency(ies) cannot furnish a commodity or service within the period specified, and
( 2 ) The commodity or service is available from commercial sources in the quantities needed and significantly sooner than it will be available from the nonprofit agency(ies).
( b ) The central nonprofit agency may grant a purchase exception when the quantity involved is not sufficient to be furnished economically by the nonprofit agency(ies).
( c ) The Committee may also grant a purchase exception for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
( d ) The central nonprofit agency shall obtain the approval of the Committee before granting a purchase exception when the value of the procurement exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold set forth in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 or any subsequent amendments thereto.
( e ) When the central nonprofit agency grants a purchase exception under the above conditions, it shall do so promptly and shall specify the quantities and delivery period covered by the exception.
( f ) When a purchase exception is granted under paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) Contracting activities shall initiate purchase actions within 15 days following the date of the purchase exception. The deadline may be extended by the central nonprofit agency with, in cases of procurements exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the concurrence of the Committee.
( 2 ) Contracting activities shall furnish a copy to the solicitation to the appropriate central nonprofit agency at the time it is issued, and a copy of the annotated bid abstract upon awarding of the commercial contract.
( g ) Any decision by a central nonprofit agency regarding a purchase exception may be appealed to the Committee by the contracting activity.
[56 FR 48981, Sept. 26, 1991; 56 FR 64002, Dec. 6, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59343, Nov. 16, 1994]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 131 (Friday, July 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 42059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33886]


Arizona & California Railroad Company Limited Partnership d/b/a 
Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad Company--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Arizona & California Railroad Company Limited Partnership (ARZC) d/
b/a Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad Company (PS&P),\1\ has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease and operate 
approximately 1.8 miles of certain rail lines from the Union Pacific 
Railroad Company (UP) as follows: (1) From UP milepost 53.83 to UP 
milepost 54.23; and (2) from UP milepost 55.28 to UP milepost 56.70, in 
Aberdeen and Hoquiam Counties, WA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ARZC is an existing Class III rail carrier, and PS&P is an 
operating division of ARZC. See Arizona & California Railroad 
Company Limited Partnership--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, STB Finance 
Docket No. 33448 (STB served Sept. 11, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after June 
26, 2000.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33886, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Rose-Michele Weinryb, Esq,, Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & 
Kider, P.C., 1300 19th Street, NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-
1609.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 29, 2000.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17121 Filed 7-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```

[House Report 106-37]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
1st Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-37
_______________________________________________________________________

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 603, TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF 
   THE ACT POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE ``DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT'' TO 
                           AVIATION INCIDENTS

                                _______
                                

   March 2, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 85]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 603, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 603, 
to clarify the application of the act popularly known as the 
``Death on the High Seas Act'' to aviation incidents, under an 
open rule.
    The rule provides one hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule 
provides that each section of the bill shall be considered as 
read. The chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record.
    The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to 
reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if 
the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                                

```
055P16

#### State v. Evans Aine, II

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-490)

Denied
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



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 undersigned officer of Validian Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-KSB”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.



|Dated: March 29, 2004 |  | /s/Andre Maisonneuve
Andre Maisonneuve
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00217-CV

Dan Thomas, Appellant

v.

Terry Keel, Former Sheriff of Travis County, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 96-10397, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Because appellant Dan Thomas failed to timely file his notice of appeal and his

motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction on our

own motion. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We also dismiss his motions to extend time to file a

notice of appeal and his motion to extend time to file a brief.

According to the clerk’s record, the trial court signed an order of dismi ssal in this

cause on June 19, 2002. Thus, a notice of restricted appeal was due to be filed within six months

after the order was signed, or on or before December 19, 2002. S ee id. 26.1(c). Any motion for

extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due within fifteen days of the due date of the notice

of appeal, or January 3, 2003. S ee id. 26.3. Thomas filed his notice of restricted appeal and a motion

for extension of time to file his notice of appeal on April 8, 2003.2 Because Thomas did not file his notice of appeal until more than six months after the

dismissal order was signed, his notice of appeal was untimely, as was his motion for extension of

time. The time period for filing a perfecting instrument is jurisdictional. V elasquez v. Harrison

, 934

S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). When an appellant fails to file

timely a perfecting instrument or properly seek an extension of time to file a perfecting instrument,

the appellate court must dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, t his Court is without

jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and all related motions for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 19, 2003
# Euroopa Liidu C 176A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0898
  doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2013.176.est |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 176A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 56. köide21. juuni 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0898

doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2013.176.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 176A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

56. köide21. juuni 2013

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| 2013/C 176A/01 | Teate avaliku konkursi korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/249/13 — parandus (ELT C 75 A, 14.3.2013) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

2013/C 176A/01

Teate avaliku konkursi korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/249/13 — parandus (ELT C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

(ELT C 75 A, 14.3.2013)

1

Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest

Allpool on esitatud loetelu käesoleva aasta C-seeria A-osas avaldatust.

Kui ei ole märgitud teisiti, on ELTd trükitud kõigis keeltes.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 21.6.2013 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2013

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 176/1

---

Teate avaliku konkursi korraldamise kohta — EPSO/AD/249/13 — parandus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 75 A, 14. märts 2013
  )

(2013/C 176 A/01)

Leheküljel 6 VI osa punktis 2

asendatakse

„—
  erioskusi
  asjaomases valdkonnas järgmise testi (6) kaudu:

| d) | valdkonda käsitlev struktureeritud intervjuu, mille aluseks on kandideerimistaotluse osas „Võimete sõel” esitatud vastused” |
| --- | --- |

d)

valdkonda käsitlev struktureeritud intervjuu, mille aluseks on kandideerimistaotluse osas „Võimete sõel” esitatud vastused”

järgmisega:

„—
  erioskusi
  asjaomases valdkonnas järgmise (6) kaudu:

| d) | struktureeritud intervjuu, mis käsitleb oskusi asjaomases valdkonnas ja mille aluseks on kandideerimistaotluse osas „Võimete sõel” esitatud vastused”. |
| --- | --- |

d)

struktureeritud intervjuu, mis käsitleb oskusi asjaomases valdkonnas ja mille aluseks on kandideerimistaotluse osas „Võimete sõel” esitatud vastused”.

---
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4455

To authorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States to provide financing for the export of nonlethal defense articles and defense services

the primary end use of which will be for civilian purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1994

Mr. BEREUTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To authorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States

to provide financing for the export of nonlethal defense

articles and defense services the primary end use of

which will be for civilian purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4455 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE

2 EXPORT OF NONLETHAL DEFENSE ARTICLES

3 AND DEFENSE SERVICES THE PRIMARY END

4 USE OF WHICH WILL BE FOR CIVILIAN PUR5 POSES.

6 Section 2(b)(6) of the Export-Import Bank Act of

7 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(6)) is amended by adding at the

8 end the following:

9 ‘‘(I) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a sale of

10 defense articles or services if the Bank determines that—

11 ‘‘(i) the defense articles or services are

12 nonlethal; and

13 ‘‘(ii) the primary end use of the defense articles

14 or services will be for civilian purposes.’’.

Æ
#### § 302-11.400 What policies and procedures must we establish?

You must establish internal policies and procedures to implement this part.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certifications**

I, DavidP. Jones, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of TeamHealth Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 10, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3516

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Juan Delacruz Albarran

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison

____________

Submitted: August 29, 2018

Filed: September 4, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Albarran directly appeals the consecutive Guidelines-range sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and financial crime charges. 

1

The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Arkansas.
His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that the sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a

fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir.

2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly stated that it was considering the

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence), and

there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight

to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing

relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (imposition of concurrent or consecutive

prison terms; district court shall consider § 3553(a) factors in making determination);

United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820-22 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review;

affirming where court discussed § 3553(a) factors and imposed consecutive

sentences). 

We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-