alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"22-2081: RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"a4ix1ecKXM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-22-2081-rodriguez-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-2081-opinion-11-9-2022_2031061\/\">22-2081: RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-22-2081-rodriguez-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-2081-opinion-11-9-2022_2031061\/embed\/#?secret=a4ix1ecKXM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2081: RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"a4ix1ecKXM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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":"OPINION Posted: RODRIGUEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2081 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR
The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 S TATE
-OF MICHIGAN EXECUTIVE OFFICE LANSING May 13,2015 The Honorable John F
. Kerry Secretary US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington , DC 20520 Dear Secretary Foxx and Secretary Kerry: BRIAN CALLEY LT
. GOVERNOR

I am writing to urge you to request consultations with the governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to investigate subsidies provided to their state-owned airlines in accordance with the Open Skies agreements held between the United States and the respective countries. It Is ofthe utmost importance that existing agreements between the countries are upheld and enforced
. It has been brought to my attention that state-owned carriers from the UAE and Qatar have been provided with more than $40 billion of subsidies and other unfair benefits that are putting U.S. carriers at a significant competitive disadvantage. These subsidies and unfair benefits have enabled their state-owned carriers to expand international routes to the U.S. beyond the scope of passenger demand, causing US carriers to cut back on existing International routes due to their inability to compete fairly in a distorted market. These subsidies and benefits have been documented by the U
.S. airline Industry and warrant federal attention. This situation has an impact on the entire US economy and can be acutely felt in the State of Michigan
. The airline Industry is critical to the nation's economy: It drives nearly $1.5 trillion In U.S. economic activity, It directly employs 580,000 Americans, and It supports more than 11 million jobs nationwide
. Delta Air Lines alone employs more than 7,500 people at Detroit Metropolitan Airport and generates over $210 million in annual tax revenue. Delta Air Lines and its regional carrier Delta Connection employ 10,000 people statewide in Michigan
. The commercial airline industry as a whole provides an estimated economic Impact of $17.6 billion In Michigan
. Reducing International routes has a domino effect that will cause a reduction in domestic routes and a loss of economic activity throughout the US. Fewer routes to cities and towns with small and mid-sized airports affect notjust airline employees, but also the service network that exists to support our country's robust airtravel network. The Open Skies agreements between the United States, Qatar and the UAE, respectively, provide a mechanism to call for consultations In orderto ensure the agreements are upheld and that state subsidies are addressed. I ask that you exercise your right to address these subsidies and ensure fair competition pursuant to the agreements. Sincerely,

Rick Snyder Governor

GEORGE W
. ROMNEY BUI LDING • 111 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENU E • LANSING, M ICH IGAN 48909 

# s 10-150513-015 www.mlchlgan.gov
- KS 78 1
- KS 78 2
- KS 78 3
#### § 15.253 [Reserved]
No. 11-5446.

#### Larkin *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2016

a0919 

# Order

Clerk September 27, 2016

151414

TAMARA WOODRING,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151414

COA: 324128

Muskegon CC: 14

- 049544

- NI

PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it app earing to this Court that the case of

Spectrum Health Hospitals v Westfield Ins Co (Docket No. 151419) is pending on appeal

before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**The FBI Laboratory : an investigation into laboratory practices andalleged misconduct in explosives-related and other cases
 
V.1 |V.2| 
 
SuDoc Number: J 1.14/2:L11/2; J 1.14/2:L 11/2/APP.
Item Number:0721 (online)

System Number:001150180
May 10, 2021
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Zap.Com Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Avram A. Glazer, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Avram A. Glazer
Avram A. Glazer
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 1, 2003

This Certification accompanies this Report 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.

18
#### § 76.130 Substitutions.

Whenever, pursuant to the requirements of the network program non-duplication or syndicated program exclusivity rules, a satellite carrier is required to delete a television program from retransmission to satellite subscribers within a zip code area, such satellite carrier may, consistent with this subpart, substitute a program from any other television broadcast station for which the satellite carrier has obtained the necessary legal rights and permissions, including but not limited to copyright and retransmission consent. Programs substituted pursuant to this section may be carried to their completion.

[65 FR 68101, Nov. 14, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 63562, Oct. 24, 2014]
§ 64.2001 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of the rules in this subpart is to implement section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 222.
EX-10.2.C



 





Exhibit 10.2.c




AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT




     This AMENDMENT NO. 3 to the Consulting Agreement between the parties is entered into by and
between Michael Baker Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation (the “Corporation”) and Richard L.
Shaw, an individual (the “Executive”), effective April 26, 2006.


WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into the Consulting Agreement, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, effective April 25, 2001, and continuing for
a two (2) year term until April 26, 2003; and



WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Agreement,
effective April 26, 2003, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,
extending the term of the Consulting Agreement for an additional two (2) year period until April
26, 2005; and



WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Consulting
Agreement, effective April 26, 2005, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
C, extending the term of the Consulting Agreement for an additional one (1) year period until April
26, 2006; and



WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive now desire to extend the term of the Consulting
Agreement upon the same terms and conditions for an additional one (1) year period until April 26,
2007;



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable
consideration, and intending to be legally bound hereby, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:





The term of the Consulting Agreement effective April 25, 2001 between the parties as
amended by Amendment No. 1 effective April 26, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 effective April 26,
2005 shall be, and the same hereby is, extended for an additional one (1) year period from
April 26, 2006 until April 26, 2007 upon the same terms and conditions.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, effective April 26, 2006, the parties have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 3
to the Consulting Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION	 	 
	Attest:	 	 	 	(The “Corporation”)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ H. James McKnight
 


	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Donald P. Fusilli, Jr.
 

	 	 
	H. James McKnight

	 	 	 	 	 	Donald P. Fusilli, Jr.	 	 
	Secretary

	 	 	 	 	 	President & Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness:	 	 	 	Richard L. Shaw	 	 
	 	 	 	 	(The “Executive”)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Beverly J. Merriman 	 	 	 	/s/ Richard L. Shaw
#### § 76.1209 Theft of service.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to authorize or justify any use, manufacture, or importation of equipment that would violate 47 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law intended to preclude the unauthorized reception of multichannel video programming service.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4727

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 9 (legislative day, AUGUST 8), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 125 Market

Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Thomas D.

Lambros Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 125 Market Street

5 in Youngstown, Ohio, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building’’.
2

HR 4727 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to

5 be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas D. Lambros Federal

6 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives August 8,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

## Agenda

# Time and Date: 

9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 6, 2006.

# Place: 

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.

# Status: 

The one item is open to the public.

# Matter to be Considered: 

5299U, Most Wanted Safety Recommendations Program—2006 Update on State Issues.

# News Media Contact: 

Keith Holloway, telephone: (202) 314-6100.

Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, September 1, 2006.

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by accessing a link under                         *News & Events*                         on the NTSB home page at                         *http:\\www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

Dated: August 25, 2006.

Vicky D'Onofrio,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-7258 Filed 8-25-06; 2:04 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Medical Imaging BRP.                    

*Date:*                         September 15, 2006.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agency:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Xiang-Ning Li, MD, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-1744.                         *lixiang@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93,837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 17, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-7170 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 68.102 Terminal equipment approval requirement.

Terminal equipment must be approved in accordance with the rules and regulations in subpart C of this part, or connected through protective circuitry that is approved in accordance with the rules and regulations in subpart C.

[66 FR 7582, Jan. 24, 2001]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4878

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a credit

against income tax for 20 percent of the employee training expenses

paid or incurred by the employer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 1, 1994

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a credit against income tax for 20 percent of

the employee training expenses paid or incurred by the

employer.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Job Training Tax

5 Credit Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4878 IH

1 SEC. 2. EMPLOYER CREDIT FOR JOB TRAINING PROGRAM

2 EXPENSES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part IV of sub4 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of

5 1986 (relating to business-related credits) is amended by

6 adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘SEC. 45C. JOB TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.

8 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—For purposes of section 38,

9 in the case of an employer, the job training program credit

10 determined under this section is an amount equal to 20

11 percent of job training program expenses paid or incurred

12 by the taxpayer during the taxable year.

13 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount of job training pro14 gram expenses with respect to an employee which may be

15 taken into account under subsection (a) for the taxable

16 year shall not exceed $6,000.

17 ‘‘(c) JOB TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.—For pur18 poses of this section, the term ‘job training program ex19 penses’ means expenses incurred by reason of the partici20 pation of an employee of the taxpayer in any job training

21 program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.’’

22 (b) CREDIT TO BE PART OF GENERAL BUSINESS

23 CREDIT.—Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code is

24 amended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph (10),

25 by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
3

•HR 4878 IH

1 inserting ‘‘, plus’’, and by adding at the end the following

2 new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(12) in the case of an employer, the job train4 ing program credit determined under section 45C.’’

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

6 for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1

7 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the follow8 ing new item:

‘‘Sec. 45C. Job training program expenses.’’

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after

11 the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years end12 ing after such date.

Æ
§ 80.1181 Station identification. ( a ) On-board stations must identify when: ( 1 ) The vessel is within 32 km (20 miles) of any coastline; or
( 2 ) The communications are likely to be received aboard another vessel.
( b ) Identification, when required, must be: ( 1 ) Transmitted at the beginning and the end of a series of communications. Whenever communications are sustained for a period exceeding 15 minutes, station identification must be transmitted at intervals not exceeding 15 minutes.
( 2 ) In English and must include the name of the vessel, followed by a number or name designating the respective mobile unit, for example: “S.S. United States Mobile One, this is Mobile Two.”
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 44954, Aug. 25, 1993]
§ 80.1001 Applicability. The Bridge-to-Bridge Act and the regulations of this part apply to the following vessels in the navigable waters of the United States: ( a ) Every power-driven vessel of 20 meters or over in length while navigating;
( b ) Every vessel of 100 gross tons and upward carrying one or more passengers for hire while navigating;
( c ) Every towing vessel of 7.8 meters (26 feet) or over in length, measured from end to end over the deck excluding sheer, while navigating; and
( d ) Every dredge and floating plant engaged, in or near a channel or fairway, in operations likely to restrict or affect navigation of other vessels. An unmanned or intermittently manned floating plant under the control of a dredge shall not be required to have a separate radiotelephone capability.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 57 FR 61012, Dec. 23, 1992; 58 FR 44954, Aug. 25, 1993]