alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
,,. 

,-

-i--~·---

REF ID: A67 332- - - - -fi~~~ -......... - -:.. -

- ~---

In reply reter to 

DP 

\ .. _ .. ~ -;;....-

My dear Yr. Secretary-: 

-_, -.... --

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

WASHING'IDN 

- .. _....._,, __ -::_ 

June 22, 1942 

I am turning to you for assistance in cormectian w.i.th 

a very real problem llhich confronts the Department at the 

. . . present moment. As you are aware, the communicatlon eervices o£ the Departn.ent .of -State are utilized not only by 

the War and Navy Departments, but by practically every 

other agency of the Government whose llOrk ia directJ.y or 

indirectJ.y concern'd w.l. th the war ,effort. 

Because or the exigencies or the preaen t situation it 

has become necessary to reorganize the Cryptographic Section 

of the Dirlaion of' Communicitaoni( and Records of the ·nap-artment. It is essential that this Section should be headed 

up by a person 1lbo has a thorough knowledge or cryptograJity , - - • -- - - .I' ...... - - .. .. - - - ;;.-- -- ---

!!rd who- has had--actua1 experience in fhe caietruetion ot -·- ... ____ ~ --; ... r .. ;-. 1:• • -- ,-, .. _ .. ,.... "" - --- - -:: -

cod.ea and cipru;rs and the devising or new systems of communication and accounting for ceyptographl.c nat.erlal. There is 

IlQ op.e 

-- The Honorable 

Henr)' L. Stimson, 

Secretary- of War. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 04-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

----~ ........ ...,.-..._ 

':"9 

·~ --=- - -~ 

- -· 

-=...::;;;::: 

- -J 

- I 

-
•' 

~-

I -._J'., 

-- ... 

.. 

- -2-

no one in the Department. of State who possesses the necessary qualifications for this position,,. Which has been classified in P-4, $3,800, and the only possible source within 

my knowledge fran. which a competent person might be obtained 

~-fill the poei tion is the O.t:tlce o.f the Chi d Signa.1 

Officer or the Army of the United States. I- ahould be ex-

<iiedingly grateful if you could make- it posSible for the 

-DBpartment to obtain by- tra.nsf'er from th~ -War Departmeirt 

the services of a person"-Pc>ssesSing the qualifications out-

·Jliied above • 

· ~-·"· I should like to thank you in anticipation of your 

cooperation in thia matter. 

- ':. --.:. Sincere~y yours, 

-- (Signed) cORDELt' iim:t -

- .... --

-, • °'="'"-. 

. - '• -~ 

-=: 

- - . 

- .. 

·---

-= -

-

-
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 6, 2014

No. 04-13-00339-CR

Elias Esequiel VASQUEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-CRS-272

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

State’s brief is deemed filed as of October 1, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Quarterly Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of June 30, 2006 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006.



/s/    CHARLES
ZHANGCharles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of DirectorsAugust 8, 2006
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-69812) pertaining to the 1992 Incentive and Non-Qualified Stock
Option Plan of Just Toys, Inc. of our report dated February 26, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Just Toys, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.






                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                    ----------------------------

New York, New York
March 27, 1998
# C_2015072EN.01000501.xml

| 28.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/5

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7408 — Cargill/ADM Chocolate Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 72/03)

On 23 February 2015, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301) or by post, under reference number M.7408 — Cargill/ADM Chocolate Business, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2384

_____________________________

RICHARD BRYSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce Anderson, Judge.

October 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). The order appealed 

was rendered upon being filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal 

on May 1, 2018. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i). 

WOLF, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Richard Bryson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2015172EN.01002401.xml

| 27.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/24

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 May 2015

(2015/C 172/08)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0926 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4549 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70960 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1860 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0351 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3685 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,407 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,17 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1391 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4598 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8751 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4020 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3520 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4706 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4981 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4707 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 207,02 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1248 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7785 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5598 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 436,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9642 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 48,790 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 55,0995 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,799 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4121 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7097 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,8445 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0926

JPY

Japanese yen

134,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4549

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70960

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1860

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0351

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3685

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,407

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,17

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1391

RON

Romanian leu

4,4598

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8751

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4020

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3520

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4706

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4981

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4707

KRW

South Korean won

1 207,02

ZAR

South African rand

13,1248

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7785

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5598

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 436,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9642

PHP

Philippine peso

48,790

RUB

Russian rouble

55,0995

THB

Thai baht

36,799

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4121

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7097

INR

Indian rupee

69,8445

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
## DoT-G^T

- aoo5

- \^'^'^': i

' •LT ; ;' I ,

. / ; • A':' ' A t R L I N E S Januar y 11,201 2 Denni s J . DeVan y Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Seventh Street , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 SkyWes t Airlines ' Essentia l Ai r

Service a

t Cedar City , UT Dea r Mr . DeVany : O n Septembe r

15 , 201 1 SkyWes t

Airline s wa s awarde dth e Essentia l Ai r Service contrac t fo r continuin g operation s a

t Cedar City , UT . Th e proposa l submitte dinclude dachang e o f aircraf t typ e fromth e EMB12 0 t o th e CRJ200 , a50-sea t regiona l jet . After th e awardin g o f

th e contrac u i

t wa s discovere dtha

t th e Ceda r

City airport

doe s no t hav e th e require doperationa l permit s for schedule dje t

service . SkyWes t

i s workin g wit

h th e airport

t o obtai n th e authorization , whic h wil l includ e a n environmenta l assessment . Operation s a

t th e airport

wil l continu e a s planne dwith a n EMB12 0 aircraft . I

t i s currentl y unknow n ho w lon g i t wil l tak e t o wor

k throug h th e proces s an dresum e with plan s for je t service . Than k yo u fo r you r consideration . Sincerely , 

# r . Michae l Thompso n Vic e Presiden t

- Marke t Developmen t SkyWes t Airline s
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1694

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kevin Kerr

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: December 6, 2022

Filed: December 9, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Kevin Kerr appeals after a magistrate judge1

 issued an order denying without

prejudice his motion seeking discharge from civil commitment, or in the alternative,

to return to a prior facility. 

Upon careful review, we conclude this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal,

as Kerr did not timely seek review of the magistrate’s order by the district court, and

thus there is no final, appealable order before this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

(courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of district

courts), 636(b)(1)(A) (allowing district courts to “designate a magistrate judge to hear

and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court”; party may file written

objections to magistrate’s recommendation within 14 days); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

(party may not assign as error defect in magistrate judge’s order on nondispositive

matter if not timely objected to); United States v. O’Laughlin, 31 F.4th 1042, 1044

(8th Cir. 2022) (concluding district court’s order of reference to magistrate judge

citing § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.1 was not sufficient to convert magistrate’s order

to final order for purposes of § 1291; dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction). 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

1The Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20


                                 AMENDMENT #1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         AMENDMENT #1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of January 7, 1999
("Amendment #1") by and between ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation having an office located at 8774 Yates Drive, Westminster, Colorado
80030 (the "Corporation"), and CHRISTOPHER M. DICE ("Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive are desirous of amending that
certain Employment Agreement dated as of November 2, 1998 (the "Employment
Agreement") to which each is a party on the terms hereinafter set forth.

         WHEREAS, the Corporation has determined that it is in its best
interests, and the best interests of its shareholders, to assure that the
Corporation will have the continued dedication of Executive, notwithstanding the
possibility, threat or occurrence of a change of control of the Corporation.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Corporation
and Executive hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1.       Section 9(a)(iii)(B) shall be amended in its entirety as 
         follows:

                  "In lieu of any further salary payments to Executive for
         periods subsequent to the Date of Termination (including any payments
         relating to any bonus or incentive compensation), the Corporation shall
         pay as severance pay to Executive, no later than the fifth (5th) day
         following the Date of Termination, a lump-sum severance payment in an
         amount equal to the sum of (x) twenty-four (24) months of the Base
         Salary then in effect and (y) an amount equal to two (2) times any
         incentive compensation earned in the most recently completed fiscal
         year of the Corporation."

         Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment #1, the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as the same was in effect
immediately prior to the effectiveness of this Amendment #1.


<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and Executive have executed and
delivered this Amendment #1 to Employment Agreement on the date first above
written.


                                       ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION

                                       By:           /s/ CARLOS SALA
                                          ----------------------------------
                                            Name:  Carlos Sala
                                            Title: CFO


                                       EXECUTIVE

                                              /s/ CHRISTOPHER M. DICE 
                                       -------------------------------------
                                                 Christopher M. Dice
#### Rice vs. Garnhart. (Second Case.)

*Frivolous Appeal*— Double *costs, etc.*

The power given to this court (Tay. Stats, 1644,1646, §§ 42 and 47), upon affirming a judgment appealed from, to *impose damages upon the appellant*exceeding seven per cent., and also *double costs,*can properly he exercised only where the appeal is clearly frivolous and taken to hinder and oppress the respondent. *Morse v. Ins. Go.,*30 Wis., 534. And upon the record in this appeal, this court cannot hold it to he of that character.

Lyon, J.

Thi s action is similar to another between the same parties decided at the present term, except that the question of the validity of the patent is not here involved. * The suit was brought to recover the first installment, due October 1, 1872, on the agreement of August 8, 1872, and for certain services and expenses. The only ground assigned for reversing the judgment is, that the defendant’s agreement to pay the installment sought to be recovered, is *nudum paclum.*This position was disposed of in the other case adversely to the defendant, and further discussion of it here is entirely unnecessary.

We are strongly urged to exercise the power given by statute (Tay. Stats., 1644 and 1646, §§ 42 and 47), to impose damages against the defendant exceeding seven per cent., and also double costs. We can not properly do so unless we can say that the appeal is clearly frivolous and was evidently taken to hinder or oppress the plaintiff. *Morse v. Ins. Co.,*30 Wis., 534. We do not think that we can say, from the record before us, that such is the character or purpose of this appeal.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32



Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of LightPath Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. |  | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:  September 29, 2003 |  | /s/    KENNETH BRIZEL                  
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|                           |  | Kenneth Brizel, Chief Executive Officer
|                           | 
|Dated:  September 29, 2003 |  | /s/    MONTY K. ALLEN                  
|                           |  | Monty K. Allen, Chief Financial Officer



The certifications set
forth above are being furnished as an exhibit to the Report solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                    FOURTH ADDENDUM TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT



         THIS FOURTH ADDENDUM TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT dated as of October 1, 
1998, is entered into among Genesis Partners, Inc., a Florida corporation 
("Genesis"), Peachtree FiberOptics, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Peachtree"), 
and Leonard J. Sokolow, an individual.

                                   RECITALS:


         A. On October 27, 1993 Genesis and Peachtree entered into a management 
agreement (the "Management Agreement"), which agreement was amended by 
Addendums to Management Agreement, dated February 28, 1994, October 26, 1995 
and March 1, 1996 (collectively "Addendums"), among Genesis, Peachtree and 
Leonard J. Sokolow ("Sokolow").

         B. The Management Agreement, as amended by the Addendums Agreement 
expires on October 26, 1998.

         C. Genesis, Peachtree and Sokolow desire to extend the term of 
the Management Agreement, as amended by the Addendums, for an additional 12 
months pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Fourth Addendum to 
Management Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Extension of Term.  Section 3 of the Management Agreement, as 
amended by the Addendums is hereby modified to read as follows:

         The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date first above 
written and shall expire on October 26, 1999, unless terminated pursuant to the 
terms hereof or extended or renewed by mutual written agreement of the parties 
hereto.

         2. Management Agreement. Except as set forth herein, all other terms 
and conditions in the Management Agreement, as amended by the Addendums, are 
incorporated herein and shall remain in full force and effect.

         3. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in identical 
counterparts, each one of which shall be deemed an original, and such 
counterparts, when taken together shall constitute one and the same document.


                           


<PAGE>   2




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement 
as of the day and year first above written.




                                             PEACHTREE FIBEROPTICS, INC.



                                             By:
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Authorized Representative


                                             GENESIS PARTNERS, INC.


                                             By:
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Leonard J. Sokolow
                                                President/CEO



                                             By: 
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Leonard J. Sokolow,
                                                Individually
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

K.N., MOTHER OF K.L. AND B.L.,

CHILDREN,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2920

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

/

Opinion filed November 21, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Marion County,

Gary L. Sanders, Judge.

Shannon L. Reynolds, Ocala,

for Appellant.

Stephanie C. Zimmerman, of Children's 

Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Appellee's "Concession of Error," the circuit court's August 1, 2016, 

order of adjudication is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings consistent with the best interests of the children. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.