alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 76.11 Lockbox enforcement.

Any party aggrieved by the failure or refusal of a cable operator to provided a lockbox as provided for in Title VI of the Communications Act may petition the Commission for relief in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in § 76.7 for petitions for special relief.

[50 FR 18661, May 2, 1985]
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NetFabric Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September  30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Fahad Syed certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





November 4, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Fahad
      SyedName:
      Fahad SyedTitle:
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 49415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Public Meeting, Davy Crockett National Forest Resource 
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 
Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-393) and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, Davy Crockett National Forest Resource 
Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting will meet on September 21, 2006.

DATES: The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC meeting will be held on 
September 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC meeting will be held 
at the Davy Crockett Ranger Station located on State Highway 7, 
approximately one-quarter mile west of FM 227 in Houston County, Texas. 
The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 9 p.m. 
There will be a public comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raoul Gagne, District Ranger, Davy 
Crockett National Forest, Rt. 1, Box 55 FS, Kennard, Texas 75847: 
Telephone 936-655-2299 or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f88a9f999f969db89e8bd69e9d9cd68d8b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c6e7b7d7b72795c7a6f327a797832696f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC 
proposes projects and funding to the Secretary of Agriculture under 
section 203 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 
Determination Act of 2000. The purpose of the September 21, 2006 
meeting is to review the status of approved projects and discuss and 
approve additional project proposals to submit to the Forest Supervisor 
for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. These meetings are 
open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. 
Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing 
public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment 
and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be 
limited.

    Dated: August 17, 2006.
Raoul W. Gagne,
Designated Federal Officer, Davy Crockett National Forest RAC.
[FR Doc. 06-7098 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 80.863 Antenna system. ( a ) An antenna system must be installed which is as nondirectional and as efficient as is practicable for the transmission and reception of radio ground waves over seawater. The installation and construction of the required antenna must insure operation in time of emergency.
( b ) If the required antenna is suspended between masts or other supports liable to whipping, a safety link which, under heavy stress, will operate to greatly reduce such stress without breakage of the antenna, the halyards, or other antenna-supporting elements, must be installed.
( c ) When an electrical ground connection is used as an element of the antenna system, the connection must be efficient.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0165 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2021

12/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0165
§ 80.273 Radar standards. ( a ) Radar installations on board ships that are required by the Safety Convention or the U.S. Coast Guard to be equipped with radar must comply with the following standards (all incorporated by reference, *see* § 80.7): ( 1 ) IEC 60945;
( 2 ) IEC 62388;
( 3 ) IMO Resolution A.694(17), as revised by IMO Resolution MSC.149(77);
( 4 ) IMO Resolution MSC.191(79);
( 5 ) IMO Resolution MSC.192(79); and
( 6 ) ITU-R M.1177-3.
( b ) For any ship of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upwards or that is otherwise required to be equipped with two radar systems, each of the two radar systems must be capable of operating independently and must comply with the specifications, standards and general requirements set forth on paragraph (a) of this section. One of the systems must provide a display with an effective diameter of not less than 320 millimeters (12.6 inches), (16-inch cathode ray tube). The other system must provide a display with an effective diameter of not less than 250 millimeters (9.8 inches), (12-inch cathode ray tube).
( c ) Radar installed before March 25, 2008 must meet and be maintained to comply with the Commission's regulations in effect for the equipment on the date of its installation.
[73 FR 4483, Jan. 25, 2008, as amended at 76 FR 67612, Nov. 2, 2011; 81 FR 90747, Dec. 15, 2016]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1266

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cody Michael Lassen, also known as Cody Michael Lassen, III

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ 

Submitted: December 14, 2020

 Filed: March 29, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cody Michael Lassen appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy 

to distribute methamphetamine. The district court1 found that he was a career 

offender and adopted the presentence investigation report which recommended a 

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a 

Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Lassen’s status as a career offender made 

no impact because his criminal history carried 22 points on its own. The district 

court imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 262 months in prison. Lassen

appeals, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court 

improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and should have 

granted his request to vary downward.

We review the reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for an abuse of 

discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Gall, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We are allowed, but not required, to presume a sentence within 

the Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 

(8th Cir. 2009) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51); see also United States v. Nelson, 982 

F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020). 

 We conclude that the district court did not overlook a relevant sentencing 

factor in § 3553(a) or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing 

factors. See United States v. Boyd, 956 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2020). The district 

court thoroughly reviewed Lassen’s extensive juvenile and adult criminal history. It 

considered that Lassen distributed methamphetamine while on parole, just a few 

weeks after getting out of prison. The district court also discussed mitigating factors 

like Lassen’s young age when he began using drugs and his mental health history. 

Weighing the factors differently than Lassen wanted and denying his request to vary 

downward from the Guidelines range “does not mean [the district court] abused its 

discretion.” United States v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 2020).

We find that the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. 

The sentence is affirmed. 

______________________________
#### § 95.3131 Permissible uses, OBUs.

On-Board Units (OBUs) may transmit signals to other OBUs and to Roadside Units (RSUs), which are authorized under part 90 of this chapter.
Order entered February 18, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01318
- CR GARY DONALD ROGERS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crim inal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 18
- 30789
- J



### O RDER
T h e reporter ’ s record was due December 22 , 2019. When it was not filed , we notified court reporter Kimber ly Xavier by post card dated December 27, 2019 and delivered v ia
electronic transmission that the reporter ’ s record was past due and i nstructed her to file the
record within th ir ty days. To date, the record has not been fi led and we have had no
communication from Ms. Xavier

. We ORDER court repo r ter Kimberly Xavier t o file the complete reporter ’ s record in th e above appeal by March 20 , 2020 . We caution Ms. Xavier that the failure to file the record by
that date will result in the Court taking take whatever action it deems appropriate to ensure th is appeal proceed s in a more timely fashion which may in c lud e o r dering she not sit until the record
is filed.We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of thi s order to the Honorable Gracie Lewis ,

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 3 ; offic ial court reporter Kimberly Xavier , Criminal
Di strict C ourt No. 3 ; and counsel for all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 54.1515 Disaster preparation and response measures. ( a ) Each recipient of fixed and mobile support from Stage 2 of the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund shall create, maintain, and submit to the Wireline Competition Bureau for its review and approval a detailed Disaster Preparation and Response Plan document that describes and commits to the methods and procedures that it will use, during the period in which it receives Stage 2 support, to prepare for and respond to disasters in the Territories, including detailed descriptions of methods and processes to strengthen infrastructure; to ensure network diversity; to ensure backup power; to monitor its network; and to prepare for emergencies.
( b ) Each Stage 2 support recipient shall submit the Disaster Preparation and Response Plan to the Bureau for its review and approval prior to receiving Stage 2 support. The Bureau shall approve submitted Disaster Preparation and Response Plans that are complete and thoroughly address the criteria enumerated in paragraph (a) of this section. The Bureau shall notify the support recipient of deficiencies identified in the Disaster Preparation and Response Plan and withhold authorization to receive funding until the support recipient has cured the deficiencies. Recipients shall materially comply with the representations in the document, once approved.
( c ) Recipients shall amend their Disaster Preparation and Response Plan following any material change(s) to internal processes and responsibilities and provide the updated Disaster Preparation and Response Plan to the Bureau within 10 business days following the material change(s).
( d ) Stage 2 support recipients shall use the Disaster Information Reporting System for mandatory reporting. (See *www.fcc.gov/general/disaster-information-reporting-system-dirs-0* for more information.)
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), I, Robert L. Long,
Chief Executive Officer of Transocean Inc., a Cayman Islands company (the
“Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
      2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and





(2)
            information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.





Dated:     May
      7, 2008
            
            /s/ Robert L. LongName:
            Robert
      L. LongChief
      Executive Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Transocean Inc. and will be retained by Transocean Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv10w9



 





Exhibit 10.9




Annual Incentive Bonus Program




Performance Criteria





	 	 	The following two performance criteria will be used in each entity as measurements in Annual
Incentive Bonus Program:






	•	 	Top Line Growth- 50%






	 	o	 	Net Interest Income plus Fee Income






	•	 	Cash Flow Growth- 50%






	 	o	 	Net Income After Tax, before loan loss provision, after actual net charge offs





Targeted Base Salary Percentage



The targeted base salary percentage for bonus payment at three possible achievement levels
(Threshold, Target and Superior) for each employment level within the Company shall be determined
by the FBFS Board, acting upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. If targeted
percentages for any employment level shall be based on a range, then the percentage for each
participating individual within such level shall be determined by the Compensation Committee or
management, as appropriate. The targeted base salary percentages for each participating individual
shall be promptly communicated to such individual.




Mix of the Payout




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Corporate	 	Entity
	FBFS Employees
	 	100%	 	n/a
	Other Employees
	 	25%	 	75%






Safeguards



The cash flow percentage is self-funding.

The after-tax net income must meet or exceed the aggregate bonus payment.




Eligibility



Employees must work a minimum of 30 hours per week to qualify for the bonus program. Employees
must be hired by October 1 of any year the plan is in effect to be eligible for the Bonus Program.
All employees must be employed on the date of payout to receive their bonus.



If an employee is promoted before October 1 of any year the plan is in effect, then that employee
will be eligible for the bonus percentage that is commensurate with their new position for that
year.
294P15

#### Mark Charles v. Norma Charles aka Norma Graciano

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-196)

Denied
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, to consider the following matters:

*Summary Agenda:*                     No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.                

Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.

Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.

Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule To Implement Reform Act Deposit Insurance Coverage Changes.

*Discussion Agenda:*

Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Risk-Based Capital Standards—Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework.

Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Risk-Based Capital Standards—Market Risk.

Memorandum re: Basel II and Market Risk Data Collection Proposals.

The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

                    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (                    *e.g.*, sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to make necessary arrangements.                

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7122.

Dated: August 29, 2006.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 06-7420 Filed 8-30-06; 1:05pm]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10068.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10068.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Argued and submitted June 1,

affirmed July 6, 1994

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Kathleen Suzanne ASBURY, *Respondent, and*John Cameron ASBURY, *Appellant.*

(91-0202; CA A81816)

877 P2d 1213

Gary E. Norman argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Scott and Norman, P.C.

Patrick Hadlock argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief were Larry W. Stuber and Ringo & Stuber, P.C.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*97PER CURIAM

Husband appeals from a dissolution judgment. He argues that wife refused to comply with a settlement agreement. On *de novo*review, we affirm.

Wife filed a petition for dissolution. The parties negotiated a property settlement under which husband agreed to pay wife $15,000. Husband paid her $5,000 and told wife that he intended to pay the balance as soon as possible. Later, wife told husband that the settlement was no longer acceptable, because he had taken too long to comply with its terms, and that the parties would have to proceed to trial. At a pretrial conference, husband tendered the balance of the money owed to wife under the agreement, but she refused to accept it.

At trial, husband argued that the court should enter a judgment consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. The trial court declined to do so. Husband assigns error to the judgment, contending that the trial court should have specifically enforced the agreement.

Even if there was a settlement agreement, it would not be binding on the trial court. *Wrona and Wrona,*66 Or App 690, 694, 674 P2d 1213 (1984); *see also*ORS 107.105(f). Similarly, it is not binding on us on *de novo*review. ORS 19.125(3). Assuming that there was an agreement, the trial court’s disposition was equitable and we decline to disturb it.1

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

1

 The judgment credited husband for money paid to wife before trial.