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

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 
(Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer 
Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, May 3, 2007 from 1 p.m. ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 
(Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Thursday, May 3, 2007 from 1 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. 
If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please 
call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP 
Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. 
Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate 
in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie 
Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or 
post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 19, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-5599 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
FY2000 10K EX10.601






              EXHIBIT 10.601




                    Amendment No.1 to Licensing Agreement with

                                  World Channel, Inc.

 


Amendment No.1

to

Licensing Agreement

This Amendment No.1 to the Licensing Agreement is made on the
19th day of February, 2001,

Between American Champion Media, Inc. (The Licensor)
22320 Foothill Blvd., Suite 260

Hayward, CA 94541




AndWorld Channel Inc. (The Licensee)
131 So. Maple Ave., Suite 6

So. San Francisco, CA 94080




WHEREBY IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED as follows:

Clause 6 shall be changed to read as following:

 
6.The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor in consideration of the right
granted under this Agreement a Licensing Fee of US$3,000,000 in total. The
Licensee shall make the first payment of $300,000 by March 31, 2001 and the
second payment of $300,000 by September 30, 2001. Thereafter the Licensee shall
pay to the Licensor four annual installment payments of US$600,000 each on or
before the end of the years 2002 through 2005.

Licensee shall pledge the amount of $800,000 in its appraised
value of company equipment as collateral for the above payments. In the event
that Licensee fails to make the License Fee payments to Licensor on time,
Licensor should notice Licensee in writing and has the right to liquidate
Licensee's pledged equipment to compensate for the lost of License Fee, and
Licensor may terminate this Agreement with a 30-day written notice. 

 



All other clauses and terms shall remain unchanged.

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 1
to the Agreement as of the day and year first above written by affixing their
respective corporate seals under the hands of their proper signing officers duly
authorized on that behalf.

 


	
For and on behalf of

American Champion Media, Inc.

	
For and on behalf of

World Channel Inc.


	

By: /s/ Anthony K. Chan

Anthony K. Chan

Chief Executive Officer

	

By: /s/ Alan Mok

Alan Mok

President
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIANA C. ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE OF CANADA,

INC. And COMMUNITY HEALTH

SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-17594

D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00145-CKJ

District of Arizona, 

Tucson

ORDER

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Diana Anderson’s joint

motions to vacate the memorandum disposition dated April 6, 2016 and dismiss

this action with prejudice are GRANTED. Each party shall bear its own costs and

attorney’s fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FILED

JUN 13 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
**Exhibit
      3(b)**





**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT OF**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF FORMATION OF**





**TXU
      ENERGY COMPANY LLC**








TXU
      Energy Company LLC, a limited
      liability company organized and existing under and by virtue of the Delaware
      Limited Liability Company Act (the “Company”) does hereby certify:





1.           The
      present name of the Company is TXU Energy Company LLC.





2.           The
      original Certificate of Formation was filed with the Secretary of State of
      the
      State of Delaware on November 5, 2001 (the “Certificate of
      Formation”).





3.           The
      Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Formation amends and restates
      the
      First Article of the Certificate of Formation so that, as amended, said Article
      shall read in its entirety as follows:





“FIRST:
            The
                name of the limited liability company (the “Company”) is Texas Competitive
                Electric Holdings Company LLC.”





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Amendment
      this
      29th day of June, 2007.








TXU
      ENERGY COMPANY LLC








By:           /s/  Kim
      K. W. Rucker


Kim
      K.W. Rucker


Secretary
      and Assistant
      Treasurer
#### Edward H. G. Clark, *as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v.*Franklin J. Parmenter, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                            |  |                              |  |                          
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Legal Name of Entity                        |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | Ownership Interest       
|Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc (registrant) |  | Virginia                     |  |                          
|Virginia Commerce Bank                      |  | Virginia                     |  | 100%                     
|Northeast Land and Investment Company       |  | Virginia                     |  | 100%                     
|Tombstone Land Company                      |  | Virginia                     |  | 100%                     
|Virginia Commerce Insurance Agency, L.L.C.  |  | Virginia                     |  | 100%                     
|VCBI Capital Trust II                       |  | Delaware                     |  | 100% of voting securities
|VCBI Capital Trust III                      |  | Delaware                     |  | 100% of voting securities
|VCBI Capital Trust IV                       |  | Delaware                     |  | 100% of voting securities
#### Charles C. Steele, *Respondent, v.*Asa D. Ward and others, *Appellants.*

■— Reargument ordered.
1

James Battaglia

From: Lord, Richard CCS [mailto:Richard.Lord@carrier.utc.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:27 AM 

To: James Battaglia; Rabbia, Mark R 

Cc: Whitwell, Robert 

Subject: RE: Manufacturer Interview Follow Up 

I can answer this. I was the person who developed all the justification and backup for the IEER equation. The 

IEER equation is a metric for the annualized efficiency of the refrigeration system. It is not a metric for the 

rooftop system taking into account added features like economizers, energy recovery, etc. Goal was to have a 

metric that better represents the mechanical efficiency of the refrigeration system including the indoor fan. 

It was developed by look at several buildings across all 17 ASHRAE 90.1 climate zones. When we determined 

the weighting factors we only used the hours where the compressor is running and excluded hours where only 

the airside economizer is running. Keep in mind the ASHRAE 90.1 requirements are to have integrated 

economizers where the compressor supplements the economizer. We did include these hours. 

This is consistent with the DOE basic model group definitions that are being finalized as we speak were when 

develop ratings for full load and verification testing is done the economizer is not factored into the ratings. 

ASHRAE 90.1 is working on a new alternate path for a systems level approach that will include the 

economizers, energy recovery and all the aspects of a complete rooftop building HVAC system. 

Feel free to use the above for explanation in your report to DOE. It is not exactly what you described below 

where the factors were reduced. They were just based on hours of operation where mechanical cooling was 

active. Also note that the ambient rebalance was also developed based on mechanical cooling operating

hours. 

Let me know if you have questions. 

Richard Lord 

Carrier Corporation 

From: James Battaglia 

Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:38 PM 

To: Whitwell, Robert 

Cc: Lord, Richard CCS; Rabbia, Mark R; Laura Degitz 

Subject: RE: Manufacturer Interview Follow Up 

Hi Bob, 

During the team’s visit with you, it was discussed that for the IEER metric, the lower part-load measurement levels use 

lower weighting factors that take into account economizing, since for lower ambient conditions, economizers handle 

more of the load. Since we weren’t involved in the development process of AHRI 340/360, would it be okay if we 

referenced that information publicly? 
2

Just let us know if it would be okay, or if you have any questions or concerns. 

Best Regards, 

James 

_________________________________________________________ 

James Battaglia | Managing Consultant | Energy | Navigant
No. 61959.

#### Traveler Trading Co. *v.*United States,

protests 317579-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 13,244.

#### SPOFFORD v. RITTEN.

[4 McLean, 253.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1847.

Pleading at Law — Amendment—Service of Copt.

1. A very slight amendment of the declaration. which in no respect can affect the merits of the case, does not require a copy of the declaration to be served under the rule.

*9342. The plea filed by the defendant, required the amendment.

3. There is no irregularity in the judgment, which can authorize the court to set it aside.

In equity.

Mr. Emmons. for plaintiff.

Mr. Goodwin, for defendant.

McLEAN, Circuit Justice.

This is a motion to set aside a judgment, on the ground that the suit had been commenced by declaration, which was served on defendant, who pleaded that he was an alien, though alleged in the declaration to be a citizen of Michigan. Leave was given to amend the declaration, alleging that the defendant was an alien. On this amendment being made, a judgment by default was entered. And now a motion was made to set aside the judgment by default, for irregularity. 1 Chit. Pl. 253, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 434.

It is contended that a new cause of action can not be introduced by the plaintiff, in his declaration, under leave to amend it. which shall affect the rights of the defendant by avoiding the statute of limitations. But the above amendment was not of that character. It was a mere description of the person, which in no respect affected the rights of either party. He, being an alien, was as liable to the process of the court, and the claim of the plaintiff, as if he were a citizen. So that there could be no objection to the amendment, arising out of the lapse of time, or on any other ground. The amendment could hot have taken the party by surprise, as it became necessary from the interposition of his plea.

There is no objection that no rule for plea was entered after the declaration was amended. But the objection is, that the counsel for the defendant, being in court, cognizant of the plea of the defendant, the leave to amend, and rule for plea, had not a copy of the amended declaration served upon him. The rule in terms requires this to be done in general language; but the court must see that a rule designed to protect the rights of the defendant, shall not be made to operate unjustly against the plaintiff. There could be no necessity for a copy of the declaration to be served on the counsel in this case. The amendment was slight, and not at all affecting any defense which the defendant could set up on the merits.

The motion is overruled.
| (1)   | the annual Report on Form 10-K of Net Ten Profits. for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Net Ten Profits |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Gilad David                                                              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                        |
| Name:  | Gilad David                                                                 |
|   |                                                                        |
| Title: | Principal Executive Officer and Director                                    |
|   |                                                                        |
| Date:  | March 31, 2011                                                              |
|   |                                                                        |
| By:    | /s/ Fouad Dasuka                                                            |
|   |                                                                        |
| Name:  | Fouad Dasuka                                                                |
|   |                                                                        |
| Title: | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                        |
| Date:  | March 31, 2011                                                              |

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RALPH R. JORDAN, Master Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 393, 34 CMR 173

No. 17,285

February 14, 1964

*Colonel Jose-ph L. Chalk, Captain Daniel II. Benson, Captain Joseph M. Livermore, Captain Gary G. Keltner,*and *First Lieutenant Beverly B. Bates*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Bruce C. Babbitt*and *First Lieutenant John C. Cortesio, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

We granted accused’s petition for review of his conviction of voluntary manslaughter and approved sentence to confinement at hard labor for twelve months, forfeitures for a like period, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The issue involved the propriety of the law officer’s instruction to the court concerning the effect of immediate detection and certain apprehension in determining whether accused could adhere to the right. The United States and the accused have filed a joint pleading in which it is admitted that the instruction is incorrect and reversal of the decision of the board of review is prayed. See United States v Jensen, 14 USCMA 353, 34 CMR 133.

Where the evidence places in issue an accused’s ability to adhere to the right, an instruction according controlling effect to the concept herein 'discussed is prejudicially erroneous. United States v Jensen, supra. Accordingly, the prayer of the joint pleading is well taken.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.
E nd a ng e r e d S p ecie s A ct ( E SA ) S ecti on 7

Con s u ltati on R elate d D o c u m e n t s
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0525 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-063-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 206L, L-1 L-3, and L-4 

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 688 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of a main rotor blade and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $

Labor per Helicopter

(2.5 work-hours x $85/workhour to measure the spar and 

reidentify the blade)

$213

Other (Explain) According to Bell’s service information, some of 

the costs may be under warranty.

Total Cost per Helicopter $213

Total US Fleet Cost $146,544

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: Sharon Miles
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1306

JEFFREY L. HELMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION, d/b/a Hilton Grand Vacations Inc., and Hilton Grand Vacations, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. ( 4:21

- cv - 03266

- JD )

Submitted : February 22, 2024 Decided: February 26, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jeffrey L. Helms , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1306 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey L. Helms appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
report as modified and denying relief on Helms’ discrimination claims . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Helms v. Hilton Resorts Corp ., No. 4:21

- cv - 03266

- JD (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisi onal

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1306 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
================================================================================
                                   EXHIBIT 32

                TIRE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC.

                           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 Tire International Environmental
Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KA for the year ending September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Antonio Care, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.



Date: August 18, 2011                        By:       /s/ Antonio Care
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:   Antonio Care
                                             Title:  Principal Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18
of the United States Code 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.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report
pursuant to Item  601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of
the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)


                                       28
================================================================================
<page>
#### SPLITDORE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. ANNA KING, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND MARGARET KING, APPELLANT.

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided October 11, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 90 *N. J. L.*421.

Por the appellant, *William P. Murphy.*

Por the respondent, *Kalisch ,& Kalisch.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bergen in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.