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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            IN HONOR OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL BILL RHEA STARNES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and 
Representative Phil Roe, I submit these remarks in honor of Lieutenant 
Colonel Bill Rhea Starnes, a veteran and distinguished pilot, who was 
prematurely taken from us on August 24, 2012.
  As a member of both the United States Air Force and the Tennessee 
Army National Guard, Bill gallantly served our country for 39 years. At 
the ripe old age of 14, his love for aviation was first cultivated when 
his father taught him how to fly a plane. After graduating from East 
Tennessee State University, Bill continued his flight training at Fort 
Rucker in Alabama. Following flight school, Bill served in Vietnam, 
where he flew approximately 800 combat hours. In 2005 and 2006, he was 
deployed to Kosovo. Throughout his military career, Bill demonstrated 
the courage, fortitude, and wisdom that a nation prays for and a 
military dreams of having. He was the recipient of nearly 50 awards 
including the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal, and air 
medals with valor and army commendation.
  Even down to his voicemail--``Hello, it's Bill. Learn as if you will 
live forever, and live as if you will die tomorrow,''--Bill embodied a 
strong desire to live life to the fullest. Though he didn't reside in 
the Ninth District, I assure you, Bill was an active member of our 
community. As the chief pilot for K-VA-T Food Stores and Central Coal 
Company, he was even said to be a ``fixture'' at the Virginia Highlands 
Airport.
  A committed family man, a man who loved God and his country, and a 
friend of many, Bill will be greatly missed by his colleagues and those 
he served. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Lisa; his two 
sons; his father; his family; and his friends.
  Well known for his exceptional goodwill and dedication to the United 
States military and our community, I am honored to pay tribute to this 
man's many contributions. His legacy and influence will be long 
remembered throughout our region.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 2.6 

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO**

**PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT**

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of January 16, 2007 by and among ONEOK,Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (“ONEOK”) and ONEOK Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, formerly known as Northern Border Partners, L.P., (“ONEOK Partners”) (each a “Party” and together,the “Parties”). Each capitalized term used herein but not defined shall have the meaning given such term in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (as defined below). 

**W I T N E S S E T H**

**WHEREAS**, the Parties previously entered into thatcertain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of February 14, 2006, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of April 6, 2006 (collectively, the “Purchase and Sale Agreement”) andnow desire to further amend the Purchase and Sale Agreement as set forth herein; 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premisesand mutual agreements and covenants herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 

1. Exhibit D. Exhibit D to the Purchase and Sale Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit D attached to this Amendment. 

2. Final Closing Working Capital. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the amount of Final Closing Working Capital under Section 1.4 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement is $28,589,781. 

**[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]**

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date set forthabove by their duly authorized representatives. 

 
ONEOK, INC.By: */s/ John W. Gibson*Name:   Title:   ONEOK Partners, L.P.By: ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., its general partnerBy: */s/ John W. Gibson*Name:   Title:   

Exhibit D 

(Target Working Capital as of the Balance Sheet Date)
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA 2012
- 0945 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010
- SW
- 110
- AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because
**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
1 Atkins v. Virginia , 506 U.S. 314 (2002); Hall v. Texas ,

537 U.S. 802 (2002).

2 Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
. 3 Penry v. Johnson , 532 U.S. 782 (2001). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-70041
MICHAEL WAYNE HALL, Petitioner-Appellant
versus NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth (06-CV-436)
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: We grant a certificate of appealability on Michael Wayne Hall’s Atkins claim. 1 The case will be scheduled for oral argument before this panel. We are not presently persuaded to grant and we defer decision upon the application for a certificate of appealability on Hall’s Ring 2 and Penry 3 claims until after oral argument. The Court does2

not request but the parties may supplement the Ring and Penry claims and offer argument, if they wish to do so.

So ORDERED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 5, 2020

s0602

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2020

159434

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159434

COA: 338889

Wayne CC: 16-002600-FC

JAMAR WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Davis (Docket No. 160775) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 – Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM – Tinkerbell
Modas (GREEN by missako)**

**(Case T-162/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark GREEN by missako – Earlier national and Community figurative marks MI SA KO – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 52)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2008 (Case R 1527/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Tinkerbell Modas LTDA and Frag Comercio Internacional, SL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Tinkerbell Modas LTDA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark GREEN by missako for goods and services in Classes 3, 25, 35 – Application No 3663234 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Frag Comercio Internacional, SL |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The Community figurative trade mark MI SA KO for goods in Classes 18 and 25; the national figurative trade mark MI SA KO for services in Class 35 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Frag Comercio Internacional, SL, to pay the costs. |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7160** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RONNIE D. RAINEY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00199

- D

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00778

- D )

Submitted : December 20, 2013 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Ev a n Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie D. Rainey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 201 2 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits , a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U .S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional rig ht. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-32.1 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

EXHIBIT 32.1

I, Craig H. Barratt, the chief executive
officer of Atheros Communications, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:



|(i) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 7, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Craig H. Barratt                 
|Craig H. Barratt                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          20,725
<SECURITIES>                                    22,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,299
<INVENTORY>                                        107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,160
<PP&E>                                          43,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,022
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,336
<SALES>                                         73,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,564
<CGS>                                           13,415
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               106,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,940
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (93,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (96,112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (96,112)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.64)


</TABLE>
#### Florence L. Myerson, Plaintiff, *v.*Walter Lampl, a Limited Partnership, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 9, 1959.

*Louis A. Tepper*and *Milton Levitan*for plaintiff.

*Bass & Friend*for defendant.

*207Sidney A. Fine, J.

Section 102 (subd. [1], par. [b]) of the Partnership Law provides that no repayment of a loan by a limited partner may legally be made unless at the time the assets are sufficient to discharge the partnership’s liabilities to persons not claiming as general or limited partners. A triable issue is presented as to whether the partnership assets are presently sufficient to satisfy the claim asserted by plaintiff and the claims of nonpartner creditors. The statement of assets and liabilities submitted on behalf of plaintiff states that it is “ believed to be substantially correct ” but is “ not to be construed as final or absolute.” It also states that it does not include accruals for accounting, legal or *other*expenses, without specifying what the *“*other ” expenses are. The accounts receivable appear to be stated at their face value without any reserve for bad debts or expenses of collection. The values of a gold ring and of furniture and fixtures are claimed to be grossly exaggerated. No item of taxes appears in the statement. In these circumstances, the existence of adequate assets to pay other creditors as well as plaintiff is not sufficiently clear and free from doubt as to warrant granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment must also be denied. There is at least a triable issue as to whether the payment of the $25,000 by plaintiff’s assignor represented a loan to the partnership, payable on demand. The provision of the partnership agreement prohibiting the limited partner from substituting an assignee “ *as contributor*in her place ” (italics the court’s) does not apply to the assignment of a loan indebtedness, as distinguished from the limited partner’s right to assign her claim for contributions made to the partnership capital (see, also, Partnership Law, § 108).

The motion and cross motion are both denied.
# Knox - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Cumberland Valley Area Development District Executive Director Whitney Chesnut Email &#119;c&#x68;e&#x73;t&#x6e;u&#x74;&#64;&#x63;&#118;&#x61;&#100;&#x64;&#46;o&#114;gThe post Cumberland Valley Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2009006EN.01004201.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/42

---

Action brought on 17 November 2008 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)

(Case T-490/08)

(2009/C 6/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: CM Capital Markets Holding SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carbon Capital Markets Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2008 in Case R-16/2008-1, which would lead to the rejection of the contested trade mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2008 in Case R-16/2008-1, which would lead to the rejection of the contested trade mark in its entirety;

| — | uphold the applicant's claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant's claims;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its claims.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Carbon Capital Markets Limited.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS (Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)’ (Application No 4.480.349), for services in Class 36.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘Capital Markets’ (Application No 3.409.281), for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42; Spanish figurative mark ‘Capital Markets’, for services in Class 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2008223EN.01004402.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (Silhouette of a car with its headlights)

(Case T-9/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Waiver of registration of national mark - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 223/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and R. Jepsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2007 (Case R 1306/2007-4) concerning a national registration, pursuant to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks, adopted at Madrid on 27 June 1989, of the figurative mark representing the silhouette of a car with its headlights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

The Board of Directors

Performance Food Group Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-72400, 333-12223, 333-78229, 333-60528, 333-102154, 333-102155, and 333-105082) on Form S-8, the registration statements (Nos. 333-24679, 333-61612 and 333-68877) on Form S-4 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-48462 and 333-63610) on Form S-3 of Performance Food Group Company of our reports dated February 3, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Performance Food Group Company and subsidiaries as of January 3, 2004 and December 28, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended January 3, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the January 3, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Performance Food Group Company.

Our report covering the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in accounting for business combinations and goodwill and other intangibles.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, Virginia

March 17, 2004