alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

1920 1954 1959 

 

1986 

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 95-706 Date: April 21, 1995 

SUBJECT: Insurance Misrepresentations

From time to time the Office of Personnel Management receives complaints about a

company soliciting Federal employees to buy life insurance. Very often the employees are

misled into believing that they are speaking with someone from their personnel office or a

representative from the Office of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance.

The most recent series of complaints we have received concerns a company called Globe

Life and Accident Insurance Company.

This is to notify you that there is no Federal law or regulation prohibiting such telephone

solicitations. Indeed, some Federal agencies readily provide copies of their agency

telephone books to commercial vendors.

Please inform your employees that these calls, while annoying, are not illegal. Also let them

know that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal Employees' Group Life

Insurance Program. These calls are being made by a company trying to sell them private

insurance. Employees need not speak with any such representative and may hang up when

they realize what the call is about. 

Do not report such telephone calls to OPM, unless you can provide conclusive evidence that

the caller misrepresented OPM sponsorship of the insurance.

There is, however, a regulation (41 CFR § 101-20.308) prohibiting commercial solicitation

on Federal property. Employees should be instructed to contact one of your agency's

security officers if representatives of a private insurance company show up at the Federal

installation.

Abby L. Block, Chief

Insurance Policy

 and Information Division
Attachment D

CERTIFIED SUMMARY OF

FIREFIGHTER PAY and TOUR

Name: John P. King Locality Pay Area: Philadelphia

SSN: 123-45-6789 Date of Birth: 03-19-1944

Instructions to Employing Agency

You must use this worksheet if your agency payroll is not able to post the following items

on the Individual Retirement Record:

 An "Annualized Salary" notation under column 4 of the SF 2806, and 3107

 The firefighter's tour of duty in effect during the entire high-3 average salary period

 The expiration date for any unused sick leave

You must also use this worksheet to reflect any changes in tour during the employee's

high-3 average salary period.

This worksheet is also a useful tool for retirement counseling purposes.

Effective Date

of each pay

change:

Grade and Step: Salary from

Locality Pay

charts:

Salary with

Premium Pay

Included to be

shown on SF 2806

& 3100:

Firefighters weekly tour (or

average hours worked per

week if on rotating tour):

01-05-97 GS 6/8 28,786 35,982 72

01-04-98 GS 6/8 29,558 36,947 72

05-24-98 GS 6/9 WGI 30,356 37,945 72

Date: Grade and Step: Salary from

Locality Pay

charts:

Annualized Salary

to be shown on SF

2806 & 3100:

Firefighters weekly tour (or

average hours worked per

10-11-98 GS 6/9 PL 101-

277

30,356 41,221.44 72

01-03-99 GS 6/9 31,481 42,756.48 72

01/02/00 GS 6/9 33,053 44,890.56 72

11/30/00 Retirement 33,053 44,890.56 72

Provide Leave Expiration Date for Unused Sick Leave if employee is on an uncommon tour of duty at

retirement: USL expires 03/23/2001

Remarks:

Agency Certification

I certify that the information shown above

accurately reflects verified information in official

pay records.

Signature: /s/

Official Title:

Payroll Specialist

Telephone Number:

( 202 ) 999-9999

Full agency name and address:

ABC Agency

Payroll Processing Division

123 Main Ave.

Washington, DC 20000

week if on rotating tour):
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of the
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Herbert E.
Jones, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
Herbert E. Jones, III, President of the Trust,
and Robert R. McCoy, Vice President, Secretary
and Treasurer, certify, to the best of our
knowledge, 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 Trust.


/s/ Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Trustee

Date:  April 7, 2009



/s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
Herbert E. Jones, III
President


Date:  April 7, 2009


/s/ Robert R. McCoy
Robert R. McCoy
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer

Date:  April 7, 2009
#### RENFRO v. STATE.

No. 19460.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1938.

A. W. Morris, of Conroe, for appellant.

*263Lloyd W. Dayidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of cutting a telephone line; his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

By bill of exception No. 1, he complains of the testimony of Clyde Jones, an accomplice, who testified that at the time that they took a part of the telephone wire of the United Gas Public Service Company, they also took a part of the telephone wire belonging to’ the Sinclair Pipe Line Company. His objection was on the ground that he was charged with cutting a telephone wire belonging to the United Gas Public Service Company; that the cutting of the telephone' line belonging to the Sinclair Pipe Line Company was a separate and distinct offense. The bill shows that the court admitted said testimony on the theory that it' was a part of the res gesta. We agree with the trial court. Both acts were committed at or near the same time and constituted one continuous transaction.

Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the court’s failure to instruct the jury with reference to the issue of alibi. It appears from the bill that no objection of any kind was made to the court’s charge; hence no reversible error is shown. Article 658, C.C.P., as amended, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 658, provides,, among other things, as follows: “Before said charge is read to the jury, the defendant or his counsel shall have a reasonable time to examine the same and he shall present his objections thereto in writing, distinctly specifying each ground of objection.”

Appellant, in his motion for a new trial, complains for the first time of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a continuance based on the absence of several witnesses. No exception seems to have been taken to the court’s action in overruling the motion; hence no reversible error is shown. If appellant desired to have the action of the trial court reviewed, he should have excepted to the court’s ruling at the time, and brought the matter before this court for review by a proper bill of exception.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EX-35.2
(logo) FIRST REPUBLIC BANK
It's a privilege to serve you

Feb 28, 2013

Servicer Compliance Statement
For SEMT 2012-3 (see Schedule A)


(i)a review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period from
January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 and of its performance under the
Agreement (each of the agreement and the Reconstitution Agreement as defined on
Schedule A attached hereto) from the above referenced trust during such period
has been made under such officer's supervision, and

(ii)to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement and any
applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout such
reporting period (or applicable portion thereof) or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifically
identifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and the
status thereof.

First Republic Bank

/s/ Tony Sachs
Tony Sachs
Vice President
February 28, 2013

SCHEDULE A

1.Flow Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010,
between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, as
modified by Reconstitution Agreement dated June 27, 2012

San Francisco  Palo Alto  Los Angeles  Santa Barbara  Newport Beach  San Diego
Portland  Boston  Greenwich  New York


111 PINE STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111, TEL (415) 392-1400 OR
(800) 392-1400, FAX (415) 392-1413

CONVENIENT INTERNET BANKING AT www.firstrepublic.com * MEMBER FDIC
#### BUSH v. STATE.

No. 17418.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1935.

Esir Tobolowsky, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is theft; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Accompanying the record is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the court stenographer to prepare a statement of facts and deliver it to the appellant. As we understand the record, the statement of facts was prepared but never delivered to the appellant because he claimed he was unable to pay for it. Upon the record before us we are constrained to order a reversal of the judgment for the reason that the appellant was improperly denied a statement of facts, the time for the preparation of same having now expired. Precedents upon the subject are collated in 4 Tex. Jur. p. 413.

Other questions of a serious nature are presented by bills of exception; - but.in view of the disposition made of the appeal,’ a discussion of them is pretermitted.

The judgment is reversed,' and the cause remanded. <
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


In connection with the Annual Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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.


Date: October 14, 2009                          /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
#### Max Simon, Plaintiff, *v.*Joseph D. Stim, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

June 5, 1958.

*654
      *Joseph D. Stim*for defendant.

*Samuel B. Weingrad*for plaintiff.

D. Ormonde Ritchie, J.

The defendant makes this motion pursuant to the Rules of Civil Practice for an order dismissing the complaint and granting judgment in his favor.

Two causes of action are set forth in the complaint alleging publication of libelous statements made by the defendant, an attorney, concerning plaintiff. The first cause of action complains of a statement made in an affidavit verified by defendant. The second cause of action complains of a statement made in a letter signed by defendant and addressed to a Justice of this court.

Issue has been joined in the action by the service of an answer containing affirmative defenses and a reply has been served thereto. The pleadings reveal that the affidavit was prepared and verified by the defendant and submitted by him to the court in connection with proceedings brought pursuant to section 793 of the Civil Practice Act, in which the plaintiff was a party. The letter was written and mailed by defendant to a Justice of this court accompanied by a proposed counter order in the proceeding prepared and submitted by defendant. The letter urged that the counter order submitted by defendant be signed and called attention to a statement made by plaintiff in an affidavit filed in voluntary^ bankruptcy proceedings instituted by plaintiff in the Federal court.

The alleged libelous statements were made in a proceeding in this court. They were relevant to the proceeding and were made by the defendant in furtherance of the interests of his clients. Such statements are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a cause of action for libel. Where made in a proceeding or action the privilege is not limited to pleadings and affidavits in the proceedings or to statements made by the parties or their attorneys in open court. If made in letters between the parties or their attorneys or addressed to the court in connection with the proceeding they are likewise privileged provided they are pertinent thereto. *(Zirn*v. *Gullom,*187 Misc. 241.)

The complaint is dismissed and judgment granted in favor of defendant.
|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and Cash Manger during the period from November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2017, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement was conducted under my supervision. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer and Cash Manager have fulfilled all of their obligations under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively, in all material respects throughout such period. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        | By:    | /s/ James Salem                        |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | James Salem                            |   |
|   |   | Executive Vice-President and Treasurer |   |
|   |   |                                   |   |
|   |   |                                   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ David Power                        |   |
|   |   | David Power                            |   |
|   |   | Vice-President, Corporate Treasury     |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22629]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 352 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-695, CP2024-704.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22629 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.1.2

CERTIFICATION

I, W. W. Boisture, Jr., principal executive officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the
Company), hereby certify that:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ W. W. Boisture, Jr.                                                   
|W. W. Boisture, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

August 4, 2009
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ULTRA PERTROLEUM CORP.
  1.
    
    this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
pf 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 26, 2007/s/ Michael D. WatfordMichael D. Watford,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3245 

To prohibit the Federal Government from contracting with entities that donate or match employee donations to Planned Parenthood Federation 

of America, Inc. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2015 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Government from contracting with 

entities that donate or match employee donations to 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. 

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 ‘‘Government Refusal 

5 of Abortion in Contracting and Enterprise’’ or the 

6 ‘‘GRACE Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3245 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH ENTITIES 

2 THAT DONATE TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD 

3 FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—A Federal entity may not enter 

5 into a contract with a person or entity that donates or 

6 matches employee donations to Planned Parenthood Fed7 eration of America, Inc., or any affiliate or clinic of 

8 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) applies— 

10 (1) to contracts entered into after the date of 

11 the enactment of this Act; and 

12 (2) to subcontracts (at any tier) awarded under 

13 such contracts. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22655]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 365 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-716, K2024-9.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22655 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7303
CALEB ELIJAH WARDRETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. C. WILSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-860-5) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Caleb Elijah Wardrett, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CARO LINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Caleb Elijah Wardrett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutio nal right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wardrett has not satisfied either standard. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED