alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1668]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 1:00 p.m., Monday, February 2, 1998; 8:30 a.m., 
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

PLACE: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, at the Marriott Boca Raton, 5150 Town 
Center Circle, Boca Raton, in Parlors 1 and 2.

STATUS: February 2 (Closed): February 3 (Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Monday, February 2--1:00 p.m. (Closed)

1. Personnel Issues.
2. Compensation Issues.
3. Report on the Tray Management System.

Tuesday, February 3--8:30 a.m. (Open)

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, January 5-6, 1998.
2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer.
3. Consideration of Resolutions on Committees.
4. Appointment of Members to Board Committees.
5. Fiscal Year 1997 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations.
6. Government Performance and Results Act Annual Plan.
7. Quarterly Report on Financial Results.
8. Capital Investments.
    a. Informational Briefing on Corporate Call Management 
Prototype.
    b. Delivery Barcode Sorter Stacker Modules.
    c. Linerless Label Applicator for Letter Mail Labeling Machine.
    d. Kansas City, Missouri, Processing and Distribution Center 
Additional Funding.
    3. Northeast Metro/Royal Oak, Michigan, Processing and 
Distribution Center.
9. Report on the South Florida Performance Cluster.
10. Tentative Agenda for the March 2-3, 1998, meeting in Washington, 
D.C.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Koerber, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Thomas J. Koerber,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1668 Filed 1-20-98; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

July 1, 2014

CAAP-11-0000645

#### State v. Mulu

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig Godineaux, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 744]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered February 21, 2001, convicting him of murder in the first degree (23 counts), murder in the second degree (10 counts), attempted murder in the first degree (2 counts), attempted murder in the second degree (2 counts), robbery in the first degree (8 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s *876assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
No. D-2559.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of George Patrick Stanton, Jr.

562 U.S. 816, 131 S. Ct. 409,

178 L. Ed. 2d 273,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7523.

October 4, 2010.

George Patrick Stanton, Jr., of Clarksburg, West Virginia, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### In the Matter of James Pettus et al., Appellants, v Board of Directors et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 21]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered June 30, 2015, which, among other things, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered February 2, 2016, which denied petitoners’ motion to reargue (denominated a motion to renew and reargue), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Petitioners, a married couple, allege that respondents, the board of directors and managing agent of the cooperative where they reside, and of which petitioner Thompson is a shareholder, abused its discretion in crediting Thompson’s monthly maintenance bill in the amount of her shares of a tax abatement and New York State School Tax Relief (STAR) refund, rather than issuing a check in the amount of the abatement and refund. Petitioners do not challenge the amount credited, only that it was passed on to Thompson as a credit, rather than paid directly.

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action and based on the documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]), as respondents’ actions complied with Real Property Tax Law § 425 (2) (k) (iii) (B) (I), as well as the cooperative’s bylaws *(see Village In The Woods Owners Corp. v Powles,*25 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

Petitioners’ motion denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue was not based on new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion, and thus was actually a motion for *486leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable *(see D’Alessandro v Carro,*123 AD3d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2014]; *Grosso Moving & Packing Co. v Damens,*233 AD2d 128, 128 [1st Dept 1996]; CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). That the motion was decided by a Justice other than the Justice who signed the underlying order of dismissal does not compel a different result, given that the CPLR permits sua sponte recusals and reassignments of such motions *(see*CPLR 2221 [a]; C *& N Camera & Elecs. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.,*210 AD2d 132, 133 [1st Dept 1994]; *Fabiano v Philip Morris Inc.,*29 Misc 3d 395, 401 [Sup Ct, NY County 2010]).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1157**
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2404

                    For the relief of John T. Monk.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 18, 1994

   Mr. Lott introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of John T. Monk.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF.

    (a) Termination of Premium Payments.--(1) Notwithstanding any 
provision of subchapter I of chapter 19 of title 38, United States 
Code, John T. Monk of Jackson, Mississippi, may not be required to make 
premium payments after the date of the enactment of this Act for the 
National Service Life Insurance insurance policy for which such 
individual was making monthly premium payments before such date.
    (2) The termination of the requirement for premium payments under 
paragraph (1) shall not terminate or otherwise affect the coverage of 
John T. Monk of Jackson, Mississippi, under the insurance policy 
referred to in such paragraph.
    (b) Refund.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay, out of any sums in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to John T. Monk of Jackson, 
Mississippi, an amount equal to--
            (1) the aggregate amount of the monthly premium payments by 
        John T. Monk of Jackson, Mississippi, for the National Service 
        Life Insurance insurance policy referred to in subsection 
        (a)(1) between the date of the commencement of monthly premium 
        payments by that individual for that insurance policy and the 
        date of the enactment of this Act; minus
            (2) the amount of insurance under that insurance policy.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5374.

#### Charles A. Severance, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 285,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6853.

178 L. Ed. 2d 188,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Lawrence

11/10/2015

396 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 455
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32284-32285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

June 1, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 13, 1998 
to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: New.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8860.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Qualified Zone Academy Bond Credit.
    Description: A qualified zone academy bond is a taxable bond issued 
after 1997 by a state or local government, with the proceeds used to 
improve certain eligible public schools.

[[Page 32285]]

In lieu of receiving interest payments from the issuer, an eligible 
holder of the bond is generally allowed an annual income tax credit. 
Eligible holders of qualified zone academy bonds use Form 8860 to 
figure and claim this credit.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, State, Local or Tribal 
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 1,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping--4 hr., 47 min.
Learning about the law or the form--12 min.
Preparing and sending the form to the IRS--17 min.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 5,260 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15731 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Amended and Restated Specimen Common Stock certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 
  
 


 







 FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. 
  
 THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND
RELATIVE PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. SUCH REQUEST MUST BE MADE TO THE CORPORATION’S SECRETARY AT
THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION. 
  
 Keep this
Certificate in a safe place. If it is lost, stolen or destroyed, the Corporation will require a bond of indemnity as a condition to the issuance of a replacement certificate. 
  
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they
were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

							
	TEN COM  –	 	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–	 	                                      
           Custodian                         
	TEN ENT   –	 	as tenants by the entireties	  	 	 	            (Cust)                          
                      (Minor)
	JT TEN       –	 	 as joint tenants with right
 of survivorship
and not as
 tenants in common
	  	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	  	 	 	  
 Act
                                        
                                        
    

	 	 	 	  	 	 	(State)
	 	 	 	  	  
 UNIF TRF MIN ACT–
	 	                                      
       Custodian (until age          )
	 	 	 	  	 	 	            (Cust)
	 	 	 	  	 	 	  
                                       
           under Uniform Transfers

	 	 	 	  	 	 	            (Minor)
	 	 	 	  	 	 	  
 to Minors Act
                                        
                            

	 	 	 	  	 	 	(State)

  
 Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
  
 For Value
received,
                                        
                                        
                                     hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto 
  

	
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	 

  

	
	 
	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
	 
	 
	  
 Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and
do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

	 
	  
 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


  
  

							
	 Dated
	 	 	  	 	 	

				
	 	 	 	  	 	 	

	 	 	 	  	  
  
 NOTICE:
	 	  
 THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S)
AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


  
 SIGNATURES GUARANTEED: 
  

			
	 By
	 	  


	 	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
S1 6rv- - T-Q ~. ~.~- a~/-~j ~ 

(~ ~- Y KdX -SChbelMkP- G (- c~ 

- ~-- - L.P.C.LY?G~.~ W ~t~Y~ C ~ ~~f~~ ~ - - - 

ce 2- ; 2 

c Cjb\~3 - ~L6, 

1\)Ai-HA Nh? C A -7 7g 23 0 -58' 

- 2- 

tL 5 s- ~a-o 

~h~6~~1~ 1~~az ~-- 

- ~~9~ ~~c~~ 

? -- ~~t~l.~~it.. l~, f~ r_i l ~ b - - - - 

I 02A ~ 72,5 - m~ b-V 

A. 

C) ,r~. - 

2- 

2-1q (v ~ _5_6,q C a rr i o
No. 09-11019.

#### Jarvis Neely, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 859, 131 S. Ct. 132,

178 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5921.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, denied.

*80Same case below, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1116, 370 Ill. Dec. 469, 988 N.E.2d 245.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Jones, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 300]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered January 27, 2016, which denied petitioner’s application for poor person relief pursuant to CPLR 1101, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the application to the extent of waiving costs and fees under CPLR 1101 (d), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Citing *Matter of Ellerby*(99 Misc 2d 691 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1979]), the motion court denied petitioner’s application for poor person relief in this statutory name-change proceeding on the ground that the general common-law right to a name change renders the statutory proceeding unnecessary. However, the common-law name-change procedure, which is effected simply through use and habit *(see Smith v United States Cas. Co.,*197 NY 420 [1910]; *Matter of Halligan,*46 AD2d 170 [4th Dept 1974]; *see also Matter of Golden,*56 AD3d 1109, 1110 [3d Dept 2008]), assumes a freedom of action not necessarily available to a prison inmate *(see*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [11] [ii], [iii] [rules 110.20, 110.21]). Rather than being surplus to the common-law procedure, a statutory name-change proceeding may be petitioner’s only available remedy.

The costs of publication for a statutory name change *(see*Civil Rights Law § 63) are not among the costs and fees that may be waived under CPLR 1101 (d) *(cf. Deason v Deason,*32 NY2d 93, 94-95 [1973] [poor person relief available in case where “auxiliary expense” of service of process by publication denies access to the courts]). However, the denial of all poor person relief is not warranted *(see e.g. Carter v County of Erie,*255 AD2d 984, 985 [4th Dept 1998]; *see also*CPLR 1101 [fi).

We note that Civil Rights Law § 63 only requires publication in one designated periodical.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
# C_2013207EN.01003301.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 May 2013 — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg

(Case C-279/13)

2013/C 207/55

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C More Entertainment AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Linus Sandberg

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) (1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) (1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work?

1

| 2. | Is the manner in which the linking is done relevant to the answer to question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the manner in which the linking is done relevant to the answer to question 1?

| 3. | Is it relevant if the access to the work to which the linking is done is in any way restricted? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant if the access to the work to which the linking is done is in any way restricted?

| 4. | May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of rightholders by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of rightholders by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?

| 5. | May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive? |
| --- | --- |

5.

May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

1

---
No. 10-6104.

#### Faiza Maxwell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 371,

178 L. Ed. 2d 238,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7580.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 327.
# New DAU workshop premieres in Battle Creek

/ Published March 22, 2024
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, recently hosted the very first Defense Acquisition University Fundamentals of Project Management Training Workshop.

                DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon welcomes the class members and their instructors to the first Defense Acquisition University Fundamentals of Project Management Training Workshop. Cannon told the class that he was excited about the class and looked forward in hearing what the students would take away from it.                            Cannon at DAU class                            DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon welcomes the class members and their instructors to the first Defense Acquisition University Fundamentals of Project Management Training Workshop. Cannon told the class that he was excited about the class and looked forward in hearing what the students would take away from it.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jeff LandenbergerVIRIN: 240304-D-YU183-0002The four-day instruction was tailored for local DLA employees and led by DAU instructors Miranda Lewis and Russ Riva, who presented extensive knowledge on project management and connected with participants through relatable references. Both Lewis, a Marine Corps veteran, and Riva, an Air Force veteran, engaged with the audience on an educational and interpersonal level.

The workshop delved into the five process groups of project management, including: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and closure. Lewis emphasized that her objective for students was to gain the knowledge to contribute to effective and efficient project execution.

Lewis and Riva shared experiences and insights while discussions were aimed at enhancing overall team understanding, prompting employees to consider crucial questions about project planning and progress.

The course was a collaboration between DLA Disposition Services Resource Management, led by Maggie Mieras, and the DAU team.

Their partnership over the past year led to the development of this workshop. Mieras highlighted the significance of face-to-face training, addressing gaps in knowledge and understanding of project management within the workforce. While project management experience is often assumed in various business aspects, this workshop serves as essential baseline training, Mieras said.

DAU is currently formalizing the workshop into a catalogued course, WSM 030-Fundamentals of Project Management, with plans to offer the course again in Battle Creek in July. The interest sparked in the course revealed the need for additional offerings, not only at the headquarters level but also at DLA Disposition Services field locations.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Gregory A. Serrao,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, of American Dental Partners, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                   |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ GREGORY A. SERRAO                                             
|Gregory A. Serrao, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|March 9, 2007                                                      |  |