alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 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:  March      5, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/  Patrick      J. Dempsey                  |     |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                                |   |   |         Patrick J. Dempsey, Interim President |
|                                |   |   |        and Chief ExecutiveOfficer                  |

----
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1570 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-054-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model AS365N3, EC155B, and EC155B1 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of an external life raft to deploy

preventing evacuation of passengers during an emergency.

Costs: There are currently no costs of compliance with this AD because there are currently no 

U.S.-registered helicopters equipped with the life raft deployment system that is the subject of 

this AD.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Martin R. Crane
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bruno Rosinke, Appellant. Carl Zeiss, Inc., Respondent; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 430]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1995, which ruled, *inter alia,*that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant left his position as a stock clerk of 20 years to take advantage of an early retirement option offered by his employer and because a co-worker with whom he commuted to and from work took advantage of this option. After a hearing, the Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits upon the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant contends that he was justified in leaving his employment and, therefore, the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Given that claimant voluntarily chose the early retirement option and failed to seriously pursue the alternative of public transportation prior to resigning from his position, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause *{see, Matter of Rego [Hartnett],*165 AD2d 942).

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 1 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00047

- CV

IN RE MARQUETTE TRAN SPORTATION COMPANY G ULF

- INLAND, LLC AND MARQUETTE TR ANSPORTATION COMPANY LLC , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 80504



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 26, 2022 , relator s Marquette Transportation Company Gulf

Inland, LLC and Marquette Transportation Company LLC filed a petition for writ
of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this court to compel the Honorable Tanya Garrison, presiding judge of the 157th District Court of Harris County , to vacate her2

November 17, 2021 order denying relators’ motion to dismiss based on a forum

selection agreement

. Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our stay entered on March 7, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
# C_2008162EN.01004101.xml

| 25.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/41

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Codified version)

COM(2007) 873 final — 2007/0299 (COD)

(2008/C 162/08)

On 8 February 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Codified version)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 442nd plenary session of 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February 2008), by 141 votes to one and one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
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 Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Zach Sivan, Chief
Executive Officer, 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
comply 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/ Zach SivanZach
      Sivan, Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      November 22, 2010
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes an approval of the Tribal-State Gaming 
Compact for regulation of Class III gaming between the Cow Creek Band 
of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the State of Oregon.

DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This compact establishes 
regulatory, oversight and monitoring roles between the parties. The 
division of regulatory, oversight and monitoring roles in this compact 
reserves for the tribe the primary responsibility for regulating Class 
III gaming on tribal land; however, this compact provides the State of 
Oregon, acting through the Oregon State Police, with important 
monitoring and oversight responsibilities to assure the fairness, 
integrity, security and honesty of the Class III gaming.

    Dated: March 7, 2007.
Michael D. Olsen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-4903 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4935 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to update the budget 

neutrality threshold under the Medicare physician fee schedule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. KING, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to update 

the budget neutrality threshold under the Medicare physician fee schedule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Physician Fee Sta5 bilization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UPDATING THE BUDGET NEUTRALITY THRESHOLD. 

7 Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Social Security 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4935 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Subject to’’ and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(aa) IN GENERAL.—Sub4 ject to’’; 

5 (2) in item (aa), as inserted by paragraph (1), 

6 by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

7 amount specified in item (bb) for such year’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

9 items: 

10 ‘‘(bb) AMOUNT SPECI11 FIED.—For purposes of item 

12 (aa), subject to item (cc), the 

13 amount specified in this item 

14 is— 

15 ‘‘(AA) for years before 

16 2026, $20,000,000; 

17 ‘‘(BB) for 2026, 

18 $53,000,000; and 

19 ‘‘(CC) for 2027 and 

20 each subsequent year, the 

21 amount specified in this 

22 item for the preceding year. 

23 ‘‘(cc) INDEXING LIMITATION

24 ON ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS.—For 

25 2031 and every subsequent fifth 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4935 IS

1 year, the Secretary shall increase 

2 the amount specified in item (bb) 

3 for such year by the cumulative 

4 increase in the MEI (as defined 

5 in section 1842(i)(3)) applicable 

6 to physicians’ services over the 5- 

7 year period ending on the last 

8 day of the preceding year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 57349.

protest 198710-K (New York).

#### Mitteldorfer Straus, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
In-Person Attendees: The Test Procedure for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) Meeting

Meeting Date: Monday, April 28, 2014

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Email

Armstrong, Ashley General Engineer U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW

Washington DC 20585-0121 202-586-6590 202-586-4617 Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov

Burgos, Javier Senior Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, 

Suite 400

Burlington MA 01803 781-270-8371 781-270-0418 javier.burgos@navigant.com

Case, David Trial Attorney General Counsel 1000 Independence 

Avenue, S.W.

Washington DC 20585 202-287-6998 N/A david.case@hq.doe.gov

Fernstrom, Gary Sr. Project Manager CA IOU(s) Pacific Gas & Electric 

(PG&E)

13055 Parkhurst Drive Oakland CA 94619 510-363-1787 N/A gfernstrom@msn.com


gbf1@pge.com

Majette, Ronald Architect, Project 

Manager

U.S. Department of State 950 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W Washington DC 20585 202-586-7935 N/A ronald.majette@ee.doe.gov

Petrillo-Groh, Laura G. Senior Certification 

Engineer

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)

2111 Wilson Boulevard, 

Suite 500

Arlington VA 22201-3001 703-600-0335 703-552-1942 lpetrillo-groh@ahrinet.org

Tharp, Rusty Director of Regulatory 

Affairs

Goodman Manufacturing Company, 

L.P.

Amana Heating and Air Conditioning

10787 Clay Road Houston TX 77041 713-263-5906 713-586-8006 Russell.Tharp@goodmanmfg.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6876

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.
JOHNNY BERNARD MILLER, a/k/a Bernard Miller,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:92-cr-00101-GCM)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 26, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Bernard Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Johnny Bernard Miller appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Miller , No. 3:92-cr-00101-GCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2009). 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
#### Martha Curran, *Administratrix,*and another, *Appellants, v.*John McGinn and another, *Respondents.*

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Reference vacated. < ipinion by

Dykman, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Jamal Johnson, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 286]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 17, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea should not have been accepted since his allocution did not establish that the piece of metal he displayed in the course of the robbery was a dangerous instrument is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, defendant never having moved to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(People v Toxey,*202 AD2d 330, *affd*86 NY2d 725). Nor is review in the interest of justice warranted, since the alleged deficiency in the allocution did not negate an element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt on the voluntariness of the plea *(supra).*Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2022 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce L. Rubin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Bruce L. RubinName: Bruce L. RubinDate: July28, 2022
No. 64188.

protests 282346-K and 282351-K (Laredo).

#### John W. Lewis *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### THERESA C. GAGLIO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Meyer L. Salcin*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Samuel L. Supniclc*and *Mr. Charles A. Cohen*for the respondent.

April 30, *1962.*
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

Biegler Ortiz & Chan

Robert P. Biegler (CA Bar Assn. No. 88506)

1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1025

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-3971

Facsimile: (916) 444-3975 OK/HAV

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Gayda Airth, Patricia Malone Keane,

Jack Stevenson, and Andrew Carelton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAYDA AIRTH, ) Case No. Civ.S-04-2536 DFL GGH

)

PATRICIA MALONE KEANE, ) Civ.S-04-2537 DFL GGH

)

JACK STEVENSON, ) Civ.S-04-2538 DFL GGH

)

ANDREW CARELTON, ) Civ.S-04-2539 DFL GGH

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) STIPULATION AND

) PROPOSED ORDER

THOMSON FINANCIAL CO., INC., )

THE THOMSON CORPORATION, )

a Corporation, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, )

) Time: 2:00 pm

Defendants, ) Date: August 4, 2006

 )

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their counsel, that the

Final Pre-trial Conference in this matter be re-scheduled from July 28, 2006 to August 4, 2006, at

2:00 pm.

By: /s/ 

 Robert P. Biegler

Attorney for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ 

 

 Robert A. Dolinko

Attorney for Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-02536-DFL-GGH Document 33 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

Good cause showing, it is so ordered. The parties joint pretrial statement shall be

efiled no later than July 28, 2006.

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02536-DFL-GGH Document 33 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Martin Berns, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Martin Berns
Martin Berns
Chief Executive Officer


October 24, 2006
No. 55975.

protests 79864-K and 88528-K (Boston).

#### Sun Sun Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 

### 2::;3 DOT-OST-2010-0018 Dear Secretary LaHood: Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airport. As an employee of Delta, I enthusiastically support this application. Underthe new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopened to U.S.**'cgliiers"forthe"firstttmtr~tnce-1it76:~"B"e~s~nvententtocatiOrrTlear---'~~-'-'-~"""""'­** central Tokyo, Hanedais the preferred airport for business travelers. Delta employees haveworked for many years to build ourbusiness in Japan, and no U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. We have a strong record of competitive trans-Pacific service. Butthe reopening ofHanedawi11 put that investment and ourjobs at risk ifwe are unable to compete. Our major competitors, the Star and oneworld alliances, have Japanese partners thatdominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would 

### be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity to compete <it Haned<i. 

### Jfwe areprovided with the Haneda sJots we need, aU three ofthe majorsirline alliances

- SkyTeam, Star and oneworld- will be able to compete on a level p\aYfng field. That newcompetltionwould provide tremendous benefits for our customers and our employees. I urge you to approve Delta's application and provide the frequencies proposed to serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit. Los Angeles and Honolulu.

### c...fJ-~:R 

# \**t...".~ .~v**  

# "'ElL \\, bS' KU-J\,M\S 

## 1J \\-\'1&**Ux:>~&1L** 

## C,-rY 

# \='u. 330lJ)

## ~S\.\--**4~·'1** .. 

## \.\-0'\

## ~
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-7889
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-100) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a court order, denying his supplemental motion for a court order, denying his second supplemental motion for a court order, and denying his motion for a downward departure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. SeeUnited States v. Ellerbe , No. CR-97-100 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2002; filed Nov. 5, 2002 & entered Nov. 6, 2002). 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