alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1236.40 Scope of this subpart. ( a ) This subpart establishes processes and requirements to ensure that agencies: ( 1 ) Identify the records the agency will digitize in each project;
( 2 ) Account for all records covered by the project, regardless of media type;
( 3 ) Implement quality management techniques to verify equipment performance and monitor processes to detect and correct errors;
( 4 ) Produce complete and accurate digitized records that the agency can use for all the same purposes as the source records; and
( 5 ) Validate that the resulting digitized records meet the standards in this subpart.
( b ) This subpart covers the standards and procedures agencies must apply when digitizing permanent paper records using reflective digitization techniques. Such records include most paper-based documents, regardless of size, such as modern textual documents, maps, posters, manuscripts, graphic arts prints (for example, lithographs or intaglio), drawings, bound volumes, and photographic prints. This subpart also covers any records that may be incorporated into mixed-media records.
( c ) This subpart does not cover standards and procedures agencies must apply when digitizing permanent records using transmissive digitization techniques. Such records include photographic negatives, transparencies, aerial film, roll film, and micrographic and radiographic materials. In addition, this subpart does not cover digitizing records on dynamic media. Such records include motion picture film, video, and audio tapes.
( d ) For guidance on digitizing out-of-scope media types or non-paper-based portions of mixed-media records, such as dynamic media, radiographic, negative or positive film, or other special media types, please contact the Records Management Policy and Standards Team by email at *rmstandards@nara.gov* or by phone at 301-837-1948.
( e ) This subpart does not require that optical character recognition (OCR) be performed during digitization. However, these regulations do not prevent agencies from performing OCR to meet their business needs.
( f ) This subpart does not address other applicable laws and regulations governing documents and digital files, including, but not limited to, proper handling of classified or controlled unclassified information (CUI) and compliance with 36 CFR part 1194 (section 508). Agencies should work with their legal counsel and other officials to ensure compliance with these and other applicable requirements.
( g ) This subpart also does not address other business needs or legal constraints that may make it necessary for an agency to retain source records for a period of time after digitizing. Agencies should work with their legal counsel and other officials to determine whether such retention might be necessary because it relates to rights and interests, appeal rights, benefits, national security, litigation holds, or other similar reasons.
Exhibit 23.01

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-26359) pertaining to the Sonic Corp. Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-131450) pertaining to the Sonic Corp. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64890) pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Option Plan, 2001 Sonic Corp. Stock Option Plan and 2001 Sonic Corp.
Directors Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-09373, No. 33-40989 and No. 33-78576) pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-40988)
pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-40987) pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Directors Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-95716) for the
registration of 1,420,000 shares of its common stock, and the related Prospectuses of our reports dated October 29, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Sonic Corp. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Sonic Corp., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended August 31, 2010.



|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|                        |  | ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|                        | 
|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma |  |                  
|October 29, 2010        |  |
Filed 9/20/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 223

Casey Phillips, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20170131

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kyle R. Craig, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Brian L. Johnson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Phillips v. State

No. 20170131

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Casey Phillips appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief.  In 2012, Phillips pled guilty to terrorizing and criminal trespass.  Phillips applied for post-conviction relief, which the district court denied and the Supreme Court affirmed.  Phillips v. State, 2014 ND 100, 859 N.W.2d 929.  In 2016, Phillips applied for post-conviction relief based on his claim of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.  The district court summarily dismissed the application for failure to present competent, admissible evidence likely to change the result of the trial.  The district court ruled N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2) precluded Phillips’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  On appeal, Phillips argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application because the alleged newly discovered evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient for an evidentiary hearing.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte
Case 16-27442 Doc 4 Filed 08/26/16 Entered 08/26/16 12:38:18 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27442 Doc 4 Filed 08/26/16 Entered 08/26/16 12:38:18 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### § 1250.1 Scope of this part.

This part implements the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, for NARA operational records and archival records that are subject to FOIA. This part contains the rules that we follow to process FOIA requests, such as the amount of time we have to make a determination regarding the release of records and what fees we may charge. Other NARA regulations in 36 CFR parts 1254 through 1275 provide detailed guidance for conducting research at NARA.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption, “Selected Financial Data,” and tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-10261) pertaining tothe 1991 Stock Option Plan of Rochester Medical Corporation and the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-62592) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan of Rochester Medical Corporation ofour report dated October 22, 2004, with respect to the financial statements and schedule ofRochester Medical Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedSeptember 30, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPMinneapolis, Minnesota
Exhibit








NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC
March 30, 2020
Edward Bruce Morgan
By Hand Delivery
Dear Bruce:
This letter (this “Agreement”) memorializes the agreement between you and Nine Energy Service, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), that, effective as of April 1, 2020, your annualized Base Salary (as such term is defined in that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between you and the Company, dated as of November 20, 2018 (as amended by that certain First Amendment, effective as of August 30, 2019, the “Employment Agreement”)) will be reduced by 15% to $255,000, less applicable taxes and other withholdings. 
This step is a response to sustained volatility in commodity prices and the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We appreciate your continued service to the Company and your continued leadership during these challenging times.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary in this Agreement or the Employment Agreement, for purposes of Section 6.1(b) of the Employment Agreement, your Base Salary shall be deemed to be your Base Salary in effect immediately prior to the effective time of the reduction described in this Agreement, or $300,000 (the “Prior Salary”). 
You acknowledge and represent that you are agreeing to this future salary reduction voluntarily.  By signing below you expressly consent and agree to the reduction set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement, and hereby waive any and all rights you may have to terminate your employment with the Company for Good Reason (as such term is defined in the Employment Agreement) as a result of the changes described in this Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Agreement, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby confirmed and ratified. This Agreement shall automatically terminate and cease to be of any force or effect on the date on which your Base Salary is increased to a level that is equal to or greater than the Prior Salary.
Please sign below to you acknowledge your agreement to these terms. Executed as of the date first set forth above
	
				
	 
	 
	NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/ Ann G. Fox

	 
	 
	Name:
	Ann G. Fox

	 
	 
	Title:
	President, Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 
	 
	 

	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Edward Bruce Morgan
	 
	 

	Name:
	Edward Bruce Morgan
	 
	 

	Title:
	President, Administration and Operations
# EUR-Lex - 12006M027E - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M027E

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title V - Provisions on a common foreign and security policy - Article 27 E **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0022 - 0023 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0020 - Consolidated version *

Article 27e

Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation established in accordance with Article 27c shall notify its intention to the Council and inform the Commission. The Commission shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of the date of receipt of that notification. Within four months of the date of receipt of that notification, the Council shall take a decision on the request and on such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority within the same period, decides to hold it in abeyance; in that case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for re-examining it.

For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. The qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of the number of the members of the Council concerned as those laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 23(2).

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/25 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/25

**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 - A. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES - 25. Declaration on Articles 75 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0346 - 0346 *

25. Declaration on Articles 75 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference recalls that the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms implies, in particular, that proper attention is given to the protection and observance of the due process rights of the individuals or entities concerned. For this purpose and in order to guarantee a thorough judicial review of decisions subjecting an individual or entity to restrictive measures, such decisions must be based on clear and distinct criteria. These criteria should be tailored to the specifics of each restrictive measure.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 1280.42 When the rules in this subpart apply. ( a ) These rules apply to anyone who is filming, photographing, or videotaping inside any NARA facility or while on NARA property.
( b ) Filming, photographing, and videotaping on the grounds of any NARA archival research room except the ones in Atlanta, GA, Fort Worth, TX, and Perris (Riverside), CA, or on the grounds surrounding the Washington National Records Center, are governed by GSA regulations, 41 CFR part 101-20, Management of Buildings and Grounds, and must be approved by a GSA official.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, TSAN-KUN WU, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of EUPA International Corporation, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certifies
that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
Registrant.


/s/Tsan - Kun Wu
----------------------------
Name: Tsan-Kun Wu
Date: May 15, 2003


                                  Exhibit 99.1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DEDIOS CONTRERAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71309

Agency No. A095-667-198

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Juan Dedios Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. 

FILED

FEB 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71309

Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant in part

and deny in part the petition for review.

Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held that indecent

exposure as defined by California Penal Code § 314(1) is not categorically a crime

involving moral turpitude. Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The agency therefore erred in determining on the record before it that Contreras

was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(C). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

We deny the petition for review with respect to the agency’s denial of

Contreras’s request for voluntary departure because we lack jurisdiction to review

this discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Galeana-Mendoza v.

Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056 n.5 (9th Cir. 2006).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;

REMANDED.
#### Minnie L. Derby, Appellant, *v.*Degnon-McLean Contracting Company, Respondent.

(Argued May 6, 1907;

decided May 21, 1907.)

*Derby*v. *Degnon-McLean Contracting Co.,*112 App. Div. 324, affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plain•tiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*Melville J. France*and *L. Victor Flechles*for appellant.

*James F. Donnelly*for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, O’Brien, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Ch. J,
§ 1001.2 Applicability and scope. ( a ) The regulations contained in this chapter apply to all persons entering, using, visiting, or otherwise within the boundaries of federally owned lands and waters administered by the Presidio Trust.
( b ) The regulations contained in Parts 1002, 1004 and 1005 of this chapter shall not be construed to prohibit administrative activities conducted by the Presidio Trust, or its agents, in accordance with approved policies of the Presidio Trust, or in emergency operations involving threats to life, property, or resources of the area administered by the Presidio Trust.
( c ) The regulations in this chapter are intended to treat a mobility-impaired person using a manual or motorized wheelchair as a pedestrian and are not intended to restrict the activities of such a person beyond the degree that the activities of a pedestrian are restricted by the same regulations.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JOSEPH ABRAHAM VILLANUEVA,

Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D19-2577 September 1, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Lisa Lott, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. LaROSE, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
§ 1150.61 Prehearing conference. ( a ) At any time before a hearing, the judge on his/her own motion or on motion of a party, may direct the parties or their representative to exchange information or to participate in a prehearing conference for the purpose of considering matters which tend to simplify the issues or expedite the proceedings.
( b ) The judge may issue a prehearing order which includes the agreements reached by the parties. Such order shall be served upon all parties and participants and shall be a part of the record.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V/AFI/DCL/45 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V/AFI/DCL/45

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - FINAL ACT - B. Declarations concerning Protocols annexed to the Constitution - Declarations by Member States - 45.Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0473 - 0473 *

45. Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Treaty establishing the Constitution applies to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned.

--------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 9.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-52934, No. 333-52934-01, No. 333-80245, No. 333-80245-01, No. 333-70636, No. 333-07214, No. 333-07212 and No. 033-41068 of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. on Form F-3, Form S-3 and Form S-8, as applicable, of our report dated March 29, 2007, which report(1) expresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the differences between International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the European Union and accountingprinciples generally accepted in the United States of America, (2) expresses an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment regarding the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, and (3) expresses anunqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte Accountants B.V. 

March 29,2007 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Summary of Barry L. McCabe 2007 Compensation.



 Exhibit 10.16 
 Summary of Barry L. McCabe 2007 Compensation 
 The Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an
annual base salary of $275,000 for Barry L. McCabe, with a bonus target of $175,000. Mr. McCabe is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are available to Knoll employees generally, including, without
limitation, healthcare benefits, the Knoll Retirement Savings Plan, the Knoll Pension Plan and the Knoll Employee Stock Purchase Plan.