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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07230]

[[Page 16564]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0479; FRL9923-70-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for Oil 
and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian 
Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation), North Dakota; 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule, which 
published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). 
Errors in the amendatory instruction are identified and corrected in 
this action.

DATES: This action is effective March 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6142, 
ayala.kathy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The final regulations for 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.4161 
through 49.4168 that are the subject of this correction were finalized 
and published March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). A previous final rule 
published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 48878, August 15, 2012, 
published the interim provisions at 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.140 
through 49.147.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain an error in the 
amendatory instruction and set-out text:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 49 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for Part 49 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C--General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions

Sec. Sec.  49.140 through 49.147   [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  49.140 through 49.147

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-07230 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
|   | (a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 8, 2013 | /s/Mark Selawski                                                                  |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Mark Selawski                                                                     |   |
|               | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6548 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6548

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide local 
  areas more flexibility in the use of funds for incumbent workforce 
                           training programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

  Mr. Duarte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide local 
  areas more flexibility in the use of funds for incumbent workforce 
                           training programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Growth and Retention 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RESERVATION OF FUNDS.

    Section 134(d)(4)(A) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(d)(4)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``20'' and inserting ``40''; 
        and
            (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
        (iii) and (iv), respectively, and inserting the following:
                            ``(ii) Increase in reservation of funds.--
                        Notwithstanding clause (i), with respect to a 
                        local area that had a rate of unemployment of 
                        not more than 3 percent for six or more months 
                        in the previous program year, as determined by 
                        the State, clause (i) shall be applied by 
                        substituting `50 percent' for `40 percent'.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      23.1




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
      333-124568 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 2, 2008, relating to the
      financial statements of Shumate Industries, Inc., which appear in this Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of Shumate Industries, Inc. for the year ended December
      31, 2007.





/s/
      Malone & Bailey, PC





Malone
      & Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
      Texas





June
      2,
      2008
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50677 

Summary Calendar

__________________

BILLIE RAY BEESON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RONALD L. VALLADRES; MICHAEL F. MILLER;

WILLIAM H. BROOKS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-352

- - - - - - - - - -

December 21, 1995

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas prisoner Billie Ray Beeson alleges that members of the

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) violated ex post facto

principles by extending the period between his parole

reconsideration hearings from one year to two years. The change

in parole review procedures did not violate the Ex Post Facto

Clause. See Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1995). 
No. 95-50677

-2-

We decline to consider Beeson's arguments concerning the

merits of the Board's decision to deny him parole and the

handling of the case by the magistrate judge because Beeson did

not raise those issues in the district court. Varnado v.

Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 28 C.D. 2016

:

Burton Samuel Comensky, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, December 27, 2016, having considered appellant’s application 

for reargument, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
#### Daniel Baxter Junior *versus*Nathaniel Wheeler and Trustees.

A general assignment of a debtor’s property, real and personal, in trust for the payment of debts, containing a covenant on the part of the trustees, that the debtor shall be permitted to use and occupy the property, committing no waste thereon, until it shall be sold or disposed of in the due execution of the trust, is not *per se*fraudulent as against creditors not parties to the assignment.

John S. Russell, one of the supposed trustees, disclosed in his answers an assignment made by Wheeler to RusscL and the other supposed trustees, of property, real and personal, to a large amount, in trust to sell and dispose of the same, and out of the proceeds to pay all Wheeler’s creditors, in ratable proportion to the debt of each, without preference. The assignment contained a covenant on the part of the assignees, that Wheeler “ shall be permitted to use and occupy the said property so conveyed, committing no waste thereon, until such time as the same shall be sold or disposed of in the due execution *22bf the trust.” The debts due to creditors who had executed the assignment before the process was served upon the trustees, exceeded the amount of the personal property- then received by the trustees.

The question was, whether the clause above recited, by which Wheeler was to be permitted to use and occupy the property assigned, rendered the assignment fraudulent and void as against creditors.

*Cobb,*for the plaintiff.

*Russell,*for the trustees,

said that the personal property left in the hands of the debtor consisted of farming utensils, and that it would have been detrimental to the property assigned to have taken them out of his hands ; which was the reason for inserting the clause in question. He cited *Andrews*v. *Ludlow and Trs. 5*Pick. 28.

*Per Curiam.*

The case is clear in favor of the trustees. The debtor may be suffered to remain in possession of the land assigned and of things necessary for taking care of it, without any fraud. Such possession may be evidence of fraud.1

*Trustees discharged*

1

 See *Russell*v. *Woodward,*10 Pick. 408; *Boyden*v. *Moore,*11 Pick. 362*Hower*v. *Geesaman,*17 Serg. & Rawle, 251; *Williams*v. *Lowndes,*1 Hall (N. York,) 579; 2 Kent’s Comm. (3d ed.) 534 to 536; *Wheeler*v. *Train,*3 Pick. (2d ed.) 257, note 1.
Exhibit 32.1

BRAUN CONSULTING, INC.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Braun Consulting, Inc. (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, Steven J. Braun, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/STEVEN J. BRAUNSteven J. Braun Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          29,820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  277,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                   125,067
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,448
<PP&E>                                          52,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,640
<BONDS>                                        228,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          108,107
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                    (88,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,450
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               852,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  430,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               309,713
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                822
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       822
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

..      the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
       December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..      the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.



Date:  September 13, 2006
                                    /s/ Kenneth W. Bell
                                    __________________________________
                                    Kenneth W. Bell
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Morris H. Siegel, Respondent, against Harold J. Crawford, a Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Respondent. Mae Harding, Intervener, Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*724
      *Lawrence 8. Timen*for motion.

*E. F. W. Wildermuth*opposed.

Motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to a new application to dismiss the appeal upon proof that the service of the notice of appeal was not made within sixty days after service of *entry*of the order appealed from, or within the period permitted by section 592, subdivision 5-a of the Civil Practice Act.
v39667_x102052312.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 




AMENDMENT


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made May 23, 2012, by and between Valassis Communications, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Brian J. Husselbee (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of September 28, 2009 as amended on  December 31, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”); and







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.         Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:







“The Employment Period shall commence as of September 28, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue until the close of business on March 30, 2014.”







2.         Sections 4(c), and 6 of the Employment Agreement shall be removed in their entirety.







3.         Section 4(d) shall be amended to remove references to the phrase “Good Reason”.







4.         All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







5.         This instrument, together with the Employment Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Corporation have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first written above.


 



	  	
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


	  	  
	  	 By:	
 /s/ Todd Wiseley


	  	
Name: Todd Wiseley


	  	
Title:  Secretary


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Brian J. Husselbee


	  	
Brian J. Husselbee
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M~Wave, Inc.
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, I, Joseph Turek, Chief
Executive Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.
 
 
 Dated:  August
      13, 2008
              
              /s/ Joseph TurekJoseph
      TurekChief
      Executive Officer
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-70 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
Exhibit 10.6.2


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE


DILIGENT BOARD MEMBER SERVICES, INC.


2010 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Diligent Board Member Services,
Inc. (the "Company") has previously established the Diligent Board Member Services, Inc. 2010 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan (the "Plan"), which was adopted by the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") on April 22, 2010, and
was adopted by the Company's Shareholders (the "Shareholders") on June 8, 2010; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection A of Article
XII of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board in order to increase the number of shares reserved for Awards under the Plan,
provided, that the Shareholders approve such amendment within twelve (12) months before or after the Board's adoption of such amendment;
and


 


WHEREAS, effective as of December 15, 2011,
the Board has approved an increase in the number of shares reserved for Awards under the Plan, and such increase was approved by
the Shareholders on April 17, 2012.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant
to the authority granted to the officer(s) of the Company by the Board, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of April 17, 2012,
as follows


 


The first sentence of Subsection A of Article
IV of the Plan shall be amended so as to now read as follows:


 


Subject to the provisions of Article XI relating to
adjustments upon changes in stock, the amount of stock that may be issued pursuant to Awards shall not exceed in the aggregate
seven and one-half million (7,500,000) shares of the Company’s Common Stock.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Diligent Board Member
Services, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed as of this 17th day of April, 2012.


 


	 	DILIGENT BOARD MEMBER SERVICES, INC.
	 	 
	 	BY:	/s/ Alessandro Sodi
	 	NAME: Alessandro Sodi
	 	TITLE: CEO & President
#### Thomas STEWART, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derek BOOTH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16431

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Thomas Stewart, Jr., Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Stewart, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Stewart’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because he *510had three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *Andrews v. King,*398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). As required by intervening authority, we reverse and remand.

The district court denied Stewart’s IFP application and dismissed the action without prejudice on the basis that Stewart had filed at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and that he did not establish that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). One of the prior dismissals relied on by the court as a strike, *Stewart v. Phoenix Police Department,*No. 2:03-cv-02549-EHC-LOA (D. Ariz. May 26, 2014), was dismissed as barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, the district court’s dismissal in this action occurred prior to this court’s decision in *Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,*833 F.3d 1048, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2016), which concluded that Hecfc-barred dismissals do not count as strikes where at least part of the action sounds in habeas and injunctive relief is sought. We conclude that No. 2:03-cv-02549-EHC-LOA is not a strike because Stewart sought in-junctive relief in that action so at least part of the action sounded in habeas. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.