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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Site visit review of the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) at New York University by the Division of Materials Research (DMR) #1203.                    

*Dates and Times:*

April 19, 2012; 7:45 a.m.-6:15 p.m.;

April 20, 2012; 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

*Place:*                         New York University, New York, NY.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Thomas Rieker, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4914.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning further support of the MRSEC at New York University.                    

*Agenda:*

Thursday, April 19, 2012

7:45 a.m.-4:30 p.m.: Open—Review of the MRSEC

4:30 p.m.-6:15 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

Friday, April 20, 2012

8 a.m.-9 a.m.: Closed—Executive session

9 a.m.-10 a.m.: Open—Review of the MRSEC

10 a.m.-3:30 p.m.: Closed—Executive Session, Draft and Review Report

*Reason for Closing:*                         The work being reviewed may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the MRSEC. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: March 6, 2012.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-5758 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibnit
10.32


PROMISSORY NOTE 




	
  $600,846

  	
   

  	
  May 12, 2005

  






 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned person (“Maker”),
by this promissory note (this “Note”), hereby promises to pay to the order of
MxEnergy, Inc. (“Payee”), the principal sum of six hundred thousand, eight
hundred forty-six dollars ($600,846.00) on the date set forth below.  The outstanding principal balance hereof
shall be due and payable on June 25, 2005 (the “Demand Date”).  This Note shall not bear interest.


Principal shall be payable in United States Dollars,
without any deduction of any nature by way of set off, counterclaim or
otherwise, to Payee’s account as Payee may from time to time notify Maker in
writing.  Maker, in its sole discretion,
shall have the right, without penalty, to prepay the entire or any partial
amount of the Note.


In the event that any provision of this Note should be
held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such provision shall be severable from the remaining provision of this Note and
the validity, legality and enforceability of such remaining provision shall not
in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 
This Note may not be amended, changed, modified, supplemented or
restated, except in writing by Payee and Maker, or their permitted successors
and assigns.  This Note shall be governed
by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New
York.




	
  Maker:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/  Daniel G. Bergstein

  	
   

  
	
  Daniel
  G. Bergstein
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: April 26, 2016

S16Y0328. IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN BAILEY WALLACE, II.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline

seeking the disbarment of Stephen Bailey Wallace, II (State Bar No. 734309)

based on his violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.3 of the

GeorgiaRules of Professional Conduct. SeeBar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum

sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3 and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, while the

maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16 (d), and 9.3 is a public

reprimand. The State Bar attempted to serve the Notice of Discipline on

Wallace personally at the address listed with the State Bar, but the sheriff filed

a return of service non est inventus. The StateBar then properly served Wallace

by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). As Wallace failed to

file a timely Notice of Rejection, he is in default, has waived his rights to an

evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as

may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
The facts show that Wallace was hired to represent a client in a lawsuit

seeking damages for serious and protracted injuries the client suffered in 2003. 

Wallace, who has been a member of the State Bar since 1991, filed suit in

September 2004 and engaged in regular contact with his client through January

2013, assuring the client that the case was progressing satisfactorily towards

trial and that Wallace was waiting on an order allowing the client’s treating

physician to testify at trial. Wallace told the client to forward his medical bills

to Wallace and not to worry about them. As instructed, the client forwarded

approximately $100,000 in medical bills to Wallace over the years and did not

pay those bills. In reality, however, Wallace had not filed anything in the

client’s case since April 2006, and the case was dismissed in June 2013. 

Wallace failed to respond to the StateBar’s Notice of Investigation related to the

client’s grievance, and the Bar sought and obtained an interim suspension

effective June 30, 2015.

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with the State Bar that

disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter, particularly as it appears

that Wallace acted with a dishonest and selfish motive and that the victim was

vulnerable. Accordingly, the name of Stephen Bailey Wallace, II is hereby

2
removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of

Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2144 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2144

         To extend the duty suspension on Titanium Mononitride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the duty suspension on Titanium Mononitride.

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

SECTION 1. TITANIUM MONONITRIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Titanium mononitride) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Triple Crown Media, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies 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 his individual knowledge and belief:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 12, 2009



|        |  |                                      
|------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Signed: |  | /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.           
|        |  | Robert S. Prather, Jr.               
|        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language in said filing.
### Notes from Meeting with CVS **& Walmart**

**Attended by:** CVS Staff: Pat Perry , Wendy Brant Walmart Staff: Richard Leah y, Mike Stephenson EPA Staff: Kristin Fitzgerald , Barnes Johnson, Matt Straus, Betsy Devlin, Bets y Smidinger, Richard Huggins **Date:** December 16, 2013 EPA m et with representative s of CVS and Walmart. Walmart indicated that their main concerns are the regulatory status of discarded or recycled aerosol cans and the disposal of nicotine - containing smoking cessation products is making many of their stores LQGs . CVS said their main concern is that the disposal of nicotine - containing smoking cessation products is making many of their stores large quantity generators (LQGs).
#### Mitchell I. Weiss, Appellant, v Rhonda Weiss, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered October 11, 1988, the plaintiff former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated October 25, 1989, which denied his motion to set aside the defendant former wife’s income execution pursuant to CPLR 5241.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The documentary proof before the Supreme Court established that, when the defendant served the income execution pursuant to CPLR 5241 on the plaintiff’s employer on August 18, 1989, the plaintiff was more than three payments in arrears. Since the husband failed to proffer any evidence of mistake of fact as defined in CPLR 5241 (a) (8), the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate the income execution *(see, Blackman v Blackman,*131 AD2d 801, 805).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
• fOLEY FOLEY & LARDNE
R L L P

JL .,·' SEC. 14oc--7 PM 6 : 0 3 Oct ob er2 ,2 0 14 U.S

.E nvir onmental Pr otec ti on Agenc y-R eg ion 6 Attn

: Dayana M e dina 1 445 Ross Av enue #1200 D all as,TX 7 52 02-2733

ATTORNEY
S AT LAW 77 7 EAS T WISC O NSI N A VEN UE M
I LWAUK E E. WI 5320 2 ·5306 4 1 4 .271

.2 4 0 0 T EL 4 1 4 .297

.4900 FAX WWW

.F OLEY.CO M W RIT E R
' S D
I RE C T LIN E 4 1 4 .297

.58 32 mth

i mk e @ f o ley.com
E MAI L CL

I E N T / MATT E R NUM B E R 1 052 3()..0 103 R e: Domt ar A.W. L LC' s Supplem

e ntal Respon

seto Request

t o Pr ovide Inform ation Pursuant to C l ean Air Act D ear M s.M edi na: E nclosed ple ase find th e si g ned and notari zed Affid a vit of Annab
eth Reitte r f or the fo ll ow- upres ponsess ubmi tted to U. S .EPA on September 30, 2014. I f you ha ve any question

s ,pl ease call. Enclo
sure cc: A nn abe th R eitt er B O STO N BRU SSE L S CH

I CAGO DET RO

I T JACKSONVILL

E LOS ANGELE S MADI SO N M
I AM
I Very truly yours

, **~~** Mark A. Thimke MILWAUK EE N E W YORK ORLA N DO S AC R AMEN T O
SA N DIE G O SAN FRAN C I SCO S HAN G H A I S I LICON VALLE Y

T AL LA HASSEE TAMPA TOKYO WASH

I N G TON. D
.C . 4 8 4 1 -9 43 5 -95 81

.1AFFIDAVIT OF ANNABETH REITTER STAT E OF WISCONSIN

) COUNTY OF WOOD

) ss. ) 48 1 3-6833-3342

.1 Annabeth Reitter, being first duly sworn on oath, states as follow s: ( 1)
I am Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation for Domtar Corporation ("Domtar")

l ocated at 301 Pointe Basse Avenue, Neko osa, Wiscon

sin 54457. ( 2)
I make thi s affidavit in support of Domtar'

s response to the additi onal question

s raised by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act for informat

i on regarding Domtar's Ashdown, Arkansas mill dated June 4, 2014, and received by Domtar on June 9, 2014 (the "Re spo nse"). (3) The objections asserted in the Re s ponse are authorized by Domtar. (4) Domtar has completed

a diligent record search and a diligent interviewing proce ss with employees who may have relevant knowledge of the operations and activities at the Ashdown mill that are th e subject of the Respon se. (5) To the best of my knowledge

,based upon the information currently available to Dorntar and subject to the objection

s asserted in the Re s pons e, this Re s ponse is true, correct and accurate. Domtar reserves the right to revise, amend and/or update the Response in the future if Domtar obtains additiona

l relevant or responsive information. Annabeth Reitter Corporate Manager, Environmental Regu la tion

.. '---
#### CO-VEST CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Boyd CORBETT and Keith Gurr, dba Utah Ranchlands, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 19334.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 13, 1987.

*1309John B. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Robert H. Rees, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

SCOTT DANIELS, District Judge:

The law that is applicable in this case is governed by Rule 52(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. A trial court’s factual findings will be affirmed unless they are clearly erroneous.

The point at issue is the construction of a written document. The document is a receipt of partial payment on a judgment with a promise to terminate a sheriff’s sale and release part of the real estate securing the judgment. The document also includes the following:

> This will further acknowledge that you have tendered as full and final settlement the amount of $35,000.00, including the foregoing payments and the final $5,000.00 to be paid within 45 days hereof.

Plaintiff claims that the document was an acknowledgment of payment and was never intended as a settlement document.

Extrinsic evidence of the events surrounding the execution of the document was offered by both sides and received without objection. After hearing the evidence, the trial judge ruled that the document “was not prepared for the purpose of effecting a compromise and settlement of plaintiff’s judgment in this matter.” Because defendants did not object to the extrinsic evidence at the trial level, they cannot claim on appeal that the document is clear and unambiguous and is not subject to interpretationn with extrinsic evidence. *See Dugger v. Cox,*564 P.2d 300 (Utah 1977).

If the extrinsic evidence offered by plaintiff is believed, then there was no accord and satisfaction. The affidavit of the attorney who prepared the document asserts that “there was never any discussion ... to the effect that $35,000.00 was the actual balance owed, or that plaintiff would accept said amount in full and final settlement.”

An accord and satisfaction requires an assent or a meeting of the minds of the parties. *Messick v. PHD Trucking Service, Inc.,*615 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1980). The trial judge chose to believe the evidence that no meeting of the minds occurred. Because that finding is not clearly erroneous, his judgment is affirmed.

HALL, C.J., and DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.

STEWART, Associate C.J., concurs in the result.

HOWE, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein; SCOTT DANIELS, District Judge, sat.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-61101, as amended; and No. 333-35051 on Form S-3 of Hearst-Argyle
Television, Inc. and in Registration Statement No. 333-35043 on Form S-8 of
Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2000 (March
17, 2000 as to Note 19), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in
Registration Statements No. 333-61101, as amended; and No. 333-35051 on Form
S-3.

/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 30, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard White, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered on July 27, 1989, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing the defendant, as a violent predicate felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

On March 1, 1989, the defendant was observed by two plainclothes officers tugging at his right pants pocket, after which one of the officers saw the butt of a gun protruding from that same pocket. Defendant was arrested and read his *Miranda*rights. He voluntarily made statements on the way to the precinct house.

At a combined *Mapp/Huntley*hearing, a demonstration involving the defendant wearing his three-quarter length coat open while tugging at the unloaded gun supported the officers’ *232testimony that they saw the gun butt or the recognizable outline of the gun. *(People v Taveras,*155 AD2d 131, 135, *appeal dismissed*76 NY2d 871; *People v Williams,*156 AD2d 288.)

Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to interfere with the hearing court’s evaluation of credibility and findings of fact.

We have considered the other contentions raised and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DynCorp International LLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ Herbert J. LaneseHerbert J. LanesePresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 6, 2008
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this report, the undersigned hereby certify that this report of Z Yachts, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |                      |                                       |  |  | 
|--------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|                      |                      |                                      
|Dated: March 24, 2006 | /s/ James G. Weller  |                                      
|                      | Name:                | James G. Weller                      
|                      | Title:               | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |                      |                                      
|                      |                      |                                      
|                      | /s/ Regina F. Weller |                                      
|                      | Name:                | Regina F. Weller                     
|                      | Title:               | Chief Financial Officer              
|                      |                      |                                       |  |  | 



1