alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5684-7]

Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation 
Programs Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On September 11, 1995 (60 FR 47172), the EPA announced the 
establishment of the Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs Subcommittee under the Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee (CAAAC). The CAAAC was established on November 8, 1990 (55 FR 
46993) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 
app I). The purpose of the Subcommittee is to provide advice and 
recommendations on integrated approaches for implementing potentially 
new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and 
particulate matter, as well as a regional haze program.

DATES: Notice is hereby given that the Subcommittee for Development of 
Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation Programs 
will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, February 20, 1997 (from 
9 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and Friday, February 21, 1997 (from 8 a.m. to 3 
p.m.).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency, 400 
New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Subcommittee for Development of Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional 
Haze Implementation Programs, please contact Mr. William F. Hamilton, 
Designated Federal Officer, at 919-541-5498, or by mail at U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-12, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711. When a draft agenda is developed, a copy can be 
downloaded from the Ozone/Particulate Matter/Regional Haze FACA 
Bulletin Board, which is located on the Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards Technology Transfer Network (OAQPS TTN) or by contacting 
Ms. Denise M. Gerth at 919-541-5550.

    Dated: January 29, 1997.
John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-2843 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEVE MILLER and FEDERATED FINANCIAL, INC.

, Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
, Appellee

.

No. 4D16

- 4127

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mily Rodriguez Powell , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 17606 (03)

.

Christopher J. Whitelock of Whitelock & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Zoran D. Jovanovich of Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Latitude Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis Buhler, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | **Latitude Communications, Inc.** |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |                              |
|   |                              |
|   | **By:**                           | **/s/    LUIS BUHLER** |   |
|   |                              | Luis Buhler  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date:  May 14, 2003

 

----
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA - 2015 - 7525 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM064AD

*RC* 747 - 22 - 2256 --- 03/06/2015 *RC* 757 - 22 - 0096 --- 03/23/2015 *RC* 767 - 22 - 0143 --- 03/06/2015 *RC* 767 - 22 - 0143, R1 --- 7/6/2015 *RC* 767 - 22 - 0146 --- 03/24/2015

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docke t and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
July 27, 2015

Mr. George Greiner

P.O. Box 908

Edmonds, WA 98020-0908

Dear Mr. Greiner:

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

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

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 7, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2728), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

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

you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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

seek an exemption.

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

What You Should Do

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

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

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

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3328 

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the meanstest presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve 

components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard 

who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform 

a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. TILLIS, and Ms. 

HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the 

Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, 

after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or 

to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 

90 days. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3328 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Guard and 

3 Reservists Debt Relief Extension Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF 

5 AMENDMENT. 

6 Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists 

7 Debt Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–438; 122 Stat. 

8 5000) is amended by striking ‘‘15-year’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘19-year’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Alfonza SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                      [Berthel Fisher & Company Letterhead]

                                                                 January 9, 2003

Mr. Gene Davis, CEO
Murdock Communications Corporation

Dear Gene:

     Pursuant to discussions in preparation of the filing of the S-4 for the
merger of Murdock Communications Corporation ("MCC") and Polar Molecular
Corporation ("Polar"), Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc.
("BFCFS") has been requested to specify an amount for which BFCFS and Berthel
Fisher & Company Management Corp. would settle all outstanding investment
banking fees, success fees, office rental payments, expenses and other amounts
due from MCC.

     Therefore, we make the following offer to settle all such amounts that may
be outstanding as of the closing of the MCC/Polar merger or due in conjunction
with the MCC/Polar merger.

          .    750,000 shares of MCC common stock, issuable immediately prior to
               the merger;
                                     - and -
          .    Pursuant to our previous understanding, BFCFS is to receive up to
               $90,000 in cash for these fees, expenses, etc. from MCC loans
               from Polar with respect to funds raised in the Polar Additional
               Offering. With respect to this, BFCFS will take MCC common shares
               valued at $1/share for any cash shortfall related to this
               $90,000, issuable immediately prior to the merger.

     Gene, the current accrual of fees, expenses, etc. on MCC's books are
roughly $510,000 + with, obviously, additions being accrued each month. We
believe this would be the best way to handle for both parties.

     If this is agreeable to MCC, please acknowledge below and return a copy of
this letter to my attention. If you have any questions, please contact me.

                                              Sincerely,


                                              /s/ Ronald O. Brendengen

                                              Ronald O. Brendengen
                                              Chief Financial Officer

cc:  Wayne Wright
     Nancy Davis

     Acknowledged and agreed this 23 day of January, 2003

MURDOCK COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION


BY: /s/ Gene Davis
    -------------------------
    Gene Davis, CEO
# L_2007224EN.01000701.xml

| 29.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 224/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 224/7

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 202/2005 of 18 January 2005 amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 33 of 5 February 2005
  )

On page 1, Article 1, point 1:

for:

| ‘1. | the title shall be replaced by the following:

  ‘Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal’;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

the title shall be replaced by the following:

‘Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal’;’,

read:

| ‘1. | the title shall be replaced by the following:

  ‘Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission, of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice, of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance and of the President, Members and Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal’;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

the title shall be replaced by the following:

‘Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission, of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice, of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance and of the President, Members and Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal’;’.

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Cygne Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay Furrow, President and 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:

(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.



By:

/s/ Jay FurrowJay FurrowPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2008
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES

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

DWS EAFE(R) Equity Index Fund             DWS Mid Cap Growth Fund

DWS Equity 500 Index Fund                 DWS Small Cap Growth Fund

DWS Equity Income Fund                    DWS S&P 500 Index Fund

DWS Japan Equity Fund                     DWS U.S. Bond Index Fund

DWS Latin America Equity Fund             DWS Value Builder Fund


The following information supplements or revises disclosure under "The Fund's
Main Investment Strategy" section of the fund's prospectuses:

Securities Lending. The fund may lend its investment securities in an amount up
to 33 1/3% of its total assets to approved institutional borrowers who need to
borrow securities in order to complete certain transactions.


DWS Equity Income Fund                    DWS Latin America Equity Fund

DWS Floating Rate Plus Fund               DWS Value Builder Fund

DWS Japan Equity Fund


The following information supplements disclosure under "The Main Risks of
Investing in the Fund" section of the fund's prospectuses:

Securities Lending Risk. Any loss in the market price of securities loaned by
the fund that occurs during the term of the loan would be borne by the fund and
would adversely affect the fund's performance. Also, there may be delays in
recovery of securities loaned or even a loss of rights in the collateral should
the borrower of the securities fail financially while the loan is outstanding.
However, loans will be made only to borrowers selected by the fund's delegate
after a review of relevant facts and circumstances, including the
creditworthiness of the borrower.



               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference




                                                                     [Logo]DWS
                                                                       SCUDDER
                                                           Deutsche Bank Group
June 6, 2008
DMF-3667
#### CREIGHTONS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and The Ohio Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Elizabeth BANNELL, a widow, Appellee.

No. 70-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONI ANTONELLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA and AARON

ROTHBERG, CHP Officer,

Defendants-Appellees,

 and

DOES, 1-15,

Defendant.

No. 17-55412

D.C. No. 

8:15-cv-00024-JVS-JCG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 5, 2018** 

Pasadena, California

FILED

JUN 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: FERNANDEZ and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,***

District Judge.

 

Toni Antonellis appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of defendants on her claims for excessive force under the Fourth

Amendment, violation of bodily integrity under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, and battery under California common law. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. When viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Antonellis, no

reasonable juror could conclude that Officer Rothberg violated Antonellis’s

constitutional rights. See Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 993 (9th Cir. 2009). It

was objectively reasonable for Officer Rothberg to handcuff Antonellis for a total

of nine minutes and to prohibit her from leaving the scene to use the restroom;

Antonellis committed multiple traffic violations and fled the scene when Officer

Rothberg first pulled her over. Thus, Officer Rothberg is entitled to qualified

immunity.

2. For the same reason, Antonellis’s battery claim fails. See Arpin v. Santa

Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

2
#### Willie O’HARA, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 25, 1970.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Upon petition filed initially in this Court by petitioner Willie O’Hara, we issued writ of habeas corpus to respondent Wainwright as the official custodian of petitioner, who is serving a term of imprisonment in the State Prison pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense, after jury trial in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record.

The petition for the writ alleges facts which, if true, would prima facie entitle petitioner to a full appellate review as to the legality of his conviction by means of this habeas corpus proceeding as the equivalent of a direct appeal. See Powe v. State, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 446; Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla.1966, 188 So.2d 788; Fla. 1967, 194 So.2d 577; Platt v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 666; Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla. 1969, 229 So.2d 239, and State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 160 So.2d 518.

Respondent has filed here his response to the writ, admitting matters of record concerning the conviction, but denying all other salient facts alleged and relied upon by petitioner, thus raising factual issues which must be resolved in determining whether petitioner is entitled to such full appellate review in this proceeding.

*430Therefore, in view of the foregoing and upon authority of the foregoing cases, the Honorable John G. Hodges, a Circuit Judge of the 13th Judicial Circuit of Florida, is appointed a Commissioner to take such testimony and receive such evidence as may be deemed proper or necessary as to petitioner’s allegations and thereafter with all convenient speed report the same, together with his findings and recommendations, to this Court.

So ordered.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD LAWRENCE WARNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 08-55 Erie

v. )

)

CATHERINE MCVEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on February 20, 2008,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 63], filed on July

9, 2010, recommended that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No.

47] be granted and that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 51] be

denied. It was further recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the

original pleadings [Doc. No. 55] be dismissed as moot. The parties were allowed

fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections. Plaintiff filed objections on

July 26, 2010 [Doc. No. 64] and supplemented these objections on August 4, 2010

[Doc. No. 65]. After de novo review of the motion and documents in the case, together

with the Report and Recommendation and the supplemented objections thereto, the

following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16 day of August, 2010; 

th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

[Doc. No. 47] is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No.

51] is DENIED. JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the Defendants and against

the Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the

original pleadings [Doc. No. 55] is DISMISSED as moot. 

Case 1:08-cv-00055-SJM-SPB Document 66 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 2
The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 63] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on July 9, 2010 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

Case 1:08-cv-00055-SJM-SPB Document 66 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 6, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01753-CV
TODD PRUETT, Appellant

V.

LISA CLAYTON, M.D., Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14518



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans Opinion by Justice Bridges
Appellant has informed the Court he no longe r wishes to pursue the appeal and moves to

dismiss it. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. ;
43.2(f).

131753F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TODD PRUETT, Appellant

No. 05-13-01753-CV V.

LISA CLAYTON, M.D., Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14518. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Lang and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Lisa Clayton, M.D. recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Todd Pruett.

Judgment entered November 6, 2014.