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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12538]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the U.S. National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Paul Mungai, U.S. Department of State, Telephone: (202) 663-2407; email:                         *MungaiP@state.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, which operates pursuant to 22 U.S. Code 287o and the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), is a Federal Advisory Committee that provides recommendations to the U.S. Department of State.

The Commission's recommendations relate to the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy towards UNESCO on matters of education, science, culture, and communication and information. Also, the Commission functions as a liaison with organizations, institutions, and individuals in the United States interested in the work of UNESCO.

The Commission is comprised of representatives of American organizations and institutions which have an interest in education, science, communications and culture, including professional associations, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as representatives of federal, state and local governments, and at-large individuals. The Commission meets to provide information on UNESCO related topics and make recommendations.

Kevin E. Bryant,

Deputy Director, Office of Directives Management, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2024-20914 Filed 9-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

December 9, 2011

143233

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143233

COA: 297154

Oakland CC: 2009-227741-FH

PECOLA MICHELLE JAMISON,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

YOUNG, C.J. (dissenting). 

I respectfully dissent from the Court’s order denying the application for leave to 

appeal. I would peremptorily reverse the Court of Appeals decision on the sentencing 

guideline issue. The Court of Appeals correctly interpreted and applied the phrase 

“domestic relationship” in MCL 777.40(1)(b). Since the defendant did not exploit a 

“domestic relationship” under MCL 777.40(1)(b), the circuit court should not have 

scored OV 10 at 10 points. However, it appears defendant engaged in “predatory 

conduct” under MCL 777.40(1)(a). By following the victim, directing him to pull over, 

and then attacking the victim when he parked on a side street, the defendant engaged in 

stalking behavior, which is precisely the type of “genuinely predatory conduct” that 

justifies scoring OV 10 at 15 points.1

 

1 See People v Huston, 489 Mich 451, 462 n 7 (2011). 

 Moreover, this predatory conduct was directed at a 

victim who suffered from a readily apparent susceptibility to persuasion and temptation. 

The victim testified that he had previously dated the defendant, that they had enjoyed 

sexual encounters after the break up, and that he was hoping for another sexual
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 9, 2011

y1206

2

rendezvous when the defendant directed him to pull over immediately before the offense. 

Finally, the defendant’s preoffense conduct appears to have been for the purpose of 

victimization, as the defendant attacked the victim as soon as he complied with her 

demands to pull over. Thus, under People v Huston and People v Cannon,

2 there are 

grounds to score OV 10 at 15 points when the defendant is resentenced. Since there is an 

alternative basis to sustain the defendant’s original sentence, I would peremptorily 

reverse the Court of Appeals on this question and allow the original sentence to stand. 

MARILYN KELLY, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order denying leave to appeal. I would grant leave to appeal to 

consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the phrase “domestic 

relationship” in MCL 777.40(1)(b).

 

2 People v Cannon, 481 Mich 152, 161-62 (2008).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          16,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,136,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,807
<COMMON>                                           342
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,136,627
<SALES>                                         31,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,543
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               248,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (195,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (200,347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (200,347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.90)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SECTION OF THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,048,197
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          87,466
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        49,820
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,185,483
<COMMON>                                        85,474
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      192,717
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            153,536
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 431,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           467,447
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  79,696
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     16,356
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   419
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 189,838
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,185,483
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      240,166
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            24,785
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     115,367
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     140,152
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        100,014
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (19,673)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  80,341
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        46,015
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,326
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   34,326
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        64,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       29,443
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         123,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   34,326
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   34,326


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                IA CORPORATION I
 
     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
                       AND PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                         SEPTEMBER 30,         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                     --------------------- ---------------------
                                        1997       1996       1997       1996
                                     ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
<S>                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
HISTORICAL:
Net income.........................  $  266,000 $  394,000 $   65,000 $  628,000
Weighted average common shares out-
 standing..........................  11,213,996  5,661,936 11,128,462  5,640,656
Common stock equivalents (using
 treasury stock method)............     849,262    611,200    936,812    610,437
Common and common stock options is-
 sued during the twelve month pe-
 riod prior to the initial public
 offering in accordance with Staff
 Accounting Bulletin No. 83 (using
 the treasury stock method)........          --    858,641         --    858,641
                                     ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                                     12,063,258  7,131,777 12,065,274  7,109,734
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========
Net income per share applicable to
 common stockholders...............  $     0.02 $     0.06 $     0.01 $     0.09
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========
PRO FORMA:
Net income.........................  $  266,000 $  688,000 $   65,000 $1,508,000
Historical weighted average shares
 outstanding.......................  12,063,258  7,131,777 12,065,274  7,109,734
Effect of assumed conversion of
 preferred stock...................          --  2,973,117         --  2,973,117
                                     ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                                     12,063,258 10,104,894 12,065,274 10,082,851
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========
Pro forma net income per share.....  $     0.02 $     0.07 $     0.01 $     0.15
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of WellPoint Health Networks Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Leonard D. Schaeffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ LEONARD D. SCHAEFFER  |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Leonard D. Schaeffer      |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| Date: August 9, 2004 |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 23(b)

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 and Prospectus of First Merchants Corporation, relating to the issuance
of securities in the proposed merger of Lafayette Bancorporation into First
Merchants Corporation, of our reports dated January 8, 1999 on Jay Financial
Corporation, and January 15, 1999 on Anderson Community Bank, relating to the
statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows of those
organizations for the year ended December 31, 1998, included in First Merchants
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.
We also consent to the inclusion and incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 and Prospectus of our report, dated January
25, 2001, on the consolidated financial statements of Lafayette Bancorporation
as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2000. We also consent to the reference to our firm appearing
under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus.


CROWE, CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLP
December 21, 2001
Indianapolis, Indiana


                                   Ex. 23(b)-1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

d0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

146561

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146561

COA: 307372

St. Joseph CC: 03-011781-FC

JEFFERY TODD BARNES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0999 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010

-NM

- 235

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 4.0 $ 340.00 $ 340.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condi**  **tion Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Fle xibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
Amendment to Employment Agreement - Marc Rubin



 Exhibit 10.49 
  

			
	

	  	 Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

	  

 October 21, 2008 
 Marc Rubin, MD 
 [address] 
 Dear Marc: 
 This letter will confirm the amendment to the severance provisions contained in your letter of employment with Titan dated July 31, 2007 (the
“Agreement”). Please sign this letter where indicated and return it to Titan, retaining a copy for your records. 
 Section 3(b) of the
Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following new last sentence: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, if your employment with the Company is
terminated by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason within twelve (12) months following a Change in Control of the Company you shall be entitled to a lump sum severance payment equal to twenty-four (24) months salary payable
within thirty (30) days following termination. 
 The following new Section 10 is added to the Agreement: 
  

	 	7.	Code Section 208G. Should the Company reasonably determine that the payment of compensation by the Company to the Executive, including but not limited to compensation
payable under this Agreement and/or the Restricted Stock Agreement of even date herewith, would result in the Executive’s receiving an “excess parachute payment” within the meaning of Section 280G(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended, the Company shall reduce the amount of any payment or payments otherwise payable to the Executive, as determined by the Company in its sole discretion, which reduction shall be reasonably determined by the Company to be the
smallest amount which will prevent the Executive from receiving such an “excess parachute payment”. 

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Sunil Bhonsle
	 Sunil Bhonsle
 Chief Operating
Officer


  

	
	Accepted by:
	
	/s/ Marc Rubin
	Name: Marc Rubin
	
	October 30, 2008
	Date:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7538

JASON L. AMIN-BEY, Now Being, By Faith-Based Monen 

Correction, Holy Pharoah Maikha’ Elohim Rusul’ Alu-Admiral 

Ala’ad-Din Lunariel Solariel Al’Ahezaah El-Bey., Ed. D.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00553-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 5, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason L. Amin-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason L. Amin-Bey appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without 

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Amin-Bey v. 

United States, No. 1:14-cv-00553-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 

2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED