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

|  | **BOOKS** |
|--|-----------|
|  |
|  |

----

| **Links to other titles**
**Other Books**              - author              index- title              index

**CADRE Papers**              - author              index- title              index

**Fairchild Papers**              - author              index- title              index

**SAASS Theses**              - author index              - title index

**Maxwell Papers** *              - index

**Wright Flyer Papers** *             - index

* Available as downloads in PDF format only.

Distribution Policy**About this                title**
ANZUS in Revision: Changing Defense Features of                Australia and New Zealand in the Mid-1980sFrank P. Donnini
1991, 219 pages                ISBN: 1-58566-037-X                $14.00

order no. B-39 | download

Colonel Donnini analyzes the demise of the ANZUS alliance                and shifts in Australian and New Zealand defense features. He addresses many                questions and issues dealing with changing the political situation and the                impact of those changes on defense and security conditions in the South and                Southwest Pacific regions.

Next Title | Previous                Title | AU Press Home

**What do you think**? E-mail your comments about this title to Air                University Press   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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-QSB of Cartoon Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Randolph S. Hudson, President, Chief Executive
Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial 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:

(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/ Randolph S.
      Hudson___________________________________________Randolph S.
      HudsonChief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Boards of Trustees of the Ohio :

Laborers’ Fringe Benefit

Programs, :

Plaintiffs, : 

v. Case No. 2:10-cv-1032

 :

Ohio Building Restoration Co., JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 : Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 26, 2012, plaintiffs moved for an order to show

cause why defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to

comply with the Court's order of January 6, 2012, ordering

defendant to appear for deposition, answer interrogatories and

produce documents. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge for a Report and Recommendation.

Defendant and its corporate officer Duane Haas were ordered

appear on March 19, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. to show cause why a

finding of contempt should not be made. Despite being served

with the notice, they did not appear. However, an attorney for

the defendant had made some contact with plaintiffs’ counsel

prior to the hearing. Plaintiff requested ten days within which

to attempt to reach an understanding with defendant about

complying with the Court’s orders. If that does not occur, it is

recommended that the defendant be found in contempt and that an

arrest warrant issue.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Report and

Recommendation to the defendant by regular and certified mail.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp__________

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-01032-ALM-TPK Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/26/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD BLOODWORTH, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122 

 Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, 

WARDEN, et al. 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 On November 16, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a 

Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 83, recommending that defendant 

William Bierbaugh’s motion to dismiss be granted. The parties were 

specifically advised of their right to object to the Report and 

Recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so. 

There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Defendant William Bierbaugh’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 70, is 

GRANTED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 12/12/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 49236.

#### Protests 832967-G/86123, etc., of Chinese Trading Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was assessed and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the merchandise at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5 (chemical compounds). The protests'were sustained to this extent.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Villano, Appellant.

*274Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Gerald Villano,*appellant, in propria persona.

*Charles B. Watkins,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Robert W. Duggan,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee,

*275August 11, 1969:

Opinion by

Me. Justice Roberts,

Appellant, claiming a denial of his direct appeal rights under *Douglas v. California,*372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963), petitioned for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.* The petition was denied without a hearing, and appellant appealed pro se. The Superior Court, on motion of the Commonwealth, then remanded for the appointment of counsel. The Allegheny County Public Defender was appointed to represent appellant on the appeal. Counsel then merely xeroxed and submitted a brief wholly prepared by appellant. The Superior Court affirmed per curiam, Judges Spaulding and Hoffman dissenting, and we granted allocatur.

The Commonwealth now concedes that the manner in which the Allegheny County Defender took appellant’s appeal to the Superior Court violated the rationale of *Commonwealth v. Baker,*429 Pa. 209, 239 A. 2d 201 (1968), a decision mandated by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Clearly this is true; the right to be represented by counsel envisions much more for a petitioner than the use of the Defender’s xerography equipment. Counsel must not merely be present—he must act as an *advocate.*

The Commonwealth now also petitions for this case to be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the question whether appellant waived his right of direct appeal from his conviction. We agree that this is proper, and appellant’s counsel also favors the granting of the petition. Thus the Commonwealth’s petition for remand for the holding of an evidentiary hearing is granted.

*

 Petitioner has made other claims, not herein relevant, in this petition and in two prior POHA petitions. In neither of the earlier cases was he represented by counsel.
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                 FOR PAUL TUNINK

________________________________________________________________________

     The  Company  reaffirms  the  severance  provisions  under  Paul  Tunink's
Employment  Agreement.  The  Company also clarifies that Mr. Tunink receives the
severance  package  upon  the  occurrence  of, but not limited to, the following
conditions:  1)  termination  of  employment by the Company or its successor; 2)
reduction  in  salary;  3) the relocation of Employee's workplace from the Cedar
Rapids,  Iowa  area; 4) the Company's failure in any material respect to perform
any provision of the Employment Agreement; 5) the Employee's continued travel on
the  Company's  behalf  in  excess  of 50% for any continuous period of 60 days.

                                        /s/  Eugene  I.  Davis
No. 51784.

#### Protests 947974-G, etc., of Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. (Philadelphia and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### James Thompson *v.*Clarence R. B. Fuller.

Motion to modify order denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First MarbleheadCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Donald R. Peck, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurerand Secretary 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 10,  2006 |  /s/ Donald  R. Peck                                                    |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Donald R. Peck                                                               |
|                 | Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The FirstMarblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.15
 Kona Grill, Inc.
  I. NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT
 Name:Address:
  Date of Grant:Vesting Commencement Date:Exercise Price per Share:Total Number of Shares Granted:Total Exercise Price:Type of Option:
    
    Incentive Stock OptionNonstatutory Stock OptionExpiration Date: As provided in Section 3 of the Agreement.Vesting Schedule: This Option shall be vested according to the following vesting schedule:
 
 Exercise Schedule:




---



##### 



II. AGREEMENT
 Grant of Option Optionee Option Exercise Price
 ISO NSO
 Exercise of Option.
 Right to Exercise
 Method of Exercise Exhibit A Exercise Notice




---



##### 



Term earliest
       Method of Payment
    Optionees Representations




---



##### 



Restrictions on Exercise
 Non-Transferability of Option
 Tax Obligations.
 Withholding Taxes
 Notice of Disqualifying Disposition of ISO Shares
 Entire Agreement; Governing Law
 No Guarantee of Continued Service Optionee acknowledges and agrees that the
vesting of shares pursuant to the vesting schedule hereof is earned only by continued Service at
will to the Company (not through the act of being hired, being granted this Option, or acquiring
shares hereunder). Optionee further acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement, the transactions
contemplated hereunder, and the vesting schedule set forth herein do not constitute an express or
implied promise of continued Service for the vesting period, for any period, or at all, and shall
not interfere in any way with Optionees right or the companys right to terminate Optionees
relationship at any time, with or without cause.




---



##### 



Optionee
    
    Kona Grill, Inc.Signature
    
    ByPrint Name
    
    TitleResidence Address




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 KONA GRILL, INC.
2005 STOCK AWARD PLAN
EXERCISE NOTICE
 
  Exercise of Option Optionee Shares Company Plan Option Agreement
 Delivery of Payment
 Representations of Optionee
 Rights as Stockholder
 Tax Consultation




---



##### 



Restrictive Legends and Stop-Transfer Orders.
 Legends
  Stop-Transfer Notices
 Refusal to Transfer
 Successors and Assigns
 Interpretation
 Governing Law; Severability




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Optionee
    
    Kona Grill, Inc.Signature
    
    ByPrint Name
    
    TitleResidence Address
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BENJAMIN NUSMAN, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 432, 35 CMR 404

*433No. 18,411

June 18, 1965

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian,*and *Captain Frank J. Martin, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Edwin G. Schuck, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *Captain John C. Cortesio, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States,

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

In this case, as a part of his instructions to the court-martial prior to closed deliberations on the findings, the law officer advised its members:

> “Each member should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to the opinions and arguments of the others. It is not intended that a member should go to the deliberation room with a fixed determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment. Nor is it intended that he should close his ears and eyes to the arguments of other members who are equally honest and intelligent with himself. But you are not to yield your judgment simply because you may be outnumbered or outweighed.”

In United States v Gilmore, 15 USCMA 428, 85 CMR 400, we held an identical instruction to be free from error. See also United States v Jackson, 15 USCMA 431, 35 CMR 403. We pointed out that the advice, apparently based in part upon Allen v United States, 164 US 492, 41 L ed 528, 17 S Ct 154 (1896), has no tendency to coerce the fact finders into concluding accused was guilty, but, to the contrary, “only invites honest discussion of differing views on the guilt or innocence of the accused.” United States v Gilmore, supra. As in *Gilmore,*therefore, we conclude that the instruction was not erroneous.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs and National 
Estuarine Research Reserves

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office 
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of postponement of scheduled program evaluation.

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

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 
(OCRM) announces the postponement of the previously scheduled Coastal 
Zone Management Act program evaluation of the U.S. Virgin Islands 
Coastal Management Program.

DATE AND TIME POSTPONEMENT: Notice was previously given in the Federal 
Register on February 27, 2007, that the Virgin Islands Coastal 
Management Program evaluation site visit was scheduled for June 25-29, 
2007. Three public meetings were scheduled during the week. The 
evaluation site visit has been postponed to a date yet to be 
determined. The public meetings will also be rescheduled after the site 
visit is rescheduled. Notice will be given in the Federal Register when 
the site visit and public meeting dates have been established.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy 
and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, N/ORM7, 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 563-7118.

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog: 11.419.

Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.
    Dated: March 30, 2007.
David M. Kennedy,
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National 
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-6355 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590



### Petitioner: Creation View Imaging, Inc. Nevin E. Smith, Jr. Assistant ChiefPilot 2604 Aga Drive Alexandria, MN 56308 Tel: 320-491-6654 Email: nevin@cvi-unmanned.com 

### Website: 

### www. Cvi-unmanned.com Greetings, 

### Application to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 14794 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3592 

### Creation View !maging

8 March2016

')

By letter from the FAAdated February 11, 2016, an exemption was granted to Creation View Imaging, Inc. for reliefunder Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 14794 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-3592. Creation View Imaging, Inc. hereby requests thatthe exemption so granted be amended to include the following UAV's: DllMatrice, DllPhantom 4 (both small UA V quad-copters) and the DllF550 and Tarot 680 Pro (small UAV hex-copters). Relevant filets and reasoning are: -The DllMatrice and DllPhantom 4 are both part ofthe Dllfamily ofquadcopters which was previously approved for ouruse. The DllF550 and the Tarot 680 Pro hexcopters also fall within our previous approval of small UAV's. All ofthese UAV'suse the same basic flight control systems and RC transmitters and are built with similar components as previously approved underFAAExemptionNo. 14794. All ofthese UAV's are smaller in size than the Dll S900 hexcopter which was previously approved under FAAExemption No. 14794. -The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in FAA's Exemption No. 14794 apply without modification tothis application. Thank you for your consideration ofthis important request. Please advise us ofany additional information that may be required. Sincerely,

# 'J~~ "Nevin E.Smith, Jr. Creation View Imaging, Inc. Assistant Chief Pilot
#### THE HOME INSURANCE CO., *ETC.,*PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. NORMAN W. SCHWARTZ, *ETC.,*DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. ShurTcin & Fershing*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Feuerstein & Sachs*for the respondent.

March 14, 1967.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 4.9.1

SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AGREEMENT(S)  TO EXHIBIT 4.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guarantee, dated as of August 17, 2000, made by Edison Mission Energy, as
Guarantor in favor of Powerton Trust II, as Owner Lessor.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Meyers, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 406]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester *570County (Lange, J.), rendered October 22, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Gordillo,*191 AD2d 455). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH IN GTO N , D
. C
. 20460

OFF I CE OF C HEM ICAL S A FETY AN D P O LL U TI O N PRE V E N TIO N MEMORAN D UM March 1 7 . 2016
SUB J ECT: Memorandum to Docket E P A -HQ- OPPT-2015-0233; US E PA C hemical Safety Adviso r y Committee (CSAC); A ppointed M e mb e r s TO: fROM: Docke t Id e nti fica ti o n N umb e r E PA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0233 Scott Lynn . Ph.D .. Biologist

# v**~i.J2 ~**  FIFRA Scientific Adv i so ry P anel/ CSAC
-- 

# U 

# lJOffic e o f ciencc Coordinati o n and Policy Laura Bail ey, M.S. , Superv i sory Ph ys ic a l Sc ientis t/E xecuti ve Secre tary

# ~**iJ** FIFRA Sc ie ntifi c Adv i sory P a nei / CSAC 

# F 1 Offic e of Sc ie n ce Coo rdinati on and P o li cy 

### D av i d Dix , Ph.D
..

# Director**~J** THR U:

O ffice of Sc ience Coordi n ation and Po li cy 

# !;AJV

o mination s for me mb e r sh ip we re solicited through publ icatio n in the Federal Reg ister and thro u gh o th er so urce s . Any inte res t ed person o r organization cou ld n o minate him or h e r self o r any qualified indi v idual to be consider e d fo r th e CSAC . EP A va lu es a nd welco me s divers it y a nd e ncouraged n om in a ti o n s of women a nd m e n of all r ac i a l and e thni c g roups. Nomi nati o n s in c luded candidates who d e mon s trated hi g h leve l s of compete nc e, kno w l e d ge . .a nd expe rti se in scie ntifi c/ tec hnical fields relevant t o c hemical ri sk asses s m e nt and p o lluti o n prevention. At thi s tim e, E P A i s annou n c in g th e te n scientific expe rt s se lec te d to serve o n th e CSAC. T h e following are the names a nd primary professional af filiation s of the nominees se lected and appo int ed by the Administrator of E PA for membersh ip on th e Chemical Safety Adv i sory Committee: Kenneth P o rti er, Ph .D . , CSAC C hair I lo ll y Davie s, Ph.D. Willian1 Douc ette, Ph.D. P anos Georgopoulo s. Ph.D .. M.S .. Dipl. In g. Kathleen Gil bert , Ph.D. John Kissel , Ph.D. Bruce Lanphe ar. M.D .. M. P.H . J aym i e Me li ker , Ph.D. Dani e l Sc hl enk, Ph.D. Krist in a T h ayer, Ph .D. Amer ican Cancer Soc i ety S ta te of Wa s hington Utah Sta te U niver sity Rut ge rs U niversity U ni ve r s i ty of Arkansas for Medical Sc ienc es U niversity of Wash i ngton Simon Fr ase r U ni versity S tony Broo k Univers it y U ni ve r s ity of Ca lif ornia. Ri ve rs ide Nat io nal In st itute of E nviro nm e ntal H ealth Sc iences