alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10526]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Harry Potter: A History of Magic'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Harry Potter: A History of Magic,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at The New-York Historical Society 
Museum & Library, New York, New York, from on or about October 5, 2018, 
until on or about January 27, 2019, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#47342224332e28297573727e07343326332269202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="384b5d5b4c5157560a0c0d01784b4c594c5d165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-13 of August 23, 2018.

Jennifer Z. Galt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-18823 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Roy Carroll PAULK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42378.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy. Subsequently under authori*385ty of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, the Supreme Court of Florida in Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972) reduced appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. Upon careful consideration and analysis of the record and briefs in this case, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of sentence, is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 13 January 2005

in Case C-175/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in F.J. Pape v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)

(State aid - Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Planned aid - Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission's final decision - Tax partly earmarked for financing the aid measure - Tax imposed before approval of the aid)

(2005/C 57/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-175/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 8 March 2002, received at the Court on 13 May 2002, in the proceedings between F.J. Pape and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij – the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it ruled:

The prohibition on implementation laid down in the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC) cannot apply to a tax if that tax, or a certain part of the revenue from it, is not hypothecated to the financing of an aid measure.

----

(1)OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                          18,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,427
<PP&E>                                          48,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,662
<SALES>                                        241,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,616
<CGS>                                          173,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,721
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (496)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,622
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,070
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,070
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67


</TABLE>
| (1)   | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    | /s/ David Callan                                  |
| Name:  | David Callan                                                               |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Director(principal accounting officer) |
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00255

- CR

Charles BORTON, Jr., Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Tex as

Trial Court No. DC7029 Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appell ee ’s brief was originally due September 23 , 20 22 . Appell ee ’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to October 24, 2022

. On October 19, 2022

, appell ee filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until November 23, 2022 , for a total extension of 60 days , and we granted appell ee ’s motion

.

On November 21 , 20 22 , appell ee filed a third motion for extension of time requesting an additional 45 days to file the brief , for a total extension of 105 days

. A fter consideration, we GRANT the motion in part and ORDER appell ee to file the brief by December 23, 2022

. Appellee is advised that if the brief is not filed, the case may be set at issue without an appellee’s brief

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of November, 2 022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7683

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN BALTIMORE CITY JAIL; BRYANT WEST;

LESLIE YAITHES; THOMAS WYATT; US MARSHALS;

DOUGLAS BIALESE; ANTHONY CANNAVALE; U.S. DRUG

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; ROBERT DOWDY, a/k/a Rob;

VINCENT NEWBY, a/k/a Abu,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-

2462-L)

Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oriakhi v. Warden

Baltimore City Jail, No. CA-95-2462-L (D. Md. Oct. 2, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"Keith Baxter","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/keithb\/","title":"FEIS for Mertarvik Infrastructure Development","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AhF2d8JIjI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/feis-for-mertarvik-infrastructure-development\/\">FEIS for Mertarvik Infrastructure Development<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/feis-for-mertarvik-infrastructure-development\/embed\/#?secret=AhF2d8JIjI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FEIS for Mertarvik Infrastructure Development” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"AhF2d8JIjI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/Mertarvik_Rendering2.png","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":345}
10.21.2 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO AMENDED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2013 BY AND BETWEEN SEAN ERICKSON AND SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION


Exhibit 10.21.2


Sean Erickson
19586 E. Geddes Place
Centennial, CO 80016


Amendment No. 1 to Amended Management Employment Agreement


Dear Sean, 
This Amendment No. 1 to the Amended Management Employment Agreement dated January 25, 2013 is entered into by and between Sitel Operating Corporation (the “Company” or “SITEL”) and you effective September 1, 2013 (“Amendment Effective Date”).  The following provisions of Exhibit A to the Amended Management Employment Agreement are amended as follows:
Position:  Executive Vice President, Chief Global Markets and Infrastructure Officer
Base Salary:  $360,000 per year


MIP Target:  100% of Base Salary


All other terms of the Amended Management Employment Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Sincerely,


                    


Sitel Operating Corporation








/s/ Dagoberto Quintana                
Dagoberto Quintana
Chief Executive Officer


I agree to the foregoing Amendment No. 1 to the Amended Management Employment Agreement.  I accept continued employment with SITEL on these terms and conditions.


 /s/ Sean Erickson                
Sean Erickson
EXHIBIT 32.02








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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Spectrum Smith Barney Global Balanced L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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 Partnership.




















By:             /s/       Jennifer Magro





Name:                    Jennifer Magro


Title:                      Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 28, 2011
#### Jesse Feaster, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 2, 1989, and October 18, 1989, respectively, after trial before Jane S. Solomon, J., upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,180,158.50, unanimously reversed, on the law, the judgment vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial, without costs.

Where plaintiff fell to the subway tracks as a train was entering the IRT 125th Street station and was run over by the first half of the first car, resulting in the amputation of his left leg above the knee, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine as set forth in PJI 2:14. As was the case *285in *Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth.*(77 NY2d 322), the jury being presented with questions of whether the train was travelling at a reasonable speed, whether the motorman reacted reasonably under all the circumstances and whether he was in fact confronted with an emergency, it should have been instructed in the context of such doctrine. *(Supra,*at 328.)

Also, it being well settled that a plaintiff may not adduce evidence tending to demonstrate that a person alleged to have committed a negligent act has previously committed similar acts or was generally negligent, it was reversible error to permit plaintiff, over objection, to read the motorman’s deposition testimony in which he acknowledged that on two prior occasions he had operated a train which had struck a person on or near the tracks. While plaintiff’s counsel ostensibly sought to rehabilitate his expert’s assumption concerning the motorman’s reaction time, it is evident that such information served only to show the motorman’s involvement in two prior accidents and was an attempt to establish in the minds of the jury that, as a motorman, he was routinely negligent.

Likewise, it was severely prejudicial to permit plaintiff’s counsel, on cross-examination, to impeach defendant’s engineering expert by eliciting that he had previously testified as defendant’s expert in a similar case in which the jury returned a six million dollar verdict against defendant. The only possible purpose of such testimony was to impeach the witness because he was on the losing side in another, factually distinguishable case where the verdict was in the millions of dollars. Clearly, the amount of damages awarded had nothing to do with the witness’s credibility. Equally irrelevant was the fact that both of defendant’s experts had testified in the prior case. Under the circumstances, the court’s curative instruction that the jury was to ignore "some of the particulars that you may have heard just before” was inadequate.

Finally, on remand, we leave to the trial court’s sound discretion the question of the admissibility of the computer generated videotape simulation of the accident sought to be introduced by defendant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of POW! Entertainment,
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 the results
of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                      |  |     |  |                                                    
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gill Champion                                  
|                      |  |     |  | Gill Champion President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

American Technology Corporation 

San Diego, California 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-144698, File No. 333-09265, FileNo. 333-09269, File No. 333-23845, File No. 333-59929, File No. 333-54034, File No. 333-101279, File No. 333-125454 and File No. 333-128263) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-137289, File No. 333-99675, FileNo. 333-105740, File No. 333-107635, File No. 333-127534 and File No. 333-137289) of our report dated January 5, 2007, relating to the 2005 and 2006 financial statements and schedule of American Technology Corporationappearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007. 

/s/    Swenson Advisors, LLP

San Diego, CA 

January 7, 2008
From: "DELONEY, SCOTT" <SDELONEY@idem.IN.gov>

To: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "PEDERSEN, CHRISTINE" <CPEDERSE@idem.IN.gov>, 

"Knapick, Ryan" <RKnapick@idem.IN.gov>

Date: 06/25/2012 11:31 AM

Subject: Indiana Infrastructure SIP

Doug, per U.S. EPA’s guidance, we have reviewed our ambient monitoring data for 

PM2.5. As a result, we have confirmed that observed 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

have been below 140 ug/m3 at all locations throughout Indiana since the PM2.5 

network was established in 1999. Consistent with U.S. EPA's guidance, "Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2005 24-Hour Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" September 25, 

2009, areas that have not observed PM2.5 concentrations above EPA's intended 

significant harm level can opt to address emergency episode requirements by attesting 

that concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3. Via this communication, I wish 

to attest that this is the case for Indiana, and our intent is for this note to satisfy the 

requirements for emergency episode planning even without contingency plan 

requirements specifically tailored to PM2.5.

Scott Deloney

Chief, Air Programs Branch

Office of Air Quality

sdeloney@idem.in.gov

(317) 233-5694
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

May 11, 2017

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re:                             Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(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 Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The Bank   of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee   for VOC Energy Trust                    |
|     |                                              |   |
|     | By:                                               | /s/   MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael   J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

----