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, 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 Partnership. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 4, 2011 | /s/ Cedric W. Burgher   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                         | Cedric W. Burgher       |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer |

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FELIX A. MORALES, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 29,297

August 1, 1975

*Captain Gordon R. Denison*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera,*and *Captain Winston E. King.*

*Captain Gary F. Thome*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway*and *Lieutenant Colonel Donald W Hansen.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Cook, Judge:

Reviewing accused’s conviction of two drug offenses, the Army Court of Military Review determined that prosecution exhibits indicating previous misconduct by the accused "did not qualify as official records” and were, therefore, legally inadmissible. *United States v Morales,*49 CMR 458, 461 (ACMR 1974). Although the entire court agreed that the inadmissible evidence resulted in a "more severe” sentence than the court-martial would have imposed had the improper evidence not been before it, a majority refused relief to the accused because at trial defense counsel had interposed no objection to the evidence. Proceeding under the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §867, the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Army has asked this Court to determine whether the Court of Military Review correctly applied "the doctrine of waiver.”

Subsequent to the Court of Military Review’s action, we decided *United States v Graves,*23 USCMA 434, 50 CMR 393 (1975), in which we reviewed the effect of the absence of objection by defense counsel upon the trial judge’s obligation to conduct the trial in accordance with established principles. We emphasized that, absent circumstances indicating an affirmative waiver by defense counsel of appropriate judicial action required by the evidence, the trial judge was not relieved of his independent duty to take such action. More recently, we held that when "the prosecutor’s own exhibit demonstrated the absence” of a sound basis for its admission into evidence, the trial judge must exclude it despite the absence of objection by defense counsel. *United States v Heflin,*23 USCMA —, 50 CMR — (August 1, 1975).

Here, the Court of Military Review acknowledged that several of the Government’s exhibits as to previous misconduct by the accused contained deficiencies which, on their face, demonstrated that they did not qualify for admission into evidence. The court’s unanimous determination that the evi*509dence probably resulted in a more severe punishment confirms the record indication that defense counsel did not perceive or contemplate a tactical advantage from the admission of the exhibits into evidence. The court, therefore, should not have refused to consider the consequence of the erroneous trial ruling.

We answer the certified question in the negative and reverse the decision of the Army Court of Military Review as to the sentence. The record of trial is returned to the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the Court of Military Review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Chief Judge Fletcher and Senior Judge Ferguson concur.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-3 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2013 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 24, 2010, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 28, 2014By:

/s/ Jennifer M. PoppName:

Jennifer M. PoppTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 28, 2014
Exhibit 99.1



      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 Thomas  Industries  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  that  based on their  knowledge  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
represents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of
operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.




/s/ Timothy C. Brown
--------------------------------------------
Timothy C. Brown, Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Phillip J. Stuecker
--------------------------------------------
Phillip J. Stuecker, Chief Financial Officer



August 14, 2002
#### John Wanamaker, New York *v.*United States

No. 6371.

Entry No. 703746, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 6, 1941, etc.

Certified June 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 17, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 20, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for-the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 101 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 101

 Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the development of the Salk polio 
   vaccine and its importance in eradicating the incidence of polio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2005

 Mr. Santorum (for himself, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Lautenberg) submitted 
      the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the development of the Salk polio 
   vaccine and its importance in eradicating the incidence of polio.

Whereas the epidemic of polio struck the citizens of the United States in the 
        early 1950s, causing thousands of cases of lingering paralysis and 
        death;
Whereas the epidemic of polio peaked in 1952, having affected nearly 58,000 
        people, mainly children and young adults;
Whereas many of those affected by polio needed the assistance of mechanical 
        ventilators in order to breathe, while others were crippled and 
        dependent upon crutches for mobility;
Whereas University of Pittsburgh faculty member Dr. Jonas Salk and his team of 
        researchers developed the first vaccine against polio;
Whereas, in April 1955, the results of an unprecedented and successful 
        nationwide clinical trial of the polio vaccine were announced; and
Whereas the Salk polio vaccine was approved for widespread public use at that 
        time: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the pioneering achievement of Dr. Jonas Salk 
        and his team of researchers at the University of Pittsburgh in 
        the development of the Salk polio vaccine;
            (2) expresses its appreciation to--
                    (A) the family of Dr. Salk for the elimination of 
                polio, a disease that caused countless deaths and 
                disabling consequences;
                    (B) the members of Dr. Salk's research team; and
                    (C) the individuals who generously agreed to 
                participate in clinical trials to validate the efficacy 
                of the polio vaccine; and
            (3) celebrates with the University of Pittsburgh on the 
        50th anniversary of the approval and use of the Salk polio 
        vaccine.
                                 <all>
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00286

- CV

TAP R EALTY

, LLC, 62 M AIN S TREET

, LLC, C ENTER FOR A ESTHETIC

S URGERY

, LLC, G & B C OLLEYVILLE

, LLC AND V ILLAGE O WNERS

A SS OCIATION

, I NC

. , Appellants

V

.

N EIGHBORHOOD M ANAGEMENT

, I NC

. , Appellee §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 352

- 342154

- 23 )

September 7, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has consider ed the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Justice Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
##### 



Exhibit 10.2 October 19, 2004 Mr. T. Kevin Dunnigan
8155 T&B Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38125 Dear Kevin: This letter documents the agreement to extend your term as Chairman of the
Board of Thomas & Betts Corporation for an additional year. Therefore,
effective as of September 1, 2004, we hereby amend the Retirement Agreement
between Thomas & Betts Corporation and yourself dated December 2, 2003, to
change the termination date in section 3(a)(i) from December 31, 2004, to
December 31, 2005. All of the other terms and conditions of the Retirement
Agreement shall remain unaltered. Yours truly,
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ J. N. RainesJ. N. RainesV.P.  General Counsel and SecretaryAgreed:/s/ T. Kevin DunniganT. Kevin Dunnigan
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 v.

Thirty-six (36) 300CC on road scooters,

Model WF300-SP, (D One), et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv--130

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

Discovery Order

Claimant’s January 6, 2012 motion to compel discovery (doc. 18) is DENIED as moot.

The United States has been making a rolling production of documents. In its February 2

response to the motion, the United States acknowledges that it has not produced

documents as expeditiously as it should have and states that it continues to provide

discovery responses. On February 9, the United States filed notices regarding its responses

to interrogatories and requests for admission. Claimant did not file a reply brief supporting

the motion to compel. 

If there are specific discovery requests that the United States has failed to respond to

in a timely manner, claimant’s counsel should call my office (614.719.3370) to schedule a

conference to compel responses by a definite date. Before the conference, counsel should

email me the discovery requests, responses, and communications regarding them. 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00130-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

Case: 2:11-cv-00130-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of InterXion Holding N.V. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies to the undersigneds knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Josh Joshi

M.V. Josh Joshi

Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 8, 2014
A89A1744.

#### LITTLE v. THE STATE.

(392 SE2d 896)

Decided March 15, 1990

Rehearing dismissed March 28, 1990.

*Albert C. Palmour, Jr.,*for appellant.

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of OCGA § 16-11-131 (b). The trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentence on the jury’s verdict, and appellant appeals.

Appellant’s sole defense was justification. See OCGA § 16-3-20. His wife testified that she owned the weapon and, unknown to appellant, had placed it in the glove compartment of his truck because she was going to get it repaired. Appellant stated that when his children opened the “dash,” he saw the weapon and put it in his pocket because he feared they would play with it and be injured. He was then stopped for a license check, and the weapon was discovered.

Appellant requested the following charge: “[Wjhen a felon is in imminent peril of great bodily harm or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and with preconceived design on his part a firearm is made available to him, his temporary possession of that weapon for a period no longer than that in which the necessity or apparent necessity to use it continues does not violate the statutory prohibition against possession of a concealed firearm by a felon.” This request, based on *People v. King,*582 P2d 1000 (22 Cal. 3d 12, 148 Cal. Rptr. 409) (1978), was refused by the court. See also Annot., 39 ALR4th 967 (1985). This refusal is enumerated as error.

Justification is a defense to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. “OCGA § 16-3-20 plainly states that justification is a defense to the prosecution for any crime.” *Smith v. State,*257 Ga. 468, 469 (3) (360 SE2d 591) (1987). See *Pickett v. State,*123 Ga. App. 1 (1) (179 SE2d 303) (1970); *Harris v. State,*15 Ga. App. 315 (85 SE 813) (1914).

“While the request to charge may have been . . . verbose and imperfect in form, which would not require the written request to be given verbatim, yet the accused was entitled to a charge as to the only defense which he claimed, and when the court refused to [so] charge . . . , and charged merely the language of [OCGA § 16-11-131], this was tantamount to a direction of a verdict, requiring a reversal on this ground alone.” *Pickett v. State,*supra at 2 (1).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Beasley, J., concurs. McMurray, P. J., concurs in the judgment only.*

*131
      *Ralph Van Pelt, Jr., District Attorney, Susan Sarratt, John L. O’Dell, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.
No. 54819.

#### George Borgfeldt Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 152151-K and 156536-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
SAFETY BULLETIN 

2023-02 

SUBJECT: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Shove Movement Accident 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is investigating a recent switching accident that 

resulted in a crew member fatality. Based on FRA’s preliminary investigation, a conductor with 

18 years of service was fatally injured when the tank car he was riding to provide point 

protection for a switching move was struck by a dump truck. The incident occurred at a private 

grade crossing in a steel plant as the train consist traveled southward. The dump truck, traveling 

west, stopped at the private highway-rail grade crossing, then proceeded and collided with the 

car the conductor was riding, killing the conductor. It was nighttime, the yard was lighted, and 

the conductor had his lantern turned on. Prior to the incident, the conductor was in 

communication with the engineer via radio. The private highway-rail grade crossing was 

equipped with passive warning devices and stop signs. 

The purpose of this Safety Bulletin, which is informal in nature, is to ensure the railroad 

industry, including railroad employees, are aware of this recent accident that resulted in a fatality 

of an employee. As FRA completes its investigation, it may take additional actions with respect 

to this accident. 

Although FRA’s investigation into this accident is ongoing, FRA notes the importance of ensuring 

pushing or shoving movements over highway-rail crossings are conducted safely, to include: 

 Proper training, periodic oversight, and application of appropriate railroad operating rules 

when determining whether the track is clear, and 

 Proper job briefings and communications between assigned crewmembers during 

pushing or shoving movements. 

FRA requests that railroads review this Safety Bulletin with employees to increase awareness of 

the dangers of pushing and shoving movements at highway-rail grade crossings. FRA also 

reminds railroads of the need to ensure all individuals involved in pushing or shoving 

movements are: (1) properly trained and qualified on how to conduct those operations safely; 

and (2) understand what “track is clear” means related to a highway-rail grade crossing. 

Additionally, FRA reminds railroads and train crew members of the work of the Switching 

Operations Fatality Analysis (SOFA) Working Group, a voluntary, non-regulatory, workplacesafety partnership formed to identify commonalities among fatalities that occur during switching 

operations. SOFA findings are available on FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/railroadsafety/divisions/partnerships- programs/switching-operations-fatalities-analysis-sofa. 

Issued: March 16, 2023 

Prepared by: The Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety
Patrick Haskell will serve as Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer effective as of June 17, 2008 for a term of three years


Exhibit 10.4




“Summary Sheet” of Employment Agreement 

with Dennis McGuire 







Dennis McGuire was appointed as the Co-Chief Executive Officer effective as of June 17, 2008.  On that date, the Board of Directors approved a financial package and authorized the entry into an Employment Agreement for a term of three years.  Mr. Haskell is receiving an annual base salary of $325,000, increasing to $400,000 on January 1, 2009.  His salary will either accrue or be payable in common stock until Ecosphere has sufficient cash resources.  He is also eligible to receive a performance bonus upon meeting an additional milestone.  Mr. McGuire was granted 3,300,000 non-qualified stock options and cash settled stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) in tandem, exercisable at $0.50 per share over a five-year period.  The SARs are only exercisable if Ecosphere does not have sufficient authorized capital to permit all outstanding options and warrants to be exercised.  The options and SARs are subject to both performance and time based vesting over a three-year period, subject to continued employment on each applicable vesting date.  Mr. McGuire shall receive two years base salary and all of his unvested options and SARs shall vest immediately upon a termination for Good Reason.
Before the First Division,

July 12, 1938

No. 38980.

#### Protests 845268-G/86212, etc., of Pure Milk Association et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Pure Milk Association*v. *United States*(T. D. 49179) the paraffin wax in question was held free of duty under paragraph 1796.
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

United Airlines Complainant,



### v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



### ORDER FAA Docket No. 16-14-13

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16.
As the parties are aware, the Director concluded there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, and requested additional information from the Respondent. The investigation is still on-going. Accordingly, an extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofthis case. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to May 27, 2016.

Date Ac mg Director, Office irport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 10, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) and to be emailed at the addresses below or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to:

For Complainant RobertS. Span Steinbrecher & Span LLP 1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004

**rspan steinbrecherspan.~OIJ1**  Marc 

### L. Warren Crowell 

### & Moring LLP 1

001 Pennsylvania Avenue , NW Washington, DC 20004 mwarrcnallcrowe II. com For Respondent Carlene V. Mcintyre The Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey 225 park Avenue South New York, New York , 10003 cmcintvrra { panynj .gov Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0

- 1 

### 00 

# fPmtll1kl

_ Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis