alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Eastern Air Lines
DOT Passenger Manifest Submission

Final DOT rule on Passenger Manifest Information

Eastern Air Lines
, a Supplemental FAR 121 Carrier, will comply with the procedures for collecting, compiling and transmitting the names of passenger contact details for U.S. citizen passengers on covered flight segments after an air disaster as defined in 14 C.F.R. Part 243.
If any questions should be rais ed regarding these procedures you may contact Eastern Air Lines

, Director of Safety and Security.

Statement on Eastern Air Line Air Passenger Manifest Information

Eastern Air Lines will use forms to be completed by all U.S. citizen passengers on covered

se gments. It will collect, or cause to be collected, the full name for each passenger who is a US
citizen. US citizens who do not provide this information will not be boarded. Eastern will also

s olicit, or cause to be solicited, a name and telephone numbe r of a contact from each such

passenger.

E astern Air Lines will store the forms from the moment the U.S. passenger embarks on the flight until the U.S. citizen disembarks from the flight. It will destroy all completed forms from a flight after confirma tion from the arrival station that a ll passengers have disembarked

. Eastern Air Lines will, immediately after learning of an aviation disaster on a covered flight, inform the Managing Director of Overseas Citizen Services , U.S. Department of State, on the office’s 24 hour telephone number. Eastern will then transmit as quickly as possible, but not later than three hours after learning of the disaster, a complete and accurate compilation of the inf ormation collected from all U.S. citizen passengers. Upon re quest, Eastern also will transmit a complete and accurate compilation of the information collected from all U.S. citizen

passengers to the Director, Transportation Disaster Assistance Division (formerly Family Support Services), National Transportation Saf ety Board.

The Eastern Air Lines contact for this plan, the Director of Safety and Security, will be available at any time Eastern is operating a covered flight segment and can be reached through specific phone numbers.
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

30 Minuteman 

This Second Amendment to Lease (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 29 day of November, 2005 by and between
30 Minuteman Limited Partnership (the “Landlord”) and TransMedics, Inc. (the “Tenant”). 
 Background

 A.         Landlord and Tenant have entered into that certain Lease dated
as of June 25, 2004 (as amended, the “Lease”) for property located at 30 Minuteman Drive, Andover, Massachusetts, as more particularly described therein. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meaning
given to them in the Lease. 
 B.        Under Section 5 of the Lease, Tenant
pays base rent to Landlord as set forth in Exhibit D of the Lease. Landlord has requested that Tenant increase the amounts due under the Lease from and after December 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007 in consideration of a one-time payment to be paid by Landlord to Tenant in the amount of $159,158.00 (the “Landlord Payment”). 

C.        The parties have agreed to amend the Lease to reflect the change in base
rent. 
 Agreement 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
 1.        Paragraphs
A through C above are incorporated herein by reference. 
 2.        As of the date
hereof, Landlord has paid the Landlord Payment to Tenant. Tenant hereby confirms receipt of the Landlord Payment. 

3.        Exhibit D to the Lease is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
by Exhibit D attached hereto. 
 4.        Other than as set forth above, the
Lease remains unchanged. 












 EXECUTED under seal as of the first date written above. 

 

									
	 30 MINUTE MAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	 		 	TRANSMEDICS, INC.
					
	By:	 	 NIUNA-30 MINUTEMAN, INC., general
	 		 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Waleed Hassanein
		 	 partner
	 		 		 	Name: Waleed Hassanein
		 		 		 		 	 Title:   President & CEO

Authorized Signature

					
	By:	 	  /s/ Martin Spagat
	 		 		 	
		 	 Name: Martin Spagat
 Title:   VP

Authorized Signature
	 		 		 	













 EXHIBIT “D” 

BASE RENT 
 The
annual base rent for each Lease Year will be the applicable amount set forth below multiplied by the Rentable Area: 
  

					
	 December 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006
	  	$	19.79	 
	 7/1/2006-6/30/2007
	  	$	20.09	 
	 7/1/2007-6/30/2008
	  	$	20.39	 
	 7/1/2008-6/30/2009
	  	$	20.69	 
	 7/1/2009-6/30/2010
	  	$	21.01	 
	 7/172010-6/30/2011
	  	$	21.32	 
	 7/1/2011-6/30/2012
	  	$	21.61	 
	 7/1/2012-6/30/2013
	  	$	21.97	 
	 7/1/2013-6/30/2014
	  	$	22.30	 
	 1/1/2015-6/30/2015
	  	$	23.00	* 

 * This assumes that the Lease has been extended pursuant to Addendum #1. If the Lease is extended, subject to the terms of
Addendum #1, the annual base rent per square foot of Rentable Area payable pursuant to this Exhibit “D” will increase as of July 15, 2005 and as of each July 1 thereafter throughout the Lease term by one and one-half percent (1.5%) over the annual base rent per square foot of Rentable Area for the previous Lease Year. 

  
 -3-
**Exhibit      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

|                                        |                                                          |                                    |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                          |
|                                   |                                                     |                               |
| Date: November                21, 2005 | By:                                                 | /s/ Charles                Bitters |
|                                        | Charles                Bitters                                |
|                                        | Principal                  Executive                  Officer |

|                                          |                                                |                                      |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                          |                                                |
|                                     |                                           |                                 |
| Date: November                  21, 2005 | By:                                       | /s/ Charles                  Bitters |
|                                          | Charles                  Bitters                    |
|                                          | Principal Financial                    Officer |
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Percy B. ECKHART, Executor of the Estate of Bernard A. Eckhart, Deceased.

No. 6306.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 26, 1937.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Wm. A. McSwain, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion of the petitioner in the above-entitled cause to docket and dismiss the petition to review the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals in the said cause, and it appearing that a certificate' of the clerk of the said board has been filed, showing that the petition for review was duly filed with said board, and it further appearing that the respondent in the said cause has consented to the granting of said motion, it is ordered that the above-entitled cause be by the clerk of this court docketed, and that the said petition to review be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. It is further ordered that the mandate in this cause issue forthwith.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(A) / 15D-14(A)
  1.
    
    I have read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SIFCO Industries, Inc.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(s) 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b.
    
    paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 33-8545, 33-8760,
34-51293, 34-47986 and 34-54942;c.
    
    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;d.
    
    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(s) 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; andb.
    
    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.
 Date: August 11, 2008
    
    /s/ Frank A. CappelloFrank A. CappelloVice President  Finance andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Republic Companies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin B. Cummings, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Martin B. Cummings                    
|Martin B. Cummings                        
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 30, 2006
#### Edward Schuessler et al., Respondents, v Salvatore Siminerio et al., Defendants, "C” Town Supermarket, Appellant, and Roman Carting Corp., Respondent.

Appeal by the defendant "C” Town Supermarket from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated April 27, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Lerner at the Supreme Court *(see, Ober v Rye Town Hilton,*159 AD2d 16). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 16-0333

CHARLES L. HARRELL AND

HOLLIS R. HARRELL

v.

PETER J. DRAGON §

§

§

§

§

§ Karnes County,

4th District.

July 22, 2016

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, CHARLES L. HARRELL AND HOLLIS R.

HARRELL, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 1st day of September, 2016

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 20     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### BOONE v. STATE.

No. 26595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1953.

Morris Bogdanow, 'Houston, for appellant.

William H. Scott, Crim. Dist. Atty., and King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is carrying a pistol; the punishment, six months in jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Patricia Jacobs, Respondent-Appellant.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant is the representative payee of her son’s Social Security disability benefits. The State sued defendant to recover $2,279.42 of those benefits for services rendered to her son while he resided at the State-operated Monroe Developmental Center. The State alleged in its complaint that defendant wrongfully spent the Social Security benefits.

The State’s action is barred by Federal law. The Social Security Act provides that Social Security benefits shall not be subject "to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, *or other*
      *877
      *legal process”*(42 USC §407 [a]; emphasis added). The State’s lawsuit clearly constitutes "legal process” *(see, Kriegbaum v Katz,*909 F2d 70; *Fetterusso v State of New York,*898 F2d 322, 327-328) and the statutory absolute proscription applies to the State as to any other creditor *(see, Bennett v Arkansas,*485 US 395, 397; *Philpott v Essex County Welfare Bd.,*409 US 413, 415-416). To the extent that section 43.03 (a) of the Mental Hygiene Law may be interpreted as authorizing recovery of the cost of institutionalization from Social Security benefits, it is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause *(see, Kriegbaum v Katz, supra).*

Moreover, there is no merit to the State’s claim that defendant wrongfully spent her son’s disability benefits. The record establishes that defendant used the money to pay for such items as clothing, shoes, razors and haircuts for her son which the State failed to provide. These expenditures are clearly authorized by Federal regulation "for the use and benefit of the beneficiary in a manner and for the purposes [the representative payee] determines * * * to be in the best interests of the beneficiary” (20 CFR 404.2035 [a]; *see also,*20 CFR 404.2040 [a], [b]). On this record there is no evidence that defendant abused her discretion in this regard. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

Although defendant cross-appealed from the denial of her request for attorney fees under 42 USC § 1988, defendant does not argue this point on appeal and, thus, has abandoned it *(see, Legal Aid Socy. v Economic Opportunity Commn.,*132 AD2d 113,115).

Supreme Court properly transferred to the Court of Claims defendant’s counterclaim seeking reimbursement from the State. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over such a counterclaim against the State *(see, Schaffer v Evans, 57*NY2d 992, 994) and has the power to transfer it to "any other court having jurisdiction of the subject matter” (NY Const, art VI, § 19 [a]), including the Court of Claims *(see, State of New York v Vernooy,*109 AD2d 682, 684; *Brooks v Board of Higher Educ.,*113 Misc 2d 494, 497). (Appeals from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Ex parte EASON.

No. 24821.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 19, 1950.

*74No appearance for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for writ of habeas corpus, by which appellant seeks to gain his release from the State Penitentiary.

A certified copy of the judgment accompanying the record shows that appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Jim Wells County, on the 6th day of March, 1941, on an indictment charging that he knowingly and fraudulently passed as true a forged instrument in writing. It is also recited that the indictment alleged two prior convictions for felonies less than capital. The jury returned into court the following verdict, which is copied in the judgment: “We the jury find the defendant, Allen Eeason alias J. L. Ellis guilty as charged in indictment No. 544 of knowingly and fraudulently passing as true to Otto Schvab a forged instrument in writing, and further that the defendant was duly and legally convicted in Cause No. 47840 in Criminal District Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas, and further that the defendant was duly and legally convicted in Cause No. 4350 in the District Court Victoria County, Texas, and assess his punishment at life imprisonment in the penitentiary. Ed Ma-gill, Foreman.”

In entering the judgment on this verdict his punishment was stated to be “by confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of not less than two (2) years nor more than his natural life, * *

We have never held such judgments to be void unless they were pronounced by the court without a jury’s verdict. It is definite and certain by the verdict copied in the judgment that his punishment was to be for his natural life. In this case, under the habitual criminal statute, Vernon’s Ann. P.C. art. 63, the punishment would follow as a matter of law when the jury found he was guilty of the offense charged and that he had been previously convicted twice for felonies less than capital.

It is further noted that the application is accompanied by a certified copy of the sentence following the judgment and that the court attempted to apply the indeterminate sentence law. Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 775. One given a life sentence as the only penalty that can be fixed under the law cannot receive the benefits of the indeterminate sentence. Price v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 199 S.W.2d 168.

The application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
##### 



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
  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.
 -s- John R. FolkerthNovember 15, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John FolkerthChairman and Chief Executive Officer
 Page 17
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR CYRILLE REAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-97-153-A, CA-98-908-AM) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Cyrille Reavis, Defendant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Reavis , No. CR-97-153-A; CA98-908-AM (E.D. Va. July 2, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED