alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: 

From: 

Notice of Communication: 

(~T -OST-20 14-0056) 

f~wor4/(/~ Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Date: Sept 26, 2014 

To: Chief, Dockets 

The American Society of Travel Agents (AST A) has requested additional information about the 

meeting held by DOT staff with Airlines for America (A4A) and its member airlines on August 

7, 2014 regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking titled "Transparency of Airline Ancillary 

Fees and Other Consumer Protection Issues," (Consumer III NPRM). 1 The specific questions 

posed by ASTA and DOT's responses are provided below. 

1. Question: Who asked for the meeting and how and to whom was the request 

communicated? 

Response: Dave Berg (Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Airlines for 

America) requested the meeting by email to Blane Workie (Acting Assistant General 

Counsel, DOT's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings). 

2. Question: When was the request for the meeting received by DOT? 

Response: The meeting request was received on July 16,2014. 

3. Question: Were any of questions set out in the memorandum filed in the docket on 

September 15 provided in advance of the meeting? 

Response: The questions set out in the memorandum (I to 43) were provided by A4A to 

DOT on August 4, 2014. 

1 DOT policy, as set forth in Order 2 100.2, encourages meetin gs with any interested party before a rulemaking 

begins (i.e., before the issuance of a regulatory document such as a notice of proposed rulemaking), permits such 

meetings while a rulemaking's comment period is open, and discourages such meetings after the comment period 

has closed. When contact with the public takes place after the issuance of a rulemaking document, a report should 

be made and included in the docket promptly following the contact. 
4. Question: Where was the meeting held? 

Response: The meeting was held at Hogan Lovells Litigation Center, located at 555 13th 

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

5. Question: When did the meeting begin and end? 

Response: The meeting began at 10 am and concluded at noon on August 7, 2014. 

6. Question: Was a transcript (taped or otherwise) made of the meeting? 

Response: A transcript (taped or otherwise) was not made of the meeting. However, a 

memorandum summarizing the August 7 meeting was publicly disclosed in the 

rulemaking docket on September 15. That summary is an accurate reflection of what 

transpired at the August 7 meeting.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Craig Johnson, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, 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) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Craig JohnsonCraig Johnson Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)


August 12, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-11142

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address

68.40.166.187,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER SUSPENDING CONSIDERATION OF MOTION AND REFERRING MATTER

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR LIMITED PURPOSES

On June 4, 2015, the court held an off the record telephonic status conference

with the parties. During the conference, the parties and the court agreed to suspend all

consideration of Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (Dkt.

# 6) and Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. # 7), as well

as all deadlines associated with the motion until further order of the court. 

The parties also agreed to have the matter referred to United States Magistrate

Judge David R. Grand for the limited purpose of presenting Magistrate Judge

Grand—ex parte and in camera—with sufficient financial information for Magistrate

Judge Grand to assess Defendant’s financial status and reveal, under seal to both

parties, a summary of Defendant’s financial status, while maintaining the anonymity of

Defendant’s identity. The court will refer the matter to Magistrate Judge Grand for such

limited purposes.

2:15-cv-11142-RHC-DRG Doc # 9 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 81
The court will schedule a telephonic status conference on July 9, 2015 at 10:00

am for the parties to update the court on the status of the case if the court has not

otherwise heard from the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 5, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, June 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\15-11142.MALIBU.refertomj.dmi.wpd

2

2:15-cv-11142-RHC-DRG Doc # 9 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 82
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 13-5008 September Term, 2013

 FILED ON: AUGUST 5, 2014

STOP THIS INSANITY INC EMPLOYEE LEADERSHIP FUND, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:12-cv-01140)

Before: BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in

this cause is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

/s/

Jennifer M. Clark

Deputy Clerk

Date: August 5, 2014

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Brown.

Senior Circuit Judge Sentelle concurs in the judgment.

USCA Case #13-5008 Document #1506091 Filed: 08/05/2014 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.25

          Description of the Terms of the Shenandoah Telecommunications
                             Company Incentive Plan

Effective on April 12, 2004, the board of directors of Shenandoah
Telecommunications Company (the "Company") adopted a cash incentive plan.
Participants in the plan include all full-time employees of the Company and its
subsidiaries.

            For each fiscal year, each participant in the incentive plan will be
assigned a "target bonus" expressed as a percentage of the participant's regular
salary or, in the case of hourly and sales employees, as a percentage of the
employee's total wages, commissions, paid time off and holiday pay for the year,
but excluding overtime, incentives and other payments. For fiscal 2004, the
target bonus for the chief executive officer of the Company will be 30% of
salary, the target bonus for the executive vice president of the Company will be
25% of salary, and the target bonus for other executive officers will be 20% of
salary. The maximum cash bonus payable to any participant in any fiscal year
will be 2 times the target bonus for all salaried employees and 2.4 times the
target bonus for hourly and sales employees. The bonus amount payable to
salaried employees is based 60% on the degree of achievement of company-wide
performance goals relating to net income and service measures (which may include
customer turnover or "churn," bad debt expense and service complaints) and 40%
based upon individual objectives established by management and, in the case of
the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, by the Board of
Directors. The bonus amount payable to hourly and sales employee participants in
the plan is based on the degree of achievement of company-wide performance goals
relating to net income and such service measures. The Company expects to pay
bonuses in early March, following the close of the applicable fiscal year. Bonus
payments will be conditional upon the participant's continued employment by the
Company or its subsidiaries through the last day of such fiscal year.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending May 27, 2006

|Filer                            | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                  
|-------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Member         | Omega Bank, N.A., State College, PA, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### State, ex rel. Lizzie Schlemme, appellee, v. Lee Wright, appellant.

Filed April 29, 1916.

No. 18792.

1. Appeal: Bastardy: Sufficiency of Complaint. A bastardy proceeding, appealed to this court without a settled and certified hill of exceptions, presents simply the sufficiency of the complaint.

2. -: -: -. The complaint examined, and *held*sufficient.

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: Charles Leslie, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Harry B. Fleharty,*for appellant.

*Matthew Bering, F. P. Marcomiit*and *John B. Kuhn, contra.*

Fawcett, J.

Defendant was complained against before a justice of the peace in Douglas county, on a charge of bastardy, and was boiind over to the district court for that county. Trial was had to the court and a jury. The jury found the defendant guilty, and judgment was entered by the court charging defendant with the maintenance of plaintiff’s child, in the sum of $1,500, to be paid to the plaintiff in instalments, which need not be set out. Defendant appeals.

The bill of exceptions found in the record has never been settled by the district judge.- It is not in any manner certified by the clerk of the district court, nor does it appear to have ever been filed in his office. Nor does any attempt seem to have been made by defendant to prepare his brief in accordance with the rules of this court. We have examined the complaint upon which the action is based, and find it sufficient.

Affirmed.

Sedgwioi-c, J., not sitting.
# C_2012273EN.01002304.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/23

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-663/11) (1)

1

2012/C 273/42

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Florida Business BancGroup,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, A. Bronson
Thayer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         Report.









Date:  October 31, 2002               By:          /s/ A. Bronson Thayer
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              A. Bronson Thayer, Chairman and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 150.130 Loading a cargo on vessels carrying cargoes with which it is incompatible. Except as described in § 150.160, the person in charge of a vessel shall ensure that the containment system for a cargo that is a hazardous material meets the following requirements: ( a ) The containment system must separate the hazardous material or its residue from any cargo in table 1 with which it is incompatible by two barriers such as formed by a: ( 1 ) Cofferdam;
( 2 ) Empty tank;
( 3 ) Void space;
( 4 ) Cargo handling space;
( 5 ) Tank containing a compatible cargo; or
( 6 ) Piping tunnel.
( b ) In this subpart, isolation across a cruciform joint is equivalent to isolation by two barriers.
( c ) The containment system for the hazardous material must not have a piping or venting system that connects to a containment system carrying a cargo with which the hazardous material is incompatible. Any such piping or venting system must have been separated from the containment system carrying the incompatible cargo by: ( 1 ) Removing a valve or spool piece and blanking off the exposed pipe ends, or
( 2 ) Installing two spectacle flanges in series with a means of detecting leakage into the pipe between the spectacle flanges.
[CGD 75-59, 45 FR 70263, Oct. 23, 1980, as amended at USCG-2013-0423, 85 FR 21674, Apr. 17, 2020]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT C. DENHAM, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

RICHARD L. CEASE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35105

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00281-RMP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Robert C. Denham, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his 1973 state conviction for 

second degree assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo the district court’s dismissal based on the applicable statute of limitations. 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

NOV 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35105 

Fink v. Shelder, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Denham’s action as barred by the 

applicable three-year statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080 

(three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Bagley v. CMC Real 

Estate Corp., 923 F.3d 758, 761-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (a § 1983 claim accrues when 

the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the basis of the 

action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the 

state court documents from Denham’s criminal case. See Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-90 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review). 

AFFIRMED.
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 Annual Report of PowerHouse Technologies Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jay Elliot, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.



                                    /s/ Jay Elliot
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Jay Elliot
                                    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
                                    Officer
                                    July 28, 2005
#### § 171.155 Drainage of an open boat.

The deck within the hull of an open boat must drain to the bilge. Overboard drainage of the deck is not permitted.

[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51355, Sept. 30, 1997]
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 Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# TIME AND DATE:

12:00 p.m., Monday, May 7, 2007.

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1.  Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2.  Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at                         *http://www.federalreserve.gov*                         for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.                    

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 27, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 07-2171 Filed 4-27-07; 5:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
MIED (Rev. 8/07) Notice of Correction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge 

Magistrate Judge 

Defendant(s).

/

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

Docket entry number , filed , has been modified. The explanation for the correction

is stated below.

The docket entry was made on the wrong case. 

The corresponding document image was missing or incomplete.

The wrong document image was associated.

The wrong judicial officer was listed on the case docket.

The filer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.

The judicial officer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.

The docket text was changed to include the Partial Payment Order.

Other:

 If you need further clarification or assistance, please contact at .

 DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT 

Dated:

 Deputy Clerk

MARITA TURNER,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

15-11451

Robert H. Cleland

5 January 4, 2017

✔ The wrong version of the document was submitted. An amended Opinion and Order will be

issued to include new information.

Shawna Burns (810) 984-2056

January 4, 2017 Shawna C. Burns

2:15-cv-11451-RHC-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 01/04/17 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 24