alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1170.32 Existing facilities. ( a ) *Accessibility.* A recipient shall operate each program or activity to which this part applies so that when each part is viewed in its entirety it is readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not necessarily require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( b ) *Methods.* A recipient may comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section through such means as redesign of equipment, reassignment of classes or other services to accessible buildings, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities in conformance with the requirements of § 1170.33, or any other methods that result in making its program or activity accessible to handicapped persons. A recipient is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with paragraph (a) of this section. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient shall give priority to those methods that serve handicapped persons in the most integrated setting appropriate.
( c ) *Time period.* A recipient shall comply with the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section within sixty days of the effective date of this part except that where structural changes in facilities are necessary, such changes shall be made within three years of the effective date of this part, but in any event as expeditiously as possible.
( d ) *Transition plan.* In the event that structural changes to facilities are necessary to meet the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient shall develop, within one year of the effective date of this part, a transition plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete such changes. The plan shall be developed with the assistance of interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons. A copy of the transition plan shall be made available upon request for public inspection. The plan shall, at a minimum: ( 1 ) Identify physical obstacles in the recipient's facilities that limit the accessibility of its program or activity to handicapped persons;
( 2 ) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible;
( 3 ) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve full accessibility under paragraph (a) of this section and, if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one year, identify the steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period; and
( 4 ) Indicate the person responsible for implementation of the plan.
( e ) *Notice.* The recipient shall adopt and implement procedures to ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing can obtain information as to the existence and location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
[46 FR 55897, Nov. 12, 1981, as amended at 68 FR 51386, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### § 2301.102 Application.

This part (§§ 2301.101-2301.170) applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency, except for programs or activities conducted outside the United States that do not involve individuals with handicaps in the United States.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.(the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/ David J.Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date: August 14, 2006

----
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENEDJANUARY3,2001 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, November 8, 2001 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF JERI THOMSON, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex.REs REPORTED 

No No. SUBJECT BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPORTED 

No. Doc. No. SUBJECT BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTED 

No. No. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, 

UNITED STATES AND CANADA 

* 403 851 Dennis L. Schornack, of Michigan, to be Sep 25, 2001 Reported by Mr. 

Commissioner on the part of the United States Biden, Committee on Foreign 

on the International Joint Commission, United Relations, without printed report. 

States and Canada, vice Thomas L. Baldini. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

436 1019 Jay B. Stephens, ofVirginia, to be Associate Oct 4, 2001 Reported by Mr. Leahy, 

Attorney General, vice Daniel Marcus, Committee on the Judiciary, 

resigned. without printed report. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

* 470 1065 Thomas M. Sullivan, of Massachusetts, to be Oct 17, 2001 Reported by Mr. 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Kerry, Committee on Small 

Administration, vice Jere Walton Glover, Business and Entrepreneurship, 

resigned. without printed report. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

* 471 875 Eugene Scalia, of Virginia, to be Solicitor for the Oct 17, 2001 Reported by Mr. 

Department of Labor, vice Henry L. Solano, Kennedy, Committee on Health, 

resigned. Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

without printed report. 

THE JUDICIARY 

511 893 Edith Brown Clement, of Louisiana, to be United Nov 1, 2001 Reported by Mr. Leahy, 

States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Committee on the Judiciary, 

John M. Duhe, Jr., retired. without printed report. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

* 530 1039 Mark W. Everson, of Texas, to be Controller, Nov 5, 2001 Reported by Mr. 

Office of Federal Financial Management, Office Lieberman, Committee on 

of Management and Budget, vice Joshua Governmental Affairs, without 

Gotbaum, resigned. printed report. 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
Exhibit 13.1

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



The undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

1. This annual report on Form 20-F of CSR plc (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 CSR plc.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | SIGNATURE           
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: 13 March 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Joep van Beurden
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                |  | Joep van Beurden       
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Will Gardiner   
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                |  | Will Gardiner          
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer











E - 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 207 (Thursday, October 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62654-62655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8890]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circular 33.88A, Turbine Engine Vibration Test

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
33.83A, Turbine Engine Vibration Test. This advisory circular (AC) 
provides guidance and acceptable methods, but not the only methods, 
that may be used to demonstrate compliance with the vibration test 
requirements of Sec.  33.83 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR part 33). This AC cancels AC 33.83, dated February 
14, 1997.

DATES: Advisory Circular 33.83A was issued by the Manager of the Engine 
and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, on September 
29, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Federal Aviation Administration, 
Attn: Dorina Mihail, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 
238-7153; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: [email protected].
    We have filed in the docket all substantive comments received, and 
a report summarizing them. If you wish to review the docket in person, 
you may go to the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to contact the 
above individual directly, you can use the above telephone number or e-
mail address provided.
    How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy of AC 33.83A may be obtained by 
writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC-121.23, Ardmore East Business 
Center, 3341Q 75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, telephone 301-322-5377, or 
by faxing your request to the warehouse at 301-386-5394. The AC will 
also be available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ (then click on ``Advisory Circulars'').

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.)

[[Page 62655]]

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 29, 2006.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-8890 Filed 10-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
#### Kerille v. Phœnix Life Insurance Company, appellant.

*Practice—transfer' of cause from State to Federal court.*'

The defendant in an action in a State court is not entitled to an order removing the cause to a Federal court, under the judiciary act of 1789, § 12, unless the appearance in the action is entered at the same time that the petition for the removal is filed. And where the entry of appearance was made on the day following that on which the petition was filed, *held,*that the order must he denied.

Appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion made on the part of the defendant to remove this cause from the supreme court of this State to the circuit court of the Hnited States. The plaintiff is a citizen of this State, the defendant a corporation created by the laws of Connecticut, and located and doing business in that State. The action was brought to recover the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant on a policy insuring the life of the plaintiff’s husband.

The summons and complaint were served August 5, 1873. On August 21st, defendant’s counsel filed the petition required by the' judiciary act, except that it did not conform 'thereto in'two particulars. On the 21st or 22d óf August, notice of appearance *for*the purposes of the motion to remove was" served, and the defendant’s appearance was, by plaintiff’s attorneys, caused to be entered as of August 22. The motion to remove was denied by reason of a defect *789of the petition, with leave to renew, and the motion was renewed upon an amended petition, and again denied. From the order denying it this appeal was taken.

Mullin, P. J.,

“ By the twelfth section of the judiciary act, the defendant’s appearance in the action must be entered *at the same time that the petition is filed,*they must be *concurrent*acts, and if they are not done concurrently, the defendant is not entitled to an order of removal. Conkling’s Tr. 476 ; *Redmond*v. *Russell, 12*Johns. 153.

If serving notice of retainer is equivalent to the entry of appearance, it was not served until the 22d, the next day after the petition was filed. If the actual entry of an appearance was essential, it was not entered until the 22d, and was too late to be in compliance with the statute. The order of the special term must be affirmed, with $10 costs.”

*Order affirmed.*
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Conversion Solutions Holding Corp. (“Conversion”), a Delaware Corporation located in Kennesaw, Georgia, which trades in the over-the-counter market under the symbol “CSHD”. 

Questions have arisen regarding the accuracy and completeness of information contained in Conversion's press releases and public filings with the Commission concerning, among other things, (1) The company's purported ownership and control of two bond issuances, in the face amount of €5 billion and $500 million, issued by the Republic of Venezuela, and (2) the company's purported contractual relationship with Deutsche Bank. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

*Therefore, it is ordered*, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, October 24, 2006, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on November 6, 2006.                 

By the Commission. 

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06-8939 Filed 10-24-06; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 4.1

     WHEREAS the directors of the Company are to be compensated at an annual fee
of $10,000; and

     WHEREAS the annual fees have not been paid to directors and there is owing
to the directors the amounts set forth below:

         Edward C. Kelly                    $60,000
         Leonard Klarich                     50,000
         Jurgen Wolf                         50,000
         Ian Lambert                         50,000
         Kurt Ziemer                         40,000; and

     WHEREAS in lieu of cash payments the directors have agreed to accept shares
of common stock of the Company valued at $.50 per share, be it

     RESOLVED, that in payment of past due fees due the directors for their
services, there shall be issued to the directors the number of shares set forth
below.

         Edward C. Kelly                    120,000
         Leonard Klarich                    100,000
         Jurgen Wolf                        100,000
         Ian Lambert                        100,000
         Kurt Ziemer                         80,000

     In connection with the deliberation relating to the issuance of shares in
lieu of cash, each director abstained in consenting to the issuance of shares of
common stock to himself.

     WHEREAS the Company wishes engage Louis Kelly as Director of Operations for
the Company, and

     WHEREAS Louis Kelly has agreed to assume the responsibilities attendant
thereto with the added inducement of receiving shares of the Company's common
stock, be it

     RESOLVED, that in connection with Louis Kelly becoming an employee of the
Company, there shall be issued to Mr. Kelly 200,000 shares of the Company's
common stock.

     WHEREAS the Company has acknowledged that acting as a consultant, L. Eric
Whetstone has provided valuable business consulting services to the Company for
the past 22 months, and

     WHEREAS in lieu of receiving cash in payment of his services, Mr. Whetstone
has agreed to accept 550,000 shares of the Company's common stock valued at $.40
per share, be it

     RESOLVED, that 550,000 shares of the Company's common stock be issued to L.
Eric Whetstone for consulting services rendered; and be it

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that all the shares of common stock authorized for
issuance above shall be registered on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission; and

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company be and they hereby are
authorized to execute all documents necessary to carry out the foregoing
resolutions into effect and to perform any other act as may be necessary from
time to time to carry out the purpose and intent of the above resolutions.
Order entered July 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00613 - CV IN THE M ATTER OF THE MARRIAG E OF LISA MARIE HAMM ETT AND JAMES L. HAMMETT On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 417 - 51726 - 2011 

### O RDER W e GRANT court reporter Kathy Bounds’s July 2, 2014 request for extension of time to file record and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than August 5, 2014
. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE:

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018 AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE:

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E., WASHINGTON, D.C. (12TH FLOOR)

STATUS:

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes for May 10, 2018

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Kelly for Congress (KFC) (A17-05)

2018 Meeting Dates (July through December) 

Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, 

Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Signed: _____________________________________

Dayna C. Brown

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: May 31, 2018
#### Wickes v. Adirondack Company, appellant

*Eminence—presumption of genuineness of negotiable bonds.*

On the trial of an action to recover the interest on negotiable bonds, the bonds and coupons were read in evidence without objection. Judgment having been obtained by the plaintiff, on appeal by defendant it was objected, that there was no evidence of the identity of the bonds produced on the trial with those described in the complaint. *Meld,*(1) that possession of the bonds was *prima facie*evidence of plaintiff’s ownership; and (2) as the plaintiff had possession, the burden of proving that the bonds were not genuine was with the defense.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee. The action was brought by Asa W. Wickes against the Adirondack Company, a corporation. The opinion states the case.

*Tracy, Olmstead & Tracy*and *A. Pond,*for appellant.

*F. W. Ackley*and *Irving Browne,*for respondent.

Miller, P. J.

The action was brought to reco ver th e interest upo n two bonds of $1,000 each, payable to Thomas 0. Durant or bearer, executed by the defendant on the 1st day of January, 1864, for which coupons were annexed payable semi-annually on the 1st day of July and January in each year until the 1st day of January, 1884, when the principal became due. The case was referred and the referee found in favor of the plaintiff for the coupons and interest upon the same, amounting to $1,237.25. The defendant duly excepted to the findings of the referee, and judgment having been entered upon his report, the defendant appealed.

The only point made by the defendant upon this ajipeal is, that there was no evidence of the identity of the bonds produced upon the trial with those described in the complaint. The bonds and coupons were produced and read in evidence upon the trial without objection, and the defendant’s counsel having withdrawn from the case when the trial commenced, the question was not raised by motion for a nonsuit or otherwise. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was the holder and owner of the bonds and coupons, which *251was denied by the answer, and I. think that the possession of the bonds and coupons was *prima facie*evidence of such ownership. Possession of personal property is presumptive evidence of ownership, and this rule applies to all personal property and in respect to negotiable paper. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 34; *Fish*v. *Skut,*21 Barb. 334; *James*v. *Chalmers,*6 N. Y. 209. Bonds of this character are negotiable, and will pass by delivery. *Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co.*v. *C. C. & C. R. R. Co.,*41 Barb. 9, 22. It is not necessary to go further to sustain the decision of the referee, but it may be added that if the defendant desired to question the genuineness of the bonds, as the plaintiff had possession, the burden of proving that they were not genuine was with the defense. It is no answer to say that for aught that appears some third person may have held the genuine bonds answering the description of those mentioned in the complaint, for every presumption is in a contrary direction. • The judgment was right and must be affirmed, with costs.

*Judgment affirmed.*
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DONALD RUNNELS

VERSUS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND

CORRECTIONS

In Re: Donald Runnels, applying

Judicial District Court, 

No. 716928. 

NO. 2022 CW 1386

MARCH 13, 2023

for supervisory writs, 19th

Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ .: 

WRIT DENIED. The district court has issued judgment on

relator's writ of habeas corpus. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

MRT

WRC

CHH