alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.2
PROMISSORY NOTE

$1,200.00
Santa Ana, California
December 12, 2000

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Associates, LLC
at 1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Anna, CA 92705, or at such other
place as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of one thousand
two hundred dollars ($1,200.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per
annum from the date hereof.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable
one year from the date hereof.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note, the
undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the court
may adjudge reasonable.

     Mezzanine Investment Corporation

     By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
             Eric Chess Bronk, President
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION • (800) 638-2772 • www.cpsc.gov • www.SaferProducts.gov

Strings, Cords and Necklaces Can Strangle Infants 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received reports of infants 

who were strangled by strings, cords, ribbons, or necklaces around their necks. 

The string, cord, or necklace can became caught on a product, such as a crib or play 

yard, or it can became tightly wrapped or twisted around a child's neck. 

Never tie pacifiers, necklaces, toys, or other items around a child's neck. Never leave 

cords of any kind near an infant. Take off bibs or other clothing tied around a child's 

neck before putting the child in a crib or play yard. 

Publication 5095 009611 042012
Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify to my
knowledge and belief that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|Dated: March 14, 2003 |  |     |  |                                                                                           
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | BY: |  | /S/  WILLIAM F. EVANSWilliam F. Evans Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
No. 52327.

protests 130317-K, etc. (New York).

#### Roche-Organon, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of estro-genic substances the same in all material respects as the hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon, Inc.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-25-000; Docket No. PF06-26-000]

Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, 
L.P.; Notice of Informational Meetings for the Proposed Jordan Cove LNG 
and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Projects

January 8, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 
Commission) is issuing this notice to announce the time, dates, and 
locations of a series of public informational meetings to discuss the 
environmental review process for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import 
terminal proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. in Coos County, 
Oregon, and the associated 223-mile-long 36-inch-diameter sendout 
pipeline proposed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P. extending 
from the LNG terminal, across Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath 
Counties, to an interconnection with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
facilities near Malin, Oregon. Also participating in the meetings will 
be staff from agencies that are cooperating with the FERC in the 
production of an environmental impact statement for the projects, 
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the 
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.

    The meetings will all begin promptly at 6:30 p.m., (PST) (doors 
will open at about 6 p.m. for sign-in), on the dates below at the 
following locations:

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

    Umpqua Community College, Campus Center Dining Room/Timber Room, 
1140 Umpqua College Rd., Roseburg, OR 97470. 541-440-4600.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

    North Bend Community Center, 2222 Broadway St., North Bend, OR 
97459. 541-756-8500.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

    Red Lion Inn, 200 N. Riverside Ave., Medford, OR 97501. 541-779-
5811.
    These events are posted on the Commission's calendar located at 
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other 
related information. For additional information, please contact the 
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-8004.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-437 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael McShane, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant Prideco, Inc.; 
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
 (b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
(c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
(a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
(b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.      Date: December 15, 2004                           Signature:     /s/ Michael McShane          President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 62590.

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 330287-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
August 3 , 2015

Mr. Stanley Jessen

North Georgia Drones, LLC

1760 Loblolly Lane

Cumming, GA 30041

Dear Mr. Jessen :

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your M ay 4 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 174 0 ), but

we are unable to process y our request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affe ct safety or how the exemption

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

seek an exemption.

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

What You Should Do

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

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

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

If We Do No t Hear From You

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

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

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Pr ogram Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4894 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4894

     To urge the United Nations to abolish the position of Special 
   Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and to withhold United 
                   States funding for such position.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To urge the United Nations to abolish the position of Special 
   Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and to withhold United 
                   States funding for such position.

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

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to seek the abolition of the 
position within the United Nations of Special Rapporteur on the 
negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of 
human rights.

SEC. 2. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO ABOLISH OR DEFUND THE POSITION OF SPECIAL 
              RAPPORTEUR.

    The Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 
Nations shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States 
to abolish or defund the United Nations position of Special Rapporteur 
on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment 
of human rights.

SEC. 3. WITHHOLDING OF UNITED STATES FUNDING FOR SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR.

    (a) In General.--The United States is prohibited from providing any 
funding to the United Nations that will be used for the Special 
Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on 
the enjoyment of human rights (or any similar successor entity).
    (b) Assessed Contributions.--Section 114(a) of the Department of 
State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (Public Law 98-164; 
22 U.S.C. 287e note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) 25 percent of the amount budgeted for the Special 
        Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive 
        measures on the enjoyment of human rights (or any similar 
        successor entity).''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

May 21, 1947

No. 51735.

#### Protests 69815-K, etc., of Philip Barnet & Bro. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of buffalo hides similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Rice & Co. Corp.*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (a) was sustained.
No. 52333.

protest 88198-K (New York).

#### J. H. Graham & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protest was sustained to this extent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1243

ROBERT AFARI MINTA,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-

cv-02286-RWT)

Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Afari Minta, Appellant Pro Se. Robert G. Ames, Lesley

Pate Marlin, VENABLE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Afari Minta appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to remand and granting Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Minta’s 

claims for non-payment of wages, punitive damages, breach of 

contract and specific performance. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. See Minta v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 

Inc., No. 8:09-cv-02286-RWT (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2010). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 52641.

protest 748275-G (Los Angeles).

#### Kokusai Suisan Kaisha *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The appraiser’s answer to protest, received in evidence at the trial, identified the merchandise as “Kelp Meal.” Said report was made withjn the 90-day period during which that officer might review the collector’s action. While the collector’s report was not made within 90 days after the filing of the protest, the situation appeared to be the same as that which obtained at least as to certain of the protests involved in *United States*v. *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*(35 C. C. P. A. 124, C. A. D. 381). In harmony with the *227decision in that case, and following *Centennial Flouring Mills Co. et al.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM   Document 10    Filed 09/23/05   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM   Document 10    Filed 09/23/05   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM   Document 10    Filed 09/23/05   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM   Document 10    Filed 09/23/05   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM   Document 10    Filed 09/23/05   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T13:42:51-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE

CHARTER SERVICES, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1999 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

By order filed December 16, 2004, a Pretrial Conference in the

above-captioned case was set for May 15, 2006. On May 3, 2006, the

court issued an Order to Show Cause directed to counsel for

plaintiff when she failed to participate in the filing of a joint

statement of disputed and undisputed facts, as ordered in the

court’s Status Order. Counsel has failed to respond to the court’s

Order to Show Cause and has once again failed to participate in the

filing of the joint statement. On May 9, 2006, defendant UP once

again filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts which was

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

unsigned by counsel for plaintiff. In a declaration filed

concurrently therewith, counsel explains that the joint statement

was once again filed without plaintiff’s counsel’s signature when

plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond.

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Counsel for plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of one

hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum shall be paid to the

Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the

effective date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit

accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is

paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and

will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any

way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or

costs.

2. The Pretrial Conference currently set for May 30, 2006 is

CONTINUED to July 10, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Chambers;

3. Trial, currently set for August 15, 2006, is VACATED;

4. Counsel shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within five (5) days

why further sanctions should not issue for her failure to respond

to the court’s previous order to show and her failure once again

to participate in drafting the joint statement of disputed and

undisputed facts as previously ordered. Counsel is admonished that

her failure to respond will result in an order to show cause re:

contempt or dismissal;

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Counsel shall file a joint statement of disputed and

undisputed facts signed by all counsel not later than June 12, 2006

at 4:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4869 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4869

     To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the 
  notification requirement for emergency contract health services for 
             certain beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

Mr. Rounds (for himself and Ms. Cortez Masto) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the 
  notification requirement for emergency contract health services for 
             certain beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Health Service Emergency 
Claims Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES.

    Section 406 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
1646) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``With respect to'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(b) Elderly or Disabled Indians.--With respect to''; and
            (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so designated) 
        the following:
    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), with 
respect to an Indian receiving emergency medical care or services from 
a non-Service provider or in a non-Service facility under the authority 
of this Act, the time limitation (as a condition of payment) for 
notifying the Service of such treatment or admission shall be 15 
days.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of OpenTV Corp.
As of December 31, 2004 A table of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of OpenTV Corp. is set forth below, indicating as
to each the state or jurisdiction of organization and the names under which such subsidiaries do
business. Subsidiaries not included in the table are inactive or, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary. Name of the Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationACTV, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)ACTV Entertainment, Inc.
    
    United States (New York)Advision LLC
    
    United States (Delaware)BettingCorp. UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomDigital Adco
    
    United States (Delaware)HyperTV Networks
    
    United States (Delaware)Intellocity USA, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)Media Online Services
    
    United States (Delaware)OpenGaming (Israel), Ltd.
    
    IsraelOpenPlay BVI Ltd.
    
    British Virgin IslandsOpenTV AG
    
    SwitzerlandOpenTV Asia Pacific KK
    
    JapanOpenTV Australia Pty Ltd
    
    Australia (New South Wales)OpenTV Europe S.A.S.
    
    FranceOpenTV Holding NV
    
    Netherlands AntillesOpenTV Holdings BV
    
    The NetherlandsOpenTV Iberia SL
    
    SpainOpenTV, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)OpenTV Interactive Software (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaOpenTV UK Limited
    
    United KingdomOpenTV US Holdings, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)OpenTV US Investments, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)Spyglass, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)Spyglass Integration, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)Static 2358 France SARL
    
    FranceStatic 2358 Holdings Limited
    
    United KingdomStatic 2358, Inc.
    
    United States (California)Static 2358 Limited
    
    United KingdomWink Communications, Inc.
    
    United States (Delaware)4G Media Ltd.
    
    British Virgin Islands4G Media Ltd.
    
    Turks and Caicos