alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Yalobusha - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Base Camp Coding in Northern Mississippi: Training the Next Generation of Programmers Base Camp Coding Academy&#160;(BCCA), a non-profit learning center in Yalobusha County, Mississippi, offers intensive computer programming training to recent northern Mississippi high school graduates free of charge. Based in Water Valley, BCCA was first launched in 2016 as a pilot program in partnership with&#160;Northwest Community College&#160;(NWCC). Between 2017-2020, BCCA graduated 41 students certified in several [&#8230;]The post Base Camp Coding in Northern Mississippi: Training the Next Generation of Programmers appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- North Central Planning and Development District Executive Director Chris Weathers Email &#99;w&#x65;a&#x74;h&#x65;&#114;&#x73;&#64;&#x6e;&#99;p&#x64;d&#x2e;o&#x72;&#103;The post North Central Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2009193EN.01002101.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)

(Case T-311/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark IBIZA REPUBLIC - Earlier figurative national mark depicting a five-pointed star in a circle — Absolute ground for refusal - 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))

2009/C 193/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Fitoussi (Vincennes, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, T. van Innis and G. Glas, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot (Ibiza, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 7 May 2008 of OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal (Case R 1135/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Fitoussi and Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Paul Fitoussi to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Paul Fitoussi to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, of 25.10.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dresser, Inc. (Dresser) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2004 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 Dresser as of the dates and for periods
presented as required by such Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 15, 2004



/s/ James A. NattierJames A. Nattier Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DURAN ANTHONY THOMAS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 235 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Billy Adams, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction of three counts of burglary in the second degree, which brings up for review the court’s April 21, 1989 order denying defendant’s motion to suppress his various statements. Defendant contends that the People failed to sustain their burden to establish that defendant’s statements were preceded by a lawful arrest.

Defendant’s motion papers did not raise a Fourth Amendment issue. CPL 710.60 (1) provides that a suppression motion must state the legal grounds for suppression. Defendant’s papers did not address the legality of his arrest except to state, in conclusory fashion, that defendant’s statements were elicited in violation of his rights under the "First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Nineth *[sic]*and Fourteenth Amendments” and that they were "involuntary” within the meaning of CPL 60.45. Defense counsel’s conclusory assertions were insufficient to raise a Fourth Amendment claim with the requisite specificity to entitle defendant to a hearing of such claim *(see, People v Robinson,*154 AD2d 931). That evidently was the court’s and the parties’ view of the motion papers, because there was no discussion at the outset of the hearing that it concerned the legality of the arrest and the People’s proof focused on the *Miranda/voluntariness*issue. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Purple, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Mathew WEEDEN, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13098.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 18, 1961.

Mathew Weeden, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Petitioner, Mathew Weeden, has filed herein an application for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of securing his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary.

The petitioner, Inmate No. 40797, was received at said penitentiary on January 11, 1940, and is now being imprisoned in said institution for and on account of a judgment and sentence entered on January 6, 1940, in the District Court of Wagoner County, Oklahoma, Case No. 2009, wherein he was tried and convicted by a jury for the crime of rape in the first degree, for which he received a .sentence of 99 years.

Petitioner’s sole complaint is that the judgment and sentence was excessive under the facts. This court has repeatedly held that the question of whether punishment assessed by the trial court was excessive is a matter to be considered only on appeal from a final judgment and cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus. Perry v. Waters, 97 Okl.Cr. 17, 256 P.2d 1119.

The petition is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


  The Board of Directors and Stockholders
  The Beard Company:



  We consent to Incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
  (No. 33-87110, 33-98482, and 333-06757) on Form S-8 of The Beard Company of
  our report dated March 19, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of The
  Beard Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
  related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
  each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which
  report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-K of The
  Beard Company.



                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  March 28, 1997
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JACQUELINE MARIE MURPHY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4282

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed December 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; George C. Richards, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
exv4w17



 




EXHIBIT 4.17




BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION




OFFER TO EXCHANGE




$1,250,000,000 principal amount of its Floating Rate Senior
Notes Due 2008




unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which
have been registered




under the Securities Act of 1933, for any and all Floating
Rate Senior Notes




Due 2008, unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway
Inc.




Instructions from Beneficial Owner



     
The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



     
This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
Transmittal.



     
The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
(ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
(iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.






		
	 	
    Sign Here
	 
	 	
     

	 	
    Signatures(s)











 





Securities which are to be tendered:




Tender all of the Outstanding Notes




Aggregate Principal Amount*




o     Outstanding
Notes 






 





Name(s) (Please Print)




 





Address




 





Zip Code




 





Area Code and Telephone No.




Dated:  
 ,
2005







 







		
	* 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.



2
EX-32.2 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

EXHIBIT 32.2

I, Jack R. Lazar, the chief financial
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 March 31, 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: May 10, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jack R. Lazar                         
|Jack R. Lazar                             
|Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
# Forsyth - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Piedmont Triad Regional Council Executive Director Matthew L. Dolge Email &#x6d;&#x64;&#111;&#108;&#103;e&#x40;&#x70;&#x74;&#114;&#99;&#46;o&#x72;&#x67;The post Piedmont Triad Regional Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
" 

# I 

# I U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation June 21, 2013 Mr. John Swasey President Exec Air, Inc. ofNaples 160 13th StreetNW Naples, FL 34120 j

Re: DocketDOT-OST-2007-27815, Application of Exec Air, Inc. d/b/aExecAir, for Commuter Air Carrier authority DearMr. Swasey: : ;- s:,__ .

: •. , '!- f] 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590

This letter is in reference to the amended application ofExec Air, Inc. ofNaples ("Exec Air") filed in DocketDOT-OST-2007-27815 on July 6, 2011, for commuter air carrier authority. In evaluating an applicant's fitness, the Department generally asks that those applicants have resources sufficient to cover all pre-operating costs and any negative working capital balance, plus a working capital reserve equal to the operating costs that would be incurred inthree months ofnormal commuter operations. Based on the latest information provided to the Department on December 5, 2012, Exec Air's total first year projected expenses as stated in Exhibit 6 indicates total expenses of$169,284, and its balance sheet indicates a negative working capital balance of $13,000. To meet the Department's financial fitness requirement, Exec Air wouldhave to show that it has access to capital equal to 3 months of normal operations plus the shortfall of its negative working capital. We estimate thatExec Air will require $55,304 to meet our financial fitness criteria. The amount noted here is comprised of$42,304 which is one-quarter ofExec Air's first year cost forecast of$169,204 plus the $13,000 in negative working capital shown on its balance sheet. Therefore, we ask that you provide us with third party verification offunds available to meet our financial fitness test, such as a letter from Exec Air's bank confirming the amount on deposit, bank loans, and lines-of-credit ifany, within 30 days ofthe receipt ofthis letter. We also ask that youplace this information inDocket DOT-OST-2007-27815. While the Department does closely workwith applicants through the applicationprocess, itis not our policy to keep incomplete applications open indefinitely. If we do not receive the aforementioned information within the time period provided, we intend to dismiss Exec Air's application withoutprejudice.2
Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter or the requested information, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-9721.

ur ynJ. Remo Chie ,Air CarrierFitness Division Air Carrier Fitness Division

cc: Mr. FelixMolina-FAA Mr. Carlos Zuniga-FAA
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4351 

To require reporting by the Department of Education on requests for funding 

projects or programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require reporting by the Department of Education on 

requests for funding projects or programs, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missed Opportunities 

5 in Education Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING ON MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31 of 

8 each year, the Secretary of Education shall submit to Con9 gress a report on missed opportunities for each competiVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:00 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4351.IH H4351

ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4351 IH

1 tive or discretionary grant program administered by the 

2 Department of Education in the preceding fiscal year. 

3 (b) CONTENTS.—For each grant program described 

4 in subsection (a), the report shall detail the 10 individual 

5 applications, proposals, or requests for funding that— 

6 (1) were not funded or awarded, completely or 

7 partially; but 

8 (2) showed the greatest potential to improve 

9 education in the United States, according to the se10 lection criteria and established goals of that grant 

11 program. 

12 (c) REPORTING DATE FLEXIBILITY.—If a law re13 quires an annual report to Congress with respect to a 

14 grant program described in subsection (a), the report on 

15 missed opportunities required under this section for that 

16 program may— 

17 (1) be included in that annual report; and 

18 (2) be submitted on or before the date that an19 nual report is due. 

20 (d) PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY.—Upon submission of a 

21 report on missed opportunities to Congress under this sec22 tion, the Secretary shall make the report available to the 

23 public on an internet website of the Department of Edu24 cation in a manner that is user friendly and able to be 

25 searched and downloaded by users of the website. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4351 IH

1 (e) TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA2 TION.—Nothing in this section authorizes the Secretary 

3 to disclose any information that is a trade secret or con4 fidential information subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 

5 5 or section 1905 of title 18. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
Appalachian Regional Commission, Match Requirements for ARC Grants

Match Requirements for ARC Grants 

By law, most ARC grants require cost share or match funding. Applicants should 

submit proof of committed match as part of the grant application. ARC state 

program managers can offer guidance on the amount of match required and 

available match sources, and provide information about any additional state 

matching requirements.

Federal requirements related to match can be found in 2 CFR §200.306 “Cost 

Sharing or Matching.” Amounts proposed for match are expected to be achieved 

consistent with what is proposed, allowable per applicable federal cost principles, 

and adequately documented. All match becomes part of the project and is subject 

to federal regulations

How Match Rates Work 

Each fiscal year, ARC evaluates economic data categorizing each one of the Region’s 420 

counties’ economic status as distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, or attainment. 

Each economic designation has a different match rate, which determines the amount of 

funding that ARC is able to provide. A grant’s final match rate is determined by the economic 

designations of the proposed service area, which may include multiple counties each with a 

different economic status. Projects serving counties experiencing higher levels of economic 

distress are eligible for more funding from ARC and a lower required match rate, as reflected 

below:

These percentages apply to single county projects. The match percentage for multi-county 

projects will be determined on a project-by-project basis. Contact your state program 

manager for help in determining the match required for your project.
Appalachian Regional Commission, Match Requirements for ARC Grants

Types of Match 

All applications for ARC funding must include a formal letter from the matching source 

indicating a firm commitment to provide the required match.

Cash is the most common form of match. Cash match is often drawn from grantees’ own 

funds or cash donations from non-federal third parties, such as partner organizations. A cash 

match contribution is an actual cash contribution. Loans are also counted as cash.

Match can also be pledged as “in-kind” or non-cash donations — or, rather, the value of noncash donations. These can be in the form of real property (including land and buildings), 

equipment, supplies, services, training, or other expendable property.

Examples of in-kind donations include, but are not limited to:

• Personnel time given to the project

• Person on loan from another organization/corporation

• Donation of or use of equipment, like use of a crane or bulldozer

• Expert services, like engineering or architectural services

• Value of a lease for project space

Please find additional match information here.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 125 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        House of Representatives

Chamber Action
  The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 
12 noon on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 in pro forma session.

Joint Meetings
  No joint committee meetings were held.
```
#### KUNZE v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

No. 9202.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 1939.

Jos. O. McGehee, of Columbus, Ga., for appellant.

Thomas Leslie Bowden, of Columbus, Ga., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order affirming the action of the referee in bankruptcy in dismissing the petition of appellant for an arrangement as to real property under Chapter XII of the Bankruptcy Act of June 22, 1938, 11 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq.

Appellant was the owner of one parcel of real estate, subject to a security deed in favor of appellee. The debt secured by it being in default, foreclosure proceedings were begun, whereupon appellant filed her petition herein. Subsequent proceedings in conformity with the act went forward to the first meeting of creditors, at which appellee, being the only creditor named and the only one appearing, rejected the offer *918or arrangement proposed by appellant. No further offer being made, the referee dismissed the petition under Section 481 (2) of the act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 881(2).

Appellant insists that the referee dismissed the petition because, under his construction of the act, he had no discretion other than to dismiss or adjudicate under Section 481 (2), but that in this he was in error, because Section 414, 11 U.S.C. A. § 814, confers discretionary power to enjoin or stay any proceedings to enforce a lien against any of the property.

The context of the act and its obvious purpose amply demonstrate that the grant of the injunction or stay provided for is to be in aid of the consummation of the arrangement, and that it may not be treated as an end in itself. There being no proposed arrangement which could be confirmed, and no proposal to submit a new, amended, or additional plan, the discretionary power conferred by Section 414 was exhausted when the meeting adjourned, appellant requesting no more than á further stay.

The conclusion of the referee that his discretion was limited to a choice of dismissal or adjudication was correct, and the order of the district court is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDRE DOTHAN DAWSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3301

[ December 27, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 562008CF003768A

.

Andre Dothan Dawson, Punta Gorda, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.