alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John F. MARTIN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7035.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that dismissed the appeal of John F. Martin on the ground that Martin was not seeking review of a final Board of Veterans Appeals decision. Martin opposes. The Secretary replies.

Martin apparently appealed an interlocutory regional office decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court of Veterans Claims dismissed the appeal on the ground that, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), it has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals and that Martin had not yet received a final decision from the board.

The Secretary argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should be summarily affirmed. We agree. Summary disposition of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). In the present case, it is clear that summary disposition is warranted. *See Ledford v. West,*136 F.3d 776, 778-79 (Fed.Cir.1998) (the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims did not have jurisdiction over an issue when there was no board decision on that issue); *Mayer v. Brown,*37 F.3d 618, 619 (Fed.Cir.1994) (the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “has jurisdiction only when the appellant files a timely appeal from a final decision of the board”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*944(1) The Secretary’s motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
English Translation of Advertising Agency Agreement on Special Events



 Exhibit 10.9 
 ADVERTISING AGENCY AGREEMENT 
 FOR
SPECIAL EVENTS BROADCAST ON CCTV-1 AND CCTV-2 
  

			
	 Party A:
	  	Mass Media & Universal International Advertising Co., Ltd.
		
	 Party B:
	  	Advertising Department, CCTV

 After consultations, Party A and Party B (each a “Party”, and collectively the “Parties”) have
reached the following agreement (“Agreement”) in connection with the advertising agency services for special sporting events broadcast on CCTV-1 and CCTV-2: 
  

	1.	Party B shall be responsible for fixing the price and length of advertisements, reviewing advertisements, and editing and broadcasting advertisements booked by Party A. Party B
shall not engage any other companies or organizations for the promotion of its advertising time slots. 

  

	2.	Party A shall be responsible for the sales and marketing of all advertising time slots during domestic and international sporting events of varying scales that are broadcast live or
delayed on CCTV-1 and CCTV-2. Party A shall also be responsible for conducting promotions, booking advertisements, signing contracts with clients, collecting advertising fees, and submitting advertisements to Party B for broadcasting. In principle,
marketing and sales expenses relating to promotions, materials and meetings shall be borne by Party B. 

  

	3.	Party A shall submit advertising tapes to Party B for review. Party B shall have the right of final review. In case the advertising tape does not meet Party B’s broadcasting
standards and the advertisement can not be broadcast, Party A shall bear all losses thus caused. If the advertising content gives rise to legal disputes concerning copyright, right of publicity or any other issues, Party A shall be liable for all
such disputes. Party A further undertakes that such disputes shall not affect the performance of this Agreement. 

  

	4.	The pricing standard and payment method of advertising agency fees to Party A for each sporting event shall be handled on a case-by-case basis. 

  

	5.	The Parties shall both abide by this Agreement and exercise due care and diligence. The Parties shall empathize with each other if any Party fails to perform this Agreement due to
force majeure events. 

  

	6.	Any matters not covered in this Agreement shall be resolved through negotiations by both Parties. 









	7.	This Agreement shall become effective upon the signatures and seals of both Parties. The term of this Agreement shall commence from January 1, 2008 and end on December 31,
2008. 

 Party A: Mass Media & Universal International Advertising Co., Ltd. 
 Representative (Signature and Seal): /s/(affixed with company seal) 
 Date:
December 12, 2007 
 Party B: Advertising Department, China Central Television (CCTV) 
 Representative (Signature and Seal): /s/(affixed with company seal) 
 Date: December 12, 2007 
  

 2
09.03
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

District Department of the Environment 

*** 

Air Quality Division 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Tommy 

Director, 

Wells District 

~ bepartment of the Environment 

FROM: Cccily Beall 0J./~\o. \\cf 

Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE 

DATE: Junc5, 20 15 

SUBJECT: Hearing Officer's Certification for the Public Hearing on the Second 

Proposed Rulemaking to Regulate the Interstate Transport of Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOt) Emissions from Non-Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Sources 

and Proposed Revision of the District's tate Implementation Plan (SIP) 

This is to certify that a public bearing was held at approximately 5:00p.m. on January 5, 2015, to 

give the public the opportunity to comment on the District's second proposed rulemaking to 

regulate the interstate transport of nitrogen oxides from the District's only non-electric 

generating unit applicable under the NOx SIP Call. Once final, the rulemaking will be submitted 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a SIP revision. Notice of the public 

hearing was posted in the D.C. Register on November 2 l, 2014 (61 DCR 012013, Notice ID 

5191069), and on DDOE's website. 

Cecil y Beall of the District Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, represented 

the District. No one attended the public hearing. 

DISTRICt 

DEPARTMI:N I 

or Ti l [ 

ENVIRONMENT 

w·een forward 

1200 First St. NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 200021 te l: 202.535.2600 I web: ddoe.dc.gov 

Wrt * * ARrt * 

WASI·HNGTON 

oc
Exhibit 32





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 on Form 10-K of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. Hill, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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.








Date:February 22, 2024By/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer


Date:February 22, 2024By/s/ James R. HillJames R. HillChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO 2006 STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


 


 





	
             
 	
            5.
 	
            AVAILABLE SHARES AND ADJUSTMENTS UPON CHANGES IN CAPITALIZATION.
 






 


5.1  Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5.2 below, the total number of Shares to be subject to Options granted pursuant to this Plan shall not exceed Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand (7,500,000) Shares. Shares subject to the Plan may be either authorized but unissued shares or shares that were once issued and subsequently reacquired by the Corporation; the Committee shall be empowered to take any appropriate action required to make Shares available for Options granted under this Plan. If any Option is surrendered before exercise or lapses without exercise in full or for any other reason ceases to be exercisable, the Shares reserved therefore shall continue to be available under the Plan.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00730-CV

IN RE Gilbert L. MATHEWS and Lucifer Lighting Company

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 20, 2014, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the 

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further 

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may 

file a response to the petition in this court no later than November 10, 2014. Any such 

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on October 27th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-13779, styled In re Petition of: Stephen Lang Requesting 

Deposition of Gilbert L. Mathews, pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable 

Janet P. Littlejohn presiding.
No. 63058.

#### Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc., a/c Crafts-Metals Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/5300 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that all of the merchandise in question, except that covered by items 401/05/A, 401/01/A, 402/04/A, and 403/02/A on the invoice with entry 27606, and items 401/01/A, 401/05/A, and 402/04/A on the invoice with entry 19914, consists of articles composed in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protest was overruled as to the above excepted item numbers.
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

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 30, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Nancy A. Strohmeyer, Lakewood, Colorado;*                     to retain voting shares of FirstBank Holding Company, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of FirstBank of Colorado, both in Lakewood, Colorado.                

*2. Monty W. Rhine, Wamgeo, Kansas;*                     to retain control of Republic Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of New Century Bank, National Association, both in Munden, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E7-332 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 66792.

#### Corley Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/29019, etc.

Protests abandoned April 19, 1962. (Not published.) (Initial No. 60/20339.) Plaintiffs application for rebearing granted.
----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 410th meeting on 29 May 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates

(2006/C 285/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10Year End Final 2023
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0666 DFL KJM P

vs.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a reply to defendants’

response to plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 cross-motion for summary judgment. Good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 21, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a reply to defendants’ response to plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 cross-motion for summary

judgment. 

DATED: August 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp elli0666.36

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 112 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000109928-AUG-201208:44 AM
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/24/2023 1

County Jail Ordered 

to Provide Inmates with Absentee Ballots 

Cannavan v. County of Ventura 

(Fernando M. Olguin, C.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-10012) 

A district judge ordered a county to provide its jail inmates with absentee ballots in an action filed on the Friday before a general election. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

class action. 

An inmate in a county jail filed a federal class action against the county and 

its sheriff in the Central District of California on Friday, October 30, 2020, 

alleging improper denial of ballots.1 With his complaint, he filed an application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction2

 and an application to certify the class of at least one hundred Ventura 

County Jail inmates.3

 The court assigned the case to Judge Fernando M. Olguin,4

 who ordered briefing on the applications complete by Sunday afternoon.5

On Sunday, Judge Olguin certified the class6

 and ordered the defendants 

to immediately obtain absentee ballots for all class members and deliver 

them by 5:00 p.m. on November 2 and deliver cast ballots to election authorities by 5:00 p.m. on election day, November 3.7

An amended complaint filed on July 19, 2021,8 was dismissed as settled in 

2022.9

1. Complaint, Cannavan v. County of Ventura, No. 2:20-cv-10012 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 

2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Application and Motion, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 5. 

3. Application, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 6. 

4. Notice, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 7. 

5. Minute Order, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 10. 

6. Minute Order, id. (Nov. 1, 2020), D.E. 20, 2020 WL 12176251. 

7. Minute Order, id. (Nov. 1, 2020), D.E. 21, 2020 WL 639163; see Megan Diskin, County 

Must Give Inmates Ballots, Judge Says, Ventura Cty. Star, Nov. 3, 2020, at A2. 

8. Amended Complaint, Cannavan, No. 2:20-cv-10012 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2021), D.E. 58. 

9. Stipulation, id. (Sept. 2, 2022), D.E. 88; Order, id. (Apr. 25, 2022), D.E. 80.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. JENSEN, )

) 2:04-cv-0686-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster ) 

General of the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,)

)

Defendant. )

)

The motions in limine filed on October 7, 2005, are denied

without prejudice. The procedure for presenting motions in limine

will be discussed at any final pretrial conference held in this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V,
L.P. (the "Partnership") for the period ended March 28, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John C. Stomber, Regular Trustee of the Trust and Treasurer of Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:   John C. Stomber *
                              Title:  Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:    John C. Stomber *
                               Title:   Treasurer


Dated: May 8, 2003
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4050 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4050

      To extend the deadline to commence construction of certain 
                hydroelectric projects on the Red River.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2024

  Mr. Cassidy (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the deadline to commence construction of certain 
                hydroelectric projects on the Red River.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN 
              HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS ON THE RED RIVER.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects 
numbered P-12756 and P-13160, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(referred to in this section as the ``Commission'') may, at the request 
of the licensee for the applicable project, and after reasonable 
notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public 
interest requirements of that section and the procedures of the 
Commission under that section, extend the time period during which each 
licensee is required to commence construction of the applicable project 
for one year from the date of the expiration of the extension most 
recently issued by the Commission under that section for the applicable 
project.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the time period required 
under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) for 
commencement of construction of a project described in subsection (a) 
expires before the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) the Commission may reinstate the license for the 
        applicable project effective as of the date of expiration of 
        the license; and
            (2) the extension authorized under subsection (a) shall 
        take effect on the date of that expiration.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed January 16, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00925

- CR

____________ KEITH HEAD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 399th Judicial District Court

Bexar County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 2011CR6417B



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a
motion request i n g to review the record and file a pro se brief

. See Anders v. Califor nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gain ous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion was granted and an order to that effect issued

.In response, we have received documentation that the record was sent to

appellant but have not received the certif ication from the clerk of the court as to the
date on which d elivery of the record to appellant was made

. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 56th District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance wi th loca l procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant within fif teen (15) days of the date of this order; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made ; and that appella nt file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain and Hassan.
(Part 2SUPPLEMENT) (Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection III) (U.S. Standard General LedgerAccount Transaction Postings)

 (R = The USSGL transaction mentions ‘Reverse’ in the Comment. AP = The USSGL transaction mentions ‘Also Post’ in the Comment.) (Bulletin No. 2020-10) (III AP - 10) (March 2020)