alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-25940 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 12:55:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 206 ) ll-K-(I)-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:55 AM Sheet 206 of 325P. 2

-A a a II-K-(I0-1 9
TA X INFORMATIO NO NDEPRECIATION , PUBLICATIO N 534 . Departmen t o f Treasury , IRS . 1979 . THI S INFORMATIO NCA

NB E FOUN D I NDOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE M II-K-(I)-1 9
#### § 1213.6 Public access to guidance documents.

We post the cleared document on our centralized guidance portal at *www.archives.gov/guidance.* The portal contains a searchable, indexed database of our various kinds of guidance along with links to each document and an agency-unique identifier, title, date issued, z-RIN, if applicable, topic keywords, brief summary, date added to the portal, and any status information (for example, that it supersedes a previous guidance document).

[85 FR 31979, May 28, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 21024, Apr. 11, 2022]
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 Company
 (i)
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 30, 2007
    /s/Kurt J. RechnerKurt J. RechnerChief Financial Officer
§ 1150.103 Posthearing briefs, decision. ( a ) No briefs or posthearing statements of position shall be required in proceedings seeking PER unless specifically ordered by the judge.
( b ) In proceedings seeking PER the decision may be given orally at the close of the hearing and shall be made in writing within three (3) days after the hearing.
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-82291 Doc 1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 09:25:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
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 AngelCiti  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
George Guttierez,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Dean Ward, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
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; and

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




Dated: November 10, 2003              /s/ George Guttierez
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      George Guttierez, Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 10, 2003              /s/ Dean Ward
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Dean Ward, Chief Financial Officer
July 20, 2015

Mr. Joshua W. Bell

738 E ast 2600 N orth

North Ogden, UT 84414

Dear Mr. Bell :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains

why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 19

, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 1713 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your reques t.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before th e proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany Newton

P rogram Analyst Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
SUPREME COURT.

#### John H. Sherwood agt. Richard B. Connolly, Comptroller, and others. Joseph B. Varnum, Jr., agt. Chauncey M. Depew and others.

None of the expenses of the *loard of audit*for the city and county of New Yorlc, and none of the claims covered by it, can be paid, except out of a fund directed by the act creating the board (1867) to be raised for that purpose by the board of supervisors, by tax.

So long as the supervisors refuse to raise such fund, no damage can ensue to any tax payer, and he is not entitled to an injunction to restrain the action of the hoard of audit, even assuming the act under which they were created to be unconstitutional.

There is no remedy given under the provisions of section 3, chapter 405 of the laws of 1864, against such a body as a board of audit

*125That section only gives a remedy in hehalf of a tax payer, a member of the common council or a supervisor, *against ike common council or the supervisors.*

*New York Special*Term, *May,*1867.

Barnard, J.

Whatever may be the force of the objections urged to the constitutionality of the act in question, still this action is premature.

Assuming that portion of the "act which creates and defines the powers of the board of audit to be unconstitutional in all its parts, still I do not see how the plaintiffs or the citizens of New York city can be damaged by the board’s proceed • ing, unless the supervisors lend their aid in carrying out the act by levying a tax sufficient to cover the expenses of the board and the amount of the claims reported by it to be due from the city.

None of the expenses of the board of audit, and none of the claims covered by it, can be paid, except out of a fund directed by the act in question to be raised for that purpose by the board of supervisors by tax. No damage then can ensue, if the supervisors refuse to raise this fund.

If, however, they improperly proceed to raise the fund (and, if the act is unconstitutional, the acting on the report of the board of audit would be improper), then injuiy would be likely to result. -A remedy may be had under section 3 of chapter 405, laws of 1864. For another reason this injunction should be dissolved. Unless the provisions of section 3 of chapter 405 of laws of 1864 apply, the plaintiffs clearly have no standing in court.

The provisions of that section only give a remedy in behalf of a taxpayer, a member of the common council or a supervisor, against the common council or "the supervisors; there is no remedy given against such a body as the board of audit. I have not deemed it necessary, at this stage of the proceedings, to pass upon the variaus questions that have been raised by the plaintiffs’ counsel. At some future period of time, if it should become necessary, these questions can be met and decided. At present, in consequence of the *126interposition of the technical objection before passed upon, it would be anticipating that which is not properly before me, and which would not bind the parties, as it would he anticipating that which may never arise.

' Motion for injunction denied.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/47 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/47

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - B. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATIES - 47. Declaration on Article 5(3), (4) and (5) of the Protocol on the Schengen **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0352 - 0352 *

47. Declaration on Article 5(3), (4) and (5) of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union

The Conference notes that the conditions to be determined in the decision referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 of Article 5 of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union may determine that the Member State concerned shall bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in some or all of the acquis referred to in any decision taken by the Council pursuant to Article 4 of the said Protocol.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 38.1 Applicability. ( a ) The regulations of this part apply to the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. For the purpose of this part, the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge includes the Midway Islands, Hawaiian Group, between the parallels of 28 deg. 5′ and 28 deg. 25′ North latitude, and their territorial seas located approximately between the meridians of 177 deg. 10′ and 177 deg. 30′ West longitude, as were placed under the jurisdiction and control of the Interior Department by the provisions of Executive Order No. 13022 of October 31, 1996 (3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 224).
( b ) Administration of Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge is governed by the regulations of this part and parts 25-32 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations; the general principles of common law; the provisions of the criminal laws of the United States in their entirety including the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 13 and those provisions that were not specifically applied to unincorporated possessions; the laws applicable under the special maritime jurisdiction contained in 48 U.S.C. 644a; and the provisions of the criminal laws of the State of Hawaii to the extent the criminal laws of the State of Hawaii do not conflict with the criminal laws of the United States.
§ 1235.12 When must agencies transfer records to the National Archives of the United States? Permanent records must be transferred to the National Archives of the United States when: ( a ) The records are eligible for transfer based on the transfer date specified in a NARA-approved records schedule, or
( b ) The records have been in existence for more than 30 years (see also § 1235.14).
2019 COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force Program Awards

State and Agency Name Estimated Award Amount

California

California Department of Justice $2,469,377 

Connecticut

Connecticut Department of Public Safety $1,105,369 

Iowa 

Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement $130,000 

Kentucky

Kentucky State Police $1,058,090 

Louisiana

Louisiana State Police $2,423,079 

Maryland 

Maryland State Police $1,100,576 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General $2,671,105 

Minnesota

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension $1,192,245 

Missouri

Missouri State Highway Patrol $629,600 

Nevada 

Nevada Department of Public Safety $86,222 

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Department of Safety $489,674 

New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety $2,901,692 

New York

New York State Police $2,878,094 

North Carolina 

North Carolina Department of Public Safety $1,827,435 
2019 COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force Program Awards

State and Agency Name Estimated Award Amount

Ohio

Ohio Organized Crime Investigations Commission $1,500,000 

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General $2,000,027 

South Dakota

South Dakota Attorney General $714,241 

Tennessee

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation $899,356 

Vermont

Vermont State Police $1,683,818 

Total: $27,760,000
Case 16-26387 Doc 9 Filed 08/18/16 Entered 08/18/16 09:17:04 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
EX-10AW



 





EXHIBIT 10AW




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.

KEY EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN




     Brush Engineered Materials Inc., an Ohio corporation, hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2 to
the Brush Engineered Materials Inc. Key Employee Share Option Plan (the “Plan”), pursuant to the
transition rules set forth in IRS Notice 2005-I with respect to Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



I.




     All elective deferrals of compensation and non-elective deferrals relating to foregone
matching contributions made under the Plan in connection with the grant of options on September 30,
2004 and on December 31, 2004, and all Options granted under the Plan with respect to those
deferrals are cancelled effective as of June 10, 2005. Each Participant who made any such a
deferral or had such a deferral made on his behalf shall receive payment of the amount of such
deferrals upon the cancellation, less application withholding taxes, and any such Participant shall
have no further rights under the Options granted with respect to such deferrals. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, a Participant who exercised any such Option shall not receive payment of the amount
of his deferral with respect to the cancellation of the exercised Option.



II.




     No option shall be issued under the Plan after December 31, 2004.



     Executed at Cleveland, Ohio this 10th day of June, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Michael C. Hasychak	 
	 	Michael C. Hasychak 	 
	 	Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5118

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit an extension for filing drawback

claims in cases where the President has declared a major disaster.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1994

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit an extension

for filing drawback claims in cases where the President

has declared a major disaster.

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR EXTENDING TIME FOR FIL4 ING DRAWBACK CLAIMS.

5 Section 313(r) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

6 1313(r)), is amended by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(3)(A) Notwithstanding the limitation set

8 forth in paragraph (1), the Customs Service may ex9 tend the time for filing a drawback claim for a pe10 riod not to exceed 18 months, if—
2

HR 5118 IH

1 ‘‘(i) the claimant establishes to the satis2 faction of the Customs Service that the claim3 ant was unable to file the drawback claim be4 cause of an event declared by the President to

5 be a major disaster on or after January 1,

6 1994, and

7 ‘‘(ii) the claimant files a request for such

8 extension with the Customs Service within 1

9 year from the last day of the 3-year period re10 ferred to in paragraph (1).

11 ‘‘(B) If an extension is granted with respect to

12 a request filed under this paragraph, the periods of

13 time for retaining records set forth in subsection (t)

14 of this section and section 508(c)(3) shall be ex15 tended for an additional 18 months.

16 ‘‘(C) For purposes of this paragraph the term

17 ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in

18 section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

19 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

20 5122(2)).’’.

Æ
SUPREME COURT.

#### William H. Mackintosh and others agt. Joseph Fatman, survivor of Samuel Myers, deceased.

Where on the dissolution of a copartnership, the retiring partners take a *bond*of indemnity of the remaining partner, with a surety, to pay all the partnership debts, &c, the landlord of the premises can not sustain an action on the bond for rent due from the partnership, or from the remaining partner. There is no privity of contract between the parties to the action.

*Special Term,*

*October*1869.

The complaint alleges that Myers, Canfield & Son, as copartners, leased certain premises of plaintiffs for a term of years. The lease contained covenants on the part of the tenants to pay the rent. The premises were occupied by the partners.

During the term, Myers, Canfield & Son dissolved.

The Canfields sold out their interest in the partnership property and effects to Myers, and Myers entered into an agreement with the Canfields to pay and discharge the partnership debts and obligations.

At the time of making this agreement, the defendant, Fatman, jointly with Myers, executed a bond to the Can-fields, (the retiring partners,) in the penal sum of fifty-thousand dollars, with a condition that if the said Myers should well and truly assume and pay all the debts and liabilities of the said firm of Myers, Canfield & Son, and save harmless the Canfields from and against the same, the obligation was to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.

The complaint alleges that after the making of the bond, rent for the premises fell due to the plaintiffs, to the amount of $3,375.

*146That subsequent to the making of the bond, Myers died.

The action is brought on this bond by the plaintiffs, the landlord, against the defendant, Fatman, as the surviving obligor thereof, for the rent due and unpaid.

The defendant demurred to the complaint, and alleged as ground of demurrer that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Charles H. Smith, *for plaintiff.*

Hooper C. Yah Yorst, *for defendant.*

Sutherland, J.

Assuming that the rent is a debt or liability of the firm of Myers, Canfield & Co., I think that the complaint does not show a right in the plaintiffs to bring- an action on the bond, and therefore, that it does not show a cause of action by the plaintiffs against the defendant.

The plaintiffs were not parties to the bond, and there is no privity of contract between them and the obligors, or the surviving obligor.

The case made by the complaint is not the case of A. promising B. to pay C. (a named, specified third party,) a certain specified sum of *money. ■*

There must be judgment for the defendant on the demurrer, with costs.
#### Annie McNeill et al., appellants, v. John Storitz, appellee.

Filed October 31, 1913.

No. 17,379.

Appeal from the district court for Platte county: George H. Tpiomas, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Allen G-. Fisher, William P. Rooney*and *Andrew M. Morrissey,*for appellants.

*John J. Bullirán, James Rait*and *Reeder & Lightner, contra.*

Letton, J.

This is a sister action to *McNeill v. Schumaker, ante,*p. 544, brought to recover 80 acres of the original 240-acre tract. The conclusion reached in that case determines the disposition of this. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E052 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E052

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE IV: FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL - Chapter 2: Right of establishment - Article 52 (ex Article 46 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0069 - 0069 *

Article 52

(ex Article 46 TEC)

1. The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

2. The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, issue directives for the coordination of the abovementioned provisions.

--------------------------------------------------
# Map            Middle East.