alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S89A0334.

#### ARGYLE REALTY COMPANY v. COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

(386 SE2d 161)

Hunt, Justice.

Argyle Realty Company (Argyle) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint for injunctive relief in which it sought to enjoin the Cobb County School District and Cobb County Board of Education from changing the name of Orme Campbell High School to Smyrna High School.

In 1950, Argyle sold the property upon which Campbell High School is located to the Cobb County School District and Board of Education. The deed provided that a school building was to be erected on the property and was to be operated under the name of Orme Campbell High School. In 1989, the County Board of Education decided to merge Campbell High with Wills High locating all the students at Campbell and changing the name of the building to Smyrna High School. The record reflects that Argyle sold the property to the defendants for less than half its fair market value and that at least part of the consideration for that reduction in price was the defendants’ agreement to name the school after Richard Orme Campbell, who was the father of Mrs. Campbell, then Argyle’s owner. Thus, the defendants are legally, if not also morally, bound by their agreement *655to retain the name of the school as Orme Campbell High School. OCGA § 44-5-39. Contrary to the defendants’ arguments and the trial court’s conclusion, OCGA § 44-5-60 (b), which establishes a twenty-year limitation on “covenants restricting lands to certain *uses”*(emphasis supplied) does not apply here because the covenant stipulates the name of the school, and does not restrict the use of the property.* Neither is the rule against perpetuities, which proscribes remoteness of vesting but does not invalidate the length of an interest, applicable here. *Burt v. Commercial Bank &c. Co.,*244 Ga. 253, 257 (260 SE2d 306) (1979). We find no merit to the defendants’ remaining enumerations of error. Therefore, the trial court’s order dismissing Argyle’s complaint is reversed.

Decided December 5, 1989.

*Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, Walter G. Elliott II,*for appellant.

*Richard H. Still, George W. Carreker,*for appellees.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*

 Argyle concedes the defendants cannot be required to maintain a school on the property.
No. 10-10926.

#### Estrada-Landero *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Toys "R" Us, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John H.
Eyler, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

            1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; 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/ John H. Eyler, Jr.
                          ---------------------------------
                          Name:  John H. Eyler, Jr.
                          Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Date:  April 30, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Toys "R" Us, Inc. and will be retained by Toys "R" Us, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 46521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6894]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Plan for Collection of Meteorites Issued Under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Amended

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a plan for collection of meteorites; 
invitation for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 31, 2003, the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
issued a final rule that authorized the collection of meteorites in 
Antarctica for scientific purposes only. These regulations implement 
Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic 
Treaty and are issued pursuant to Section 6 of the Antarctic 
Conservation Act, as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and 
Conservation Act of 1996. The regulations require appropriate 
collection, handling, and curation of Antarctic meteorites to preserve 
their scientific value. Antarctic expeditions planning to collect 
meteorites in Antarctica are required to submit their plans for the 
collection, handling, and curation of the meteorites to the National 
Science Foundation. NSF is providing notice of availability of a 
meteorite collection plan and inviting comments on the plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A meteorite collection plan has been 
received from Dr. Ralph Harvey of Case Western Reserve University. 
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or 
views with respect to this plan by August 29, 206. This plan may be 
inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address listed 
above.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-6894 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dartanian LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-2324.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 9, 2004.

*181Mel S. Johnson, Michelle L. Jacobs, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew J. McGowan, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

The court’s final order and judgment of March 8, 2004, were improvidently issued and are rescinded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (File No. 333-13955 and No. 333-13959) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-37523, File No. 333-40827 and File No.
333-74345) of Sterling Commerce, Inc., and in the related Prospectuses of our
report dated November 17, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Sterling Commerce, Inc. included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
December 15, 1999
#### § 24.236 Field strength limits.

The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the border of the PCS service area shall not exceed 47 dBuV/m unless the parties agree to a higher field strength.
Exhibit 10.09(b)  


FORM OF

AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

CUSTOMER AGREEMENT  


        WHEREAS,
MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM CURRENCY L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Customer"), and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, formerly Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a
Delaware corporation, (the "Commodity Broker") have agreed to amend the Customer Agreement, dated as of the 30th day of June 2000, as amended and supplemented from time to time, (the "Customer
Agreement"), by and between the Customer and the Commodity Broker, to reflect the merger of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and to amend the rate of
interest income credited to the Customer's account by the Commodity Broker. Terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Customer Agreement. 



        WHEREAS,
all provisions contained in the Customer Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Customer Agreement as follows: 



	1.
	Morgan
Stanley DW Inc. has been merged into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and any references to "DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.", the predecessor to Morgan Stanley
DW Inc., shall mean "MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED".



	2.
	The
third sentence of Section 7 Investment of Customer Funds is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated will credit the Customer with interest income on 80% of the Customer's Net Assets on deposit with Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated at each
month-end at the rate equal to the monthly average of the 4-Week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate during such month." 



	3.
	This
Amendment No. 2 shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of New York. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 to the Customer Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the [    ] day of
[                      ] 2007. 



	 	 	MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM CURRENCY L.P.
	

 	
 	

By:	

Demeter Management Corporation,

General Partner
	

 	
 	

By:	

 Name:

Title:
	

 	
 	

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED
	

 	
 	

By:	

 Name:

Title:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 20
- 00 074
- CV



### _________________

IN RE MARK ATHANS

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18
- 01
- 01228
- CV

________________________________________________________________________ ORDER Mark Athans filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator is the respondent in contempt proceedings in Trial Cause Number 18

- 01

- 01228

- CV, In the Matter of the Marriage of Mark Edward Athans and C h arity Lenee Athans

. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Patrice McDonald , Judge of the County Court at Law Number 3 of Montgomery County, Texas , to set aside the divorce decree and all orders flowing from it, including a contempt order. See Tex. Gov ’t Code Ann. §2 22.221

. In the alternative, r elator asks this Court to set aside the contempt order and order a new trial with a mandate that extrinsic evidence is permissible

. Relator requests that all contempt proceedings, including his payment obligations, be stayed as temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It is ORDERE D that all further proceedings in Trial Cause Number 18

- 01

- 01228

- CV are STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of the relator as a condition to any relief herein granted.
Th e response of the real party in interest, Charity Lenee Athans , is due March 12, 2020

. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED. ORDER ENTERED March 2 , 20 20

. PER CURIAM
Before Kreger , Horton, and Johnson , JJ.
§ 54.412 Off reservation Tribal lands designation process. ( a ) The Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Native Affairs and Policy may, upon receipt of a request made in accordance with the requirements of this section, designate as Tribal lands, for the purposes of the Lifeline and Tribal Link Up program, areas or communities that fall outside the boundaries of existing Tribal lands but which maintain the same characteristics as lands identified as Tribal lands defined as in § 54.400(e).
( b ) A request for designation must be made to the Commission by a duly authorized official of a federally recognized American Indian Tribe or Alaska Native Village.
( c ) A request for designation must clearly describe a defined geographical area for which the requesting party seeks designation as Tribal lands.
( d ) A request for designation must demonstrate the Tribal character of the area or community.
( e ) A request for designation must provide sufficient evidence of a nexus between the area or community and the Tribe, and describe in detail how program support to the area or community would aid the Tribe in serving the needs and interests of its citizens and further the Commission's goal of increasing telecommunications access on Tribal lands.
( f ) Upon designation by the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, the area or community described in the designation shall be considered Tribal lands for the purposes of this subpart.
[77 FR 12972, Mar. 2, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 38534, June 28, 2012]
Exhibit 10.19



 





Exhibit 10.19




Description of Compensation Payable to Directors




     In March, 2007, the Company amended its director compensation policy. The amended policy will
be effective April 2, 2007. The following summarizes the compensation and benefits to be received
by the Company’s directors under the amended policy. It is intended to be a summary of the amended
policy and is not intended to provide any additional rights to any director.



Directors who are also employees of the Company are compensated as officers of the
Company and shall receive no additional compensation for serving as directors.
Each non-employee director shall receive an annual retainer of $30,000 for service
on the Board of Directors. In addition, each non-employee director shall receive
(i) $2,500 for attendance at each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of
Directors or each committee meeting not otherwise held on the day of a board
meeting or other committee meeting, (ii) $1,000 for attendance at each committee
meeting held on the day of a board meeting or other committee meeting, and (iii)
$1,000 for attendance by telephone at any specially called board meeting or
committee meeting. The Chairs of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and
Nominating Committee shall receive additional annual retainers of $10,000, $7,500
and $5,000, respectively. In addition, each non-employee director shall be
granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock upon the
date of first election or appointment to the Board of Directors and shall be
granted automatically on an annual basis an option to purchase 6,000 shares of
such stock on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders. The
options will have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the
Company’s common stock on the date of the grant and will vest in four equal annual
installments. Directors also will be reimbursed for all out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in attending board or committee meetings.
**Exhibit 10.2**

**Amendment to**

**COMFORCE Corporation 2002 Stock Option Plan**

Effective as of June 7, 2006, Section 1.07 of the COMFORCE Corporation 2002 Stock Option Plan is amended and restated as follows: 

**1.07. Aggregate Limitation on Awards.**

Shares of stock which may be issued under the Plan shall be authorized and unissued or treasury shares of Common Stock. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock for which Options may be issued under the Plan shallbe 2,000,000 shares, subject to adjustment as provided herein. If any Option granted under the Plan shall terminate, expire or be canceled as to any shares, new Options may thereafter be granted under the Plan covering those shares, subject to thelimitations imposed under paragraph 1.04(a)(3).
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0005843 25-SEP-2015 08:53 AM
§ 22.1009 Transmitter locations. The rules in this section establish limitations on the locations from which stations in the Offshore Radiotelephone Service may transmit. ( a ) *All stations.* Offshore stations must not transmit from locations outside the boundaries of the appropriate zones specified in § 22.1007. Offshore stations must not transmit from locations within 241 kilometers (150 miles) of any full-service television station that transmits on the TV channel containing the channel on which the offshore station transmits.
( b ) *Airborne subscriber stations.* Airborne subscriber stations must not transmit from altitudes exceeding 305 meters (1000 feet) above mean sea level. Airborne mobile stations in Zone A must not transmit from locations within 129 kilometers (80 miles) of Lake Charles, Louisiana. Airborne mobile stations in Zone B must not transmit from locations within 129 kilometers (80 miles) of Lafayette, Louisiana. Airborne mobile stations in Zone C must not transmit from locations within 129 kilometers (80 miles) of Corpus Christi or locations within 129 kilometers (80 miles) of Houston, Texas.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

I, Angela Du, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xin Net Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 19, 2003

/s/ Angela Du
-----------------------
Angela Du, President, CEO
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-1028: SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"r6IsunolGQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-13-2022-23-1028-sanford-v-franklin-va-order-23-1028-order-12-13-2022_2047203\/\">23-1028: SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-13-2022-23-1028-sanford-v-franklin-va-order-23-1028-order-12-13-2022_2047203\/embed\/#?secret=r6IsunolGQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-1028: SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"r6IsunolGQ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1028 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# UC2 Kickoff Event

/ Published Dec. 7, 2021
7 December 2021, 
The UC4 team at the NDU CIC hosted the inaugural UC2 Kickoff Event. The physical location of the event was the Hill Conference Room (Room #303) on the third floor of Roosevelt Hall at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. Attendees included members of the Joint Staff J6, the NSA, USCYBERCOM, high-level DoD officials and staff members, a Congressional staff member, the NDU CIC Chancellor, the UC4 Director, and the Director of the UC2 Support Center. The keynote address was given by the Honorable Heidi Shyu, Under Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)).
Publication 686 is being revised to reflect the new U.S. Residency Certification requirements and 

procedures. The revised publication is expected to be released by June 1, 2004. For interim 

guidance in completing Form 8802, click on the link below: 

 

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=122559,00.html

Please note: the above URL will work properly if you are using Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or 5.0 in your 

browser. If you are using an earlier version of Adobe Acrobat, please copy & paste the URL 

directly into the address line on your browser. We regret any inconvenience.