alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 68.502 Labeling, warranty, instructions, and notice of revocation of approval. ( a ) *Labeling* — ( 1 ) *Hearing aid compatible equipment.* All ACS telephonic CPE manufactured in the United States (other than for export) or imported for use in the United States after February 28, 2020, that is hearing aid compatible, as defined in §§ 68.316 and 68.317, shall have the letters “HAC” permanently affixed thereto. “Permanently affixed” means that the label is etched, engraved, stamped, silkscreened, indelibly printed, or otherwise permanently marked on a permanently attached part of the equipment or on a nameplate of metal, plastic, or other material fastened to the equipment by welding, riveting, or a permanent adhesive. The label must be designed to last the expected lifetime of the equipment in the environment in which the equipment may be operated and must not be readily detachable.
( 2 ) *Non-hearing aid compatible equipment.* Non-hearing aid compatible ACS telephonic CPE offered for sale to the public on or after February 28, 2020, shall contain in a conspicuous location on the surface of its packaging a statement that the ACS telephonic CPE is not hearing aid compatible, as defined in §§ 68.4(a)(3), 68.316, 68.317, or if offered for sale without a surrounding package, shall be affixed with a written statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible, as defined in §§ 68.4(a)(3), 68.316 and 68.317; and be accompanied by instructions in accordance with § 68.218(b)(2).
( b ) *Warranty.* In acquiring approval for equipment to be labeled and otherwise represented to be hearing aid compatible, the responsible party warrants that each item of equipment marketed under such authorization will comply with all applicable rules and regulations of this part and with the applicable technical criteria.
( c ) *Instructions.* The responsible party or its agent shall provide the user of the approved ACS telephonic CPE the following: ( 1 ) Any consumer instructions required to be included with approved ACS telephonic CPE by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments;
( 2 ) For ACS telephonic CPE that is not hearing aid compatible, as defined in § 68.316: ( i ) Notice that FCC rules prohibit the use of that handset in certain locations; and
( ii ) A list of such locations (*see* § 68.112).
( d ) *Notice of revocation.* When approval is revoked for any item of equipment, the responsible party must take all reasonable steps to ensure that purchasers and users of such equipment are notified to discontinue use of such equipment.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00524-CV

$2,848.69 U.S. CURRENCY, 77 GAMBLING DEVICES, ASSORTED GAMBLING 

EQUIPMENT, PARAPHERNALIA AND PROCEEDS

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-DCL-3726-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 25, 2015.
No. 11-9884.

#### Liles *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-14-00134-CV

Trial Court No. 2012-1842-A

American Idol, General, LP d/b/a The REO, and Randy Hanson a/k/a Randall

Hanson

Vs.

Pither Plumbing Co., Inc.

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Supplemental clerk's record

Motion fee

Motion fee

Reporter's record

Clerk's record

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$10.00

$67.00

$10.00

$10.00

$215.00

$256.00

$20.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00

Tammy Williams

T. JOHN WARD JR.

Ken W Good

Ken W Good

Moran Law Firm

MORAN LAW FIRM

Moran Law Firm

Moran Law Firm

Moran Law Firm

Moran Law Firm

TOTAL: $763.00

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 10th day of July 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                      ------------------
                                                 March 31,           March 31,
                                                   2001                2000
<S>                                            <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss) .....................        $    136,728        $ (3,088,849)

Actual outstanding common shares
at beginning of  period ...............          50,004,474          50,000,000

Weighted Basic Shares .................          50,004,474          50,000,000

Weighted diluted shares ...............          50,004,474          50,000,000

Basic earnings (loss) per share .......        $        .00        $       (.06)

Diluted earnings (loss) per share .....        $        .00        $       (.06)
</TABLE>
No. 11-5581.

#### Brizuela-Ramos *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Ex_1029



		

			Exhibit 10.29

		





		
			AMENDMENT ONE
		

		
			TO THE
		

		
			OFFICERS’ DEATH BENEFIT PLAN OF NEWMONT  
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Officers’ Death Benefit Plan of Newmont (the “Plan”) was amended and restated by Newmont USA Limited (the “Plan Sponsor”) effective January 1, 2013; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor wishes to close post-employment benefits to Salaried Employees who do not meet the eligibility requirements for the Plan as of January 1, 2017; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, Article X of the Plan authorizes the Plan Sponsor to amend the Plan from time to time.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 2017 as follows:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			Article II, “Eligibility,” is amended by restating Section 2.01 as follows:




		
			Section 2.01.  Eligible Classes of Employees and Retirees.  The death benefits provided under this Plan will be paid pursuant to Article III if the Salaried Employee or Retiree satisfies the following requirements of this Section.
		

		
			(a)Current Salaried Employees.  A current Salaried Employee of the Employer is eligible for the Plan if:
		

		
			(i)the Salaried Employee is a corporate officer of Newmont Mining Corporation and is classified as an executive grade; or
		

		
			(ii)the Salaried Employee is designated by the Vice President of Human Resources of Newmont Mining or his delegate as eligible for the Plan.
		

		
			Notwithstanding any provision of this Plan to the contrary, a Salaried Employee who becomes eligible for the Plan on or after January 1, 2017 shall cease to be covered under the Plan upon his or her retirement or termination of employment with the Employer and the Salaried Employee will no longer be eligible for benefits with the Plan.
		

		
			(b)Retired Salaried Employees on and After January 1, 2004.  A retired Salaried Employee of the Employer who retires on or after January 1, 2004 is eligible for the Plan if:
		

			
	
			
				 (i)
			the Retiree was an eligible Salaried Employee under 2.01(a) at the time of his retirement;




			
	
			
				 (ii)
			the Retiree attained age 55 as of the date of his or her retirement; and




		
			


		 


		

			Officers’ Death Benefit Plan of Newmont

		


		

			Amendment One Effective January 1, 2017

		


		

			Page 1 of 2

		


		

			2424608 v.2

		





 



		

			
	
			
				 (iii)
			the Retiree satisfied the Rule of 75 at the time of retirement.




			
	
			
				 2.
			The Administration Committee or its delegate is hereby authorized to take all action necessary to implement this Amendment.




		
			The foregoing was adopted this 21st day of December, 2016.
		

		
			NEWMONT USA LIMITED
		

		
			By /s/ Stephen P. Gottesfeld     
		

		
			Name Stephen P. Gottesfeld     
		

		
			Title Vice President                  
		

		
			 
		


		 


		

			Officers’ Death Benefit Plan of Newmont

		


		

			Amendment One Effective January 1, 2017

		


		

			Page 2 of 2
aph_Ex10_7


		
			Exhibit 10.7
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			FIRST AMENDMENT (2016-1) TO THE 
PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMPHENOL CORPORATION 
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016
		

		
			 
		

		
			Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Pension Plan for Employees of Amphenol Corporation as amended and restated effective January 1, 2016 (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective January 1, 2008: 
		

		
			 
		

		
			
		

		
			1.A new subsection (i) is added to Section 5.3 to read as follows:
		

		
			 
		

		
			See section 101(j) of ERISA for rules requiring the plan administrator of a single employer defined benefit pension plan to provide a written notice to participants and beneficiaries within 30 days after certain specified dates if the plan has become subject to a limitation described in this Section 5.3.
		

		
			
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			AMPHENOL CORPORATION
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			DATED: November 10, 2016
		

		
			BY:
		

		
			/s/ David Silverman
		

		
			David Silverman
		

		
			
		

		
			 
		

		
			Its:Vice President Human Resources
#### I. R. Alter et al. v. L. L. Covey et al.

Filed June 19, 1895.

No. 6140.

Trial: Rulings on Evidence: Review. Error cannot be predicated upon the refusal of the district court to permit a witness to answer a certain question, when there was made no offer of proofs which would be elicited if the desired answer was permitted to be made.

Error from the district court of Howard county. Tried below before Harrison, J.

*T. T. Bell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Paul & Templin*and *W. H. Thompson, contra.*

Ryan, C.

In the district court of Howard county plaintiff replevied from the defendant 171 steers, being such surviving part of 200 as had been entrusted to the defendant for keeping through the winter of 1890 and 1891. The *509plaintiff also claimed damages to the amount of $300 on account of the negligent manner in which said 171 steers had been kept, as well as the market value of the other twenty-nine head, which had died or been lost, estimated at $810. The defendant claimed the right to the possession of the cattle replevied by virtue of his right to an agister’s lien by reason of the performance of his own undertakings, evidenced by a written contract, by virtue of which he undertook and did care for and “rough through the winter of 1890 and 1891, 200 head of Utah cattle, at $5 per head.” It was stipulated in this agreement that if aforesaid cattle were lost, or should die through the neglect or fault of the defendants, that they should pay the market value of all cattle which “are so lost or die.” It was conceded that in some inexplicable manner two steers were lost, but the contention of the defendants was that the other twenty-seven head died without their fault or neglect; There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants in the sum of $870.32.

In argument plaintiffs urge as one ground of reversal that they should have been permitted to show what meaning was attached to the expression “roughing through the winter.” It is a sufficient answer to this to say that there was no offer made whereby was shown what the witness, if permitted, would testify was such meaning. The alleged error, if such it was, is not available, as has been held in many cases by this court. It is urged that the verdict was for too large an amount, but we can only say as to this that it was within the limits of the proofs, and therefore we cannot now say it was excessive. These are the only questions discussed in the brief of plaintiffs in error. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Harrison, J., having presided at the trial in the district court, took no part in the decision of this case.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            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)

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), each of the
undersigned officers of MIV Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form 10-Q") that, to the best of their
knowledge:

         (1) the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated: January 14, 2008                            /s/ Mark Landy
                                                   ----------------------
                                                   Mark Landy
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Dated: January 14, 2008                            /s/ Patrick McGowan
                                                   ----------------------
                                                   Patrick McGowan
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5573.

#### Galloway *v.*West Virginia.

Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARVIN JACKSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMAITON EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000008038
<NAME> ASTREX, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (79)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,725
<PP&E>                                           1,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (581)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,602
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         19
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,575
<SALES>                                          9,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,126
<CGS>                                            7,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    313
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       313
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Preferred Investment Solutions Corp., the Managing
Owner of Futures Strategic Trust (Registrant), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer        
|Kenneth A. Shewer            
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|March 30, 2007
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 and

LEONARD WEINGLASS, ESQ.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL GEOSPATIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY;

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55754

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03375-MMM-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 9, 2013

Pasadena, California

FILED

JAN 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit 

Judges.

The district court erred in granting summary judgment without requiring the

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to submit a classified declaration for in

camera review. The government’s unclassified declaration failed to provide

“reasonably specific detail” that would show why merely acknowledging the

existence of records might reveal intelligence sources or methods, or affect our

foreign relations. See Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007); see

also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (3); 50 U.S.C. § 403–1(i)(1); Exec. Order No. 13,526,

§§ 1.1, 1.4(c), (d), 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Jan. 5, 2010). If this were sufficient to

support summary judgment, the government would be free to issue a Glomar

response in practically every case involving satellite images and records, as well as

many other surveillance activities. 

On remand, the agency shall provide a classified declaration for in camera

review by the district court, as it offered at oral argument. The court may then

reconsider its summary judgment ruling in light of the information so provided.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46507-46508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-910-0777-XP-241A]


State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Arizona Resource 
Advisory Council (RAC).
    The business meeting will be held on September 6, 2006, in St. 
George, Utah, at the Arizona Strip District Office located at 245 East 
Riverside Drive. It will begin at 9 a.m. and conclude at 4 p.m.--
Mountain Standard Time. The agenda items to be covered include: Review 
of the March 2 and June 8, 2006, Meeting Minutes; BLM State Director's 
Update on Statewide Issues; Presentations BLM's Vermilion Cliffs 
National Monument--Coyote Buttes North; and growing interest in uranium

[[Page 46508]]

mining on the Arizona Strip; Updates on the Recreation Resource 
Advisory Committee, and Arizona Land Use Planning; RAC Questions on 
written reports from BLM Field Managers; Field Office Rangeland 
Resource Team Proposals; Reports by the Standards and Guidelines, 
Recreation, Off-Highway Vehicle Use, Public Relations, Land Use 
Planning and Tenure, and Wild Horse and Burro Working Groups; Reports 
from RAC members; and discussion of future meetings. A public comment 
period will be provided at 11:30 a.m. on September 6, 2006, for any 
interested publics who wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427, (602) 417-9215.

Joanie Losacco,
Acting Arizona State Director.
[FR Doc. 06-6890 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending  September 30,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") for Electronic Game Card, Inc., (the "Company"),  the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

(1)      to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

(2)      to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         result of operations of the Company.

April 6, 2006


/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
---------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 11-5690.

#### Lee *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.