alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 30853 Summary Calendar

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C.,
Requesting Parties

- Appellants

v. CLAIMANT ID 100201953,
Objecting Party

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18

- CV

- 5494

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * This appeal involves a claim under the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement Agreement for losses caused by a 2010 catast rophic discharge of oil in the Gulf of Mexico

. The claimant i s the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast , a n on
- profit land trust based in Sarasota, Flo rida. The C laims A dministrator ultimately calculated, and an

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30853 Document: 00514905647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2019No. 18

- 30853

2 Appeal Panel affirmed, an award of slightly less than $1 million . The district court denied BP’s request for discretionary review. We AFFIRM. We review the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. In re Deepwater Horizon , 785 F.3d 1003, 1011 (5th Cir. 2015)

. Th at discretion is
abused if the Appeal Panel decision “ contradicted or misapplied the Settlement Agreement ” or at least “ had the clear potential ” to do so. Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. , 848 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)

. It also may be an abuse of discretion when the “ request for review raised an important, recurring issue on whi ch the Appeal Panels are split.” Id. As a non
- profit, the Foundation derives revenue from donations. A pledge to make a future donation is generally recognized as revenue at the time the promise is made. On appeal, BP focuses on the proper accounting

treatment when a contribution promise is bro ken and the pledge amount becomes uncollectable revenue. The gist of BP’s challenge is that accounting for contribution shortfalls as “negative revenue” rather than “bad debt

expense s ” results in a misapplication of the Settlement Agreement and presents a recurring issue on which Appeal Panels are split. None of this matters , though, because the Appeal Panel rejected BP’s factual premise that there was any uncollectable revenue to classify at all

. To the contrary , it agreed with the C laims A dministrator that the disputed entries in the financial statements were not “write

- offs of uncollectable revenue” but

re
- valuations in the normal course of business. “We do not review de novo
whether this [factual] determination was correct.” Id. at 410

- 11. Without a ny “bad debt expense” f or the Foundation to have misclassif ied as “negative revenue , ” BP’s arguments are reduced to hypothetical concerns
that we decline to allay

. AFFIRMED

. Case: 18-30853 Document: 00514905647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2019
03/26/201 0 12:5 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• » DM S 0002/00 3 

### UEPIC F BEFOR E TH E UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 

### [OmiG n

I n th e Matte r

o f FRONTIE RAIKLMES , INC . Docke t No . FAA-2009-104 0 FAACaseNo . 2008NM21O02O FA A Docke t

No . CP09NM001 3 Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n

RESPONDENT' S RESPONS E T O COMPLAINANT' S FIRS T SUPPLEMENTA LDISCOVER Y REQUES T PuTsnan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.220 , Respoaden t FroBtie r Airlines , Inc . ("Frontier") , b y an d throug hit s counsel , Pillsbui y Winthro p Sha w Pittmau LLP , hereb y respond s t o th e Complainant' s Firs t

Supplemental Discovery Reques t filedo n February 12 , 201 0 ("Request") . Siabjcc t t o an dwithou t

waivin g it s objection s raise di n th e Respondent' s Objection s and Response s t o Complainant' s Initial Discovei y Reques t file do n February 9 , 2010 , Frontie r i s providin g th e attache ddocument s i n respons e to Complainant' s Request . Frontie r reserve s th e right

t o amend , expand , o r

delet e al l o r

any part o f thes e objection s an dresponses . Respectfull y submitted^

Kenn e Jenni^ r E . Troc k PILLSBUR Y WINTHRO P SHA WirrrMA N LL P 2300 N Street , N.W . Washington , D.C , 2003 7 Tel : (202 ) 6'63-8000 Fax : (202 ) 663-800 7 E-mail : kquinn@pillsburylaw.co m jtrock@pill5bu1ylaw.co m Counse l fo r

Frontier Airlines , Inc . Dated : Marc h19,201 003/26/201 0 12:5 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @l003/00 3

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I , Timoth y C . Gerheim , hereb y certif y that I hav e this , th e 19t

hda y o f March , 2010 , cause da cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t t o b e serve dt o th e followin g person s vi afacsimil e andU.S . Firs t Clas s mail : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildm g - Suit e 2W100 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 FAX : 202-493-514 2 (Original an don e copy ) Scot t R , Morris , Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W . Renton,W A 98057-335 6 FAX ; 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g (i^oun dFloo r Roo mE l 2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Timoth y C , Gerhei m Pillsbury Winthro p Shaw Pittma n LLP 2300NSt.K W Washington , D C 2003 7
#### Burton *v.*Sheppard.

In an appeal from the court below, upon exceptions filed to the award of arbitrators, a new trial is not to be had in the Superior Court, but it will examine into the errors of law in the court below.

This suit had been brought hither from the County Court of Person, by way of appeal; the general issue had been pleaded, and after depending in that court for SOi,K, time, tie parties agreed to refer it to arbitrators : and it was' referred by a rule of court — the arbitrators met in the presence of the parties, and took the case into consideration, and made up their award. Exceptions were taken to it by the Plaintiff’s counsel, one. of which was, that the.arbitrators had calculated interest upon the whole sum, from the time of payment, & had given no interest upon the amount of the verdict which accrued and became due some time before she arbitration. The cause being now moved by *Mr. Button,*it was urged by *Mr.*Whyte, that according to the former decisions, this cause must now be tried upon the issue. The law requires whenever an appeal takes place from a trial below upon an is^ue joined to the country, that there shall be a trial *ie novo*here; and in that predicament is this cause precisely.

*■Per curiam*

If we should decide as the Defendant’s counsel contends for, it would take away at one blow all references to arbitration in the County Courts. Either ;party dissatisfied, would file exceptions to the award, and appeal upon their beingoverruled. In such case,if this court proceed upon the. issue, the award would be for ever excluded from consideration, and become a mere nullity, whether in point of law it were good or bad. The meaning of the law adverted to by *Mr. Whyte*is, that when the *461party appeals from what lie supposes to be the injustice or mistake of a jury, in their conclusions of facts from evi-deuce, then that evidence shall be reconsidered by a jury here ; but when he appeals from what he supposes to be injustice or error in the judgment of the court, that then the court here shall reconsider what the court below has done. Were we to have new trials before a jury, whenever the court below gives a wrong judgment in point of law, the inconvenience would he great. The parties must then summon all their witnesses on both sides, to establish a verdict which is not complained of, nor sought to be rectified, and nothing is aimed at but correcting the judgment of the court, to the. doing of which, no witness is necessary. We are therefore of opinion that the points in which the. County Court is supposed to have erred, shall be considered here, in order to h. corrected if wrong. A trial of the issue, is entirely out of the question.

*Quaere*— If an appeal can be regularly taken hut from a verdict, or from a sentence on hearing of any cause, according to the- act of 1762, *cfu*a, or other similar acts, (in both of which cases there must he a re-examination of testimony) and whether other sentences and opinions upon mere matter of law, should not come up by writ of error ?

*Note.*— Vide *Erwin & Wife*v. *Arthur's exr’s. Conf. Rep.*490.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1720 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign $10 Federal reserve 

notes so as to include a likeness of Harriet Tubman, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2015 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign $10 

Federal reserve notes so as to include a likeness of 

Harriet Tubman, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harriet Tubman Cur5 rency Tribute Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1720 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIKENESS OF HARRIET TUBMAN REQUIRED TO BE 

2 INCLUDED ON THE FACE OF $10 FEDERAL RE3 SERVE NOTES. 

4 The eighth undesignated paragraph of section 16 of 

5 the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 418) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary of the 

7 Treasury shall ensure that the face of all $10 Federal re8 serve notes printed after December 31, 2020, shall bear 

9 the likeness of Harriet Tubman.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
8!6BIT e.s. ms 0NftY 

§VBJECT NilMRlm 

P' i'PE .f=1NAl- ctBCIB: 7,/9 

SUBJECT: 

Item 3 of the Agenda for the Sixteenth Meeting of 

USCIBEC, held on 25 June 1954. 

COMINT .Arrangements for SACLANT. (USCIB 7./4 

and 7./7) 

The CHAIRMAN introduced this item by explaining that the Department of the Navy had submitted a paper on this subject recommending 

that it be circulated with a request that views of interested departments and agencies be forwarded to the Executive Secretary, USCr:B. 

Views of the Director, NSA, he said, had been received and circulated, 

The CHAIRMAN continued by inviting the Navy member to co:muB nt on the 

NSA views. 

CAPTAIN McCORMICK replied that he concurred with the views expressed in the NSA comment (enclosure with USCIB 7./7). 

In response to the Cha~n's request for further comment, :MR. 

ZANDER pointed out that it might be worthwhile to ask the Joint Chiefs 

of Sta££ for comments. 

The CHAIRMAN suggested that i£ USCIBEC approved the proposal, then such approval plus the recommended coordination with the JCS be 

included in the notification to USCIB, Any objection could then be 

raised, he said, during the interregnum period:, 

DECISION: (25 June 1954) USCIBEC agreed with the views expressed in 

the enclosure with USCIB 7./7 of 18 June 1954 and approved imple- mentation of the action indicated therein subject to appropriate 

coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Sta££ by the am member if 

and as required.* 

*Subsequent to the meeting it was learned that coordination with the 

JCS might not be either necessary or desirable. In order to leave 

the Department of Defense member free to act as his department might 

deem appropriate the words 11i£ and as required" have been added by the 

Executive Secretary. 

uscm: 7,/9 - 5 -

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-14-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

SECRET
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02606

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

02606\02606_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

02606\02606_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02606\02606_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02606\02606_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 02606\02606_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\02606_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\02606_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\02606_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\02606_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\Plant Contacts\02606_021511 SLE WWT1 Table D4 Revision.pdf Portion of Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\Plant Contacts\02606_021511 SLE WWT2 Table D4 Revision.pdf Portion of Plant submitted survey file

x 02606\Plant Contacts\02606_RE State Line Energy - Steam Electric Follow Up Questions.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 02606\Plant Contacts\02606_RE2 State Line Energy - Steam Electric Follow Up Questions.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 02606\Plant Contacts\02606_State Line Energy - Steam Electric Follow Up Questions.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

02606\Supporting Documents\02606_SL_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02606\Supporting Documents\02606_SL_A5-3_ WB_1A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02606\Supporting Documents\02606_SL_D3-1_block diagram BD1 NPDES 003_601.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,502
<PP&E>                                           2,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,338
<BONDS>                                          5,782
<COMMON>                                            55
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,574
<SALES>                                            326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   326
<CGS>                                              856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,267
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,360)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,351
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,168)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,176)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 Boykin Lodging Company (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Boykin,
Chairman of the Board 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, 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/ Robert W. Boykin
Robert W. Boykin
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2004
USCIB: 29 • 2/3 24 

21 May 1954 

':FOP SEORE'f 

MEMORANDUM FOR 'l'HE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Release of the AFSAM-7 to NATO Nations. 

Reference: USCIB 29.2/1 dated 3 May 1954. 

The enclosure is circulated for information with regard to the 

action taken as a result of the USCIB decision on the reference at 

its 103rd Meeting held 14 May 1954. 

Enclosure 

COMSEC 3-/2 dtd 20 May 1954. 

USCIB: 29 • 2/3 

TO:&" SECRET 
COMSEC: 3-/2 

20 May 1954 

ERS OF THE U S CCMMUNICATIONS SECURITY BOARD: 

Release of the AFSAM.-7 to NATO Nations 

COMSEC 3-/1 of 7 ?.fay 1954. 

1. The ference was also submitted to the U.S. Connnunications 

Intelligence Bo which considered it at its 103rd Meeting on 14 May 

1954. 

2. USCIB expr sed the view that this matter should be considered 

jointly with the Uni d States Conmronications Security Board. 

3. Accordingly, t Chairman USCIB and the Chairman USCSB have 

agreed to a joint meeti of the two Boards to connnence at 1430 Thursday, 

3 June in Room 3E 869, The entagon, for the purpose of taking action 

on the reference 

4. The Director, Nation Security Agency has agreed to prepare a 

study of the problem for circula "on prior to the me~ting. It is 

anticipated that said study will available for distribution by 

Thursday, 27 May 1954. 

Copy to: 

Members USCIB 

CCMSEC: 3-/2 

TO:PSECRET
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 19, 2001 included in
the Form 10-K of MRV Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000
into:

<TABLE>
<S>      <C>
(i)      the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No.  33-96458);
(ii)     the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87743);
(iii)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87741;
(iv)     the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87739);
(v)      the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87735);
(vi)     the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87733);
(vii)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-87731);
(viii)   the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-86163);
(ix)     the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-17537);
(x)      the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-64017);
(xi)     the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-39560);
(xii)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-42306);
(xiii)   the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-44534);
(xiv)    the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-44536);
(xv)     the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-44540);
(xvi)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-47896);
(xvii)   the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-47898);
(xviii)  the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-47900);
(xix)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-55328); and
(xx)     the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc. (File No. 333-55334).
</TABLE>



/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Los Angeles, California
April 16, 2001
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1384. UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. WARE.

Our affirmance in Case No. A21A1298 renders moot the issues raised in this

cross-appeal; accordingly, this case is dismissed. See Carson v. Brown, 358 Ga. App.

619, 624 (2) (856 SE2d 5) (2021).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 02, 2022

03/02/2022
Leica Geosystems Inc.

5051 Peachtree Corners Circle

Norcross, GA 30092

United States

www.leica-geosystems.us

March 24, 2016

Department of Transportation

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment Request to Exemption #14694, Regulatory Document # FAA-2015-4944

Dear Sir/Madam,

This request is to amend the Leica Geosystems, exemption #14694 to include the Roboflight RF-70 

Fixed Wing UAS. 

The RF-70 is a fixed wing UAS that has been previously approved on a number of exemptions, including

numbers 11295, RoboFlight Systems LLC; 11554A, Midstream Integrity Services; 13349 GROWMARK.

While the RF-70 is a fixed wing UAS compared to our Aibotix X6 rotorwing UAS, this system is very 

similar to the system already approved under the original exemption regarding weight and payload. 

The RF-70 would be used for the same purposes, utilizing the same safety procedures and conditions 

and limitiation set forth in the original exemption.

Sincerely,

Bryan Baker

UAS Sales Manager - NAFTA

Leica Geosystems Inc.

5051 Peachtree Corners Circle

Norcross, GA 30092

970-227-3417
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 4.3
                                                                  -----------


                             SEGUE SOFTWARE, INC.

             AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 INCENTIVE AND
                        NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN


     The following amendment to the Amended and Restated 1996 Incentive and Non-
Qualified Stock Option Plan of Segue Software, Inc. (the "Company"), was adopted
by the Board of Directors of the Company on February 25, 1998 and approved by
the Stockholders of the Company at the 1998 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held
on June 5, 1998:

     VOTED:   To amend Paragraph 3 of the Amended and Restated 1996 Incentive
     -----    and Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan to increase the number of
              Shares subject to the Plan as to which Options may be granted from
              time to time from 3,000,000 to 3,250,000, or the equivalent of
              such number of Shares after the Administrator, in its sole
              discretion, has interpreted the effect of any stock split, stock
              dividend, combination, recapitalization or similar transaction in
              accordance with Paragraph 16 of the Plan.