alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

         The Participation Agreement is incorporated by reference from the
Company's Form 10K filed with the Commission for the period ending December 31,
2000. The four additional Participation Agreements are substantially identical
in all material respects to the filed Participation Agreement except as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft (Tail No.)   Closing Date          Owner Participant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N362ML*               October 19, 2000      Silvermine River Finance One, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N363ML                November 29, 2000     Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N364ML                January 30, 2001      Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N365ML                March 19, 2001        Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N366ML                April 19, 2001        Castle Harbour-I Limited-Liability
                                            Company

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

-------------
*   Filed document
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40696

(Summary Calendar)

EDWARD RHOME,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN KRUIZE, Security Officer, Coffield Unit;

UNKNOWN SELF, Security Officer, Coffield Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-391)

June 4, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Rhome, Texas prisoner #63852, moves this court for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis(IFP) under the Prison LitigationReformAct of 1995 (PLRA) in his appealfromthe district

court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit alleging a failure-to-protect claim. Rhome’s motion for leave

to proceed IFP is GRANTED.
2

The PLRA requires a prisoner appealing IFP in a civil action to pay the full amount of the

filing fee, $105. As Rhome does not have funds for immediate payment of this fee, he is assessed an

initial fee of $3.37 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). Following payment of the partial filing fee,

funds shall be deducted from Rhome’s prisoner account until the full filing fee is paid. Id.

IT IS ORDERED that Rhome pay the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of

Rhome’s inmate account shall forward payments from his account to the Clerk of the District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees

are paid in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(2).

Rhome argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants.

Rhome’s argument is misplaced because the district court did not grant summary judgment for the

defendants. The district court dismissed Rhome’s claims following an evidentiary hearing. See

Flowers v. Phelps, 956 F.2d 488 (5th Cir.), modification on other grounds, 964 F.2d 400 (1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons adopted

bythe district court and set forth in the magistrate judge’sreport. Rhome v. Kruize, No. 6:95-CV-391

(E.D. Tex. July 3, 1996).

IFP GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors

Sirona Dental Systems, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-157576, 333-142798, 333-140555, 333-106237, 333-83488 and 333-46825) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-153092) on Form S-3 ofSirona Dental Systems, Inc. of our reports dated November 18, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statementsof income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30,2010, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. 

KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

Frankfurt, Germany 

November 18, 2010
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-11492, File No. 333-36785, File No. 333-37420 and File No. 333-70951) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-08249, File No. 333-08251, File No. 333-30854, File No. 333-30926, File No. 333-55316, File No. 333-66903 and File No. 333-70947) of New Century Equity Holdings Corp. of our report dated January 31, 2003, which appears on page 21 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

|                             |   |   |                                     |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |   | /s/ BURTON McCUMBER & CORTEZ, L.L.P. |
| Brownsville, TexasMarch 25, 2003 |   |   |                                     |

 

----
# C_2005057EN.01003701.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/37

---

Action brought on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-503/04)

(2005/C 57/63)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003 refusing to transfer him to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003 refusing to transfer him to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, applied for a transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). His application having been rejected, the applicant brought an action before the Court (1) which resulted in annulment of the contested measure. (2) Following that annulment, the defendant took a fresh decision on the applicant's application and rejected it again by the decision contested by the present action.

1

2

In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 233 EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to state reasons, as well as an error in law. The applicant submits that the contested decision merely repeats the arguments put forward in the first decision to reject his application, which was annulled by the Court, and does not contain any explanation making it possible to ascertain whether the rejection of the applicant's application is based on an assessment of the various interests involved, as was required by the Court in its judgment. Moreover, the Commission wrongly took the view that the applicant's transfer would result in the closure of a disciplinary procedure against him. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful because the Commission took on the role of exercising the discretion of the EMCDDA Selection Board by claiming, in its reply to his complaint, that it could not be ruled out that the result of the EMCDDA's selection procedure would have been different if the Selection Board had been informed of the accusations against the applicant.

---

(1)  Case T-166/02 (OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002, p. 32).

1

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2003 (OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003, p. 20).

2

---
From: Monteleon, Chris (FAA)
To: rdurden@iflgroup.com
Cc: Prosek, Richard (FAA) Subject: Petition for Exemption, June 27, 2014, IFL Group
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:13:37 PM

July 22, 2014

Richard Durden General Counsel IFL Group

Mr. Durden:

Could you please provide us the make/model/series of the aircraft to which your subject petition pertains. We would appreciate other information pertaining to the aircraft you may have supporting your petition, e.g., supplemental type certificate(s), etc.

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.

Regards, Chris Monteleon FAA HQ / AFS-250 202-267-3723 Chris.Monteleon@faa.gov
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6687-6688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02347]


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

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION


103rd Commission Meeting

January 29, 2015.
    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 103rd meeting in Washington, District of Columbia, on 
March 4-5, 2015. The business sessions, open to the public, will 
convene at 9:00 a.m.
    The Agenda items include:

(1) Call to order and approval of the agenda
(2) Approval of the minutes from the 102nd meeting
(3) Commissioners and staff reports
(4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research activities.

    The focus of the meeting will be on Arctic policy issues, and on 
programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the 
contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in 
advance of the meeting.
    Contact person for further information: John Farrell, Executive 
Director, U.S. Arctic Research

[[Page 6688]]

Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.

Kathy Farrow,
Communications Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2015-02347 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-960-000]


CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is February 24, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dcbc8dfcec2e3e1e4e3e8def8fdfde2fff9cdebe8ffeea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="266063746569484a4f484375535656495452664043544508414950">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02686 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Harding, Respondent, vs. Jesse, Appellant.

*February 8*

May *11, 1926.*

This case is ruled by *Harding v. Jesse, ante,*p. 652.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county: A. H. Reid, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *Minahan, Minahan & Duquaine*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *E. M. Duquaine.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Brown, Pradt & Gen-rich*of Wausau, and oral argument by *L. A. Pradt, Jr.*

The following opinion was filed March 9, 1926:

Doereler, J.

This case is ruled by the opinion in the case of *Harding v. Jesse, ante,*p. 652, 207 N. W. 706.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on May 11, 1926.
# C_2005044EN.01000701.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3603 — UPS/Menlo)

(2005/C 44/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3603. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3603. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

D.1 (+) 

concentrated 

flow 

Notes: 

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

D.4 (+) Land use change

I.1 (+) Soil 

erosion

I.10 (-/+) 

localized 

flooding

1.4 (+/-) 

invasive 

plant 

species

C.2 (+/-) Biodiversity

I.9 (+/-) 

Viewshed

I.2 (-) Sediment 

and other 

contaminants to 

receiving waters

1.6 (+) Habitat 

fragmentation

C.1 (+/-) Quality of 

receiving waters

I.7 (+/-) Net 

return

C.3 (+/-) Income and income 

stability (individuals and community)

Spoil Disposal (572)

Initial setting: Any land use where 

surplus excavated materials from a 

construction activity are subject to 

erosion or ponding or have the 

potential to contribute to water quality 

degradation.

1. Spoil materials are spread on a field.

Start

I.12 (+) 

Soil 

erosion

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Pathway

2. Spoil materials are placed in a mound.

D.3 (+) Cost of 

implementation D.2 (+) 

Land 

suitable for 

intended 

use

I.8 (+/-) Potential 

income

D.6 (+) Concentrated 

flow 

D.5 (+/-) Site 

aesthetics

I.11 (+/-) Sediment 

and other 

contaminants to 

receiving waters

I.3 (+/-) Soil 

quality

I.5 (-) 

Wildlife 

habitat

Critical Area Planting 

(342)

Tree/Shrub 

Establishment (612)

Conservation Cover 

(327)

Critical Area Planting 

(342)

Tree/Shrub 

Establishment (612)

Conservation Cover 

(327)
Sumbitted on record and briefs June 10,

affirmed July 14, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*CHESTER B. WOODS, *Appellant.*

(92C-20826; CA A77593)

856 P2d 321

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Diane L. Alessi, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*662PER CURIAM

Pursuant to plea negotiations, defendant pled guilty to the offense of being a “felon in possession of a firearm.” ORS 166.270. The court then dismissed a charge of robbery, on motion of the state. Defendant challenges the term of post-prison supervision imposed. Although the state concedes that the court erred, we do not have authority to review the claim of error, because the sentence resulted from a plea agreement. ORS 138.222(2)(d); *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993); *State v.*Kilborn, 120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993).

Affirmed.
#### Thomas Jones’s Administrators *v.*Joseph Blount’s Executors.

When the subscribing witness to a bond is dead, and his handwriting cunncr be proved, proof of the handwriting of tho obligor may be received.

Debt upon a bond for five hundred and twenty-sis pounds. The Defendant pleaded a set off, and produced two old bonds, one dated in 1760, the other in 1768, both attested ; but the witness who attested one of them, was a lady who had lived some time ago in Edenton, and was now dead; and her handwriting could not be proved by any one that the Defendant could procure.

It was objected by *Mr. Hamilton*for the Plaintiff, that when the handwrifing.of a deceased witness cannot be proved, it is irregular to prove the handwriting of the ob - *273ligar himself, that being riot essential to the deed, and not amounting to any proof of the delivery of it.

*Per curiam,*

Williams and Haywood

The law only, requires the best evidence the party has in his power.'— The subscribing witness must be produced when there is one; if he. be dead, proof of his handwriting may be admitted ; and if the handwriting of the witness cannot be proven, then proof of the handwriting of the obligor may be received ; this affording a strong evidence that the ob-ligor meant to make himself chargeable by that signature. And the Defendant in the present case, was permitted to prove the handwriting of the obligor.

Note. *Vide*note to *Clements*& *Co.*v. *Eason & Wright, ante*18.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Point.360 ( the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (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/
Haig S.
Bagerdjian
 Haig S.
Bagerdjian
 Chief
Executive Officer
 March 10,
2005
# C_2004118EN.01002803.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/28

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 31 March 2004

in Case C-51/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Löbau): Nicoleta Maria Georgescu (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Countries for which the application of the abolition of the visa requirement is suspended until a further decision of the Council - Extent of the suspension - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2004/C 118/51)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-51/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Amtsgericht Löbau (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu - on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) - the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Amtsgericht Löbau (Germany) by order of 21 October 2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

1

---