alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 14910-I3-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fedend Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 

### fhlfO-','j mnAlSl51G (Docket No. FAA-2009-1066; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-028-AD; Amendment" 

### '"I

'" I.U, 

## ~Jn 39-**; AD 

### *1' 

# 2.010- [O-()5" '" 

## "de·-' D RfN 2120-AA64 Ainvorthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-1008, 747-1 OOBSUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). 110.J IHmAl.5J5IG, 

## ••• ftf " ACTION: Final rule. 0.0.1£'-il~,1.' SUMMARY: THeFAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which OUIJO~S,.,.,t>ol



# - applies to certain Model 747 airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections HmAL5/51G
- to detect cracking in certain fuselage skin lapjoints, and repair ifnecessary. This new A 

# A;:r~ expands the inspection area in the existing AD, adds a modification ofcertain lapjoints, 

# '11 (,(1 OUTT'IG SY'lBOl and adds certain post-repair inspections ofthe lapjoints. Accomplishing the modificatiOl ends the repetitive inspections required by the existing AD for the length of lapjoint tha is modified. This AD results from a structural reYi.ewof affected skin lapjoints for widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in certai lapjoints, which could result in rapid depressurization ofthe airplane. OATES: This AD becomes effective [INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION INTHE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The Director ofthe Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of , certain publications listed in the AD as o{[INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE 0 PUBLICATION INTHE FEDERAL REGISTER].
STATE of North Carolina v. Alicia Diane RADFORD

No. COA18-609

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 2, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Exhibit 32.1



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

     This certification is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
certification is included solely for the purpose of complying with the
provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose. In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, I, Lisa R.
Powell, hereby certify in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. that
to my knowledge:

     1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the
quarter ended August 31, 2004, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rub
A Dub Soap, Inc. for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rub A
Dub Soap, Inc.



Date:  October 20, 2004             /s/ Lisa R. Powell
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Lisa R. Powell,  President, Secretary,
                                    Treasurer  and  Director (Principal
                                    Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . 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 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 16, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10656 Summary Calendar

BRADY HICKS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS; TARRANT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; DEPUTY/JAILER LINGLE, Tarrant County Sheriff; DEPUTY/JAILER J. GARCIA, Tarrant County Sheriff; DEPUTY/JAILER PARKER, Tarrant County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:06-CV-311

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brady Hicks, Jr., a Texas prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Tarrant County, the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department (“TCSD”), Tarrant County Sheriff’s Deputy/Jailer Lingle, Tarrant County Sheriff’s Deputy/- Jailer J. Garcia, and Tarrant County Sheriff’s Deputy/Jailer Par-No. 06-10656 -2-

1 Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). ker. Hicks contends that the court erred when it sua sponte dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim following an order requiring payment of the filing fee, before issuance of summons, without allowing him to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies and without opportunity to develop his complaint factually through either a Spears 1 hearing or a questionnaire. This court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Harris v. Hegmann , 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1998). Hicks argues that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by (1) failing to protect him, a pretrial detainee, from being assaulted by a fellow inmate even though he had informed them that the same inmate had previously threatened to kill him; (2) failing to train TCSD deputies on ways to protect pretrial detainees; (3) failing to follow policies on protecting restrained inmates from assaults by fellow inmates and other inj uries; (4) failing to provide proper medical treatment; and (5) placing him in a restraining chair. The allegations in Hicks’s complaint, if developed further, might have stated a cognizable § 1983 claim. Therefore, dismissal without affording him an opportunity to offer a more detailed set of factual claims was premature, and further development of the allegations is required before a proper 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal may be imposed. See Eason

v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, theNo. 06-10656 -3- judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Hicks’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for reconsideration of the clerk’s order denying his motion to file a supplemental brief are denied. We express no view on the ultimate merits of this case. VACATE AND REMAND; MOTIONS DENIED.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5364 

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to eliminate an 

hours of service requirement for benefits under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2006 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. WEXLER, 

Mr. OWENS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 

PAYNE, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. AL

GREEN of Texas, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 

Ms. CARSON, Mr. KILDEE, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Government Reform 

and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 

eliminate an hours of service requirement for benefits 

under that Act. 

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 ‘‘Family Fairness Act 

5 of 2006’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5364 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF HOURS OF SERVICE REQUIRE2 MENT. 

3 Section 101(2)(A) of the Family and Medical Leave 

4 Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611(2)(A)) is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible em7 ployee’ means an employee who has been em8 ployed, either as a full-time or part-time em9 ployee, for at least 12 months by the employer 

10 with respect to whom leave is requested under 

11 section 102.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0502 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-097-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Mario G. RHODES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105644

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: March 13, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Mary H. Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Mario Rhodes appeals from the circuit court's judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
City of Rockland omceofthe 

270 Pleasant Street City Manager 

ROCKLAND, MAINE 04841 

(207) 594-0300 

FAX (207) 594-9481 

Rockland, City of Promise — Gateway of the Penobscot 

August 11,2010 OoT-OCT- RR-^-97W 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S E 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: EAS at Knox County Regional Airport at Rockland, Maine 

Dear Mr. DeVany: - -

I am writing on behalf of the City of Rockland regarding the pending contract renewal of 

Cape Air for essential air service at the Knox County Regional Airport. I have attended 

meetings of the Knox County Commissioners at which Cape Air made Power Point presentations 

about its experience and air service to residents in our region. I have also reviewed Cape Air's 

proposal to the Knox County Airport and found it to be complete and reasonable. 

After considering the information presented, hearing comments from interested parties, 

and meeting the people involved with Cape Air, I am pleased to report that the City of Rockland 

completely supports a contract renewal with Cape Air for four years. We believe four years will 

enable Cape Air to continue its investment plan for essential air service in the Rockland area. 1 

am especially encouraged to leam that Cape Air intends to establish a ticket office on Main 

Street in Rockland that will increase its exposure and convenience to the public. 

On behalf of Mayor Deborah E. McNeil and the Rockland City Council, I encourage you 

to support the contract renewal for Cape Air when you make your recommendation to the 

Assistant Secretary. 

Thank you for your service, and best wishes as you move through this process. 

Warmest regards. 

Rosemary E. Kulow 

City Manager 

C: Rockland City Council 

Andrew Hart, Knox County Manager 

Jeff Northgraves, Knox County Regional Airport Manager
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5399 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate the Medicare 

prescription drug late enrollment penalty for months during 2006, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2006 

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. SHAW, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. 

RAMSTAD, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. 

SWEENEY, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. LEACH, 

Mr. GERLACH, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DENT, Mr. BASS, 

Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. UPTON, Mr. KIRK, Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, Mr. 

PORTER, and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the Medicare prescription drug late enrollment penalty 

for months during 2006, 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 ‘‘Medicare Drug Benefit 

5 Enrollment Fairness Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5399 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG 

2 LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY FOR MONTHS 

3 DURING 2006. 

4 Section 1860D–13(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security 

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–113(b)(3)(B)) is amended by in6 serting ‘‘(after December 2006)’’ after ‘‘any month’’. 

7 SEC. 3. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE REGIONAL PLAN STA8 BILIZATION FUND REVISIONS. 

9 Section 1858(e)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 1395w–27a(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end 

11 the following new subparagraph: 

12 ‘‘(C) ADDITIONAL LIMITATION.—In no 

13 case may the total expenditures from the 

14 Fund— 

15 ‘‘(i) prior to October 1, 2007, exceed 

16 $584,000,000; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) during the period beginning on 

18 October 1, 2007, and ending on September 

19 30, 2011, exceed $4,525,000,000.’’. 

20 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

21 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

22 as if included in the enactment of Medicare Prescription 

23 Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub24 lic Law 108–173; 117 Stat. 2181). 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Amendment to the Corporation's ERISA Excess Pension Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
 AMENDMENT 
 THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 

ERISA EXCESS PENSION PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective April 6, 2004) 
 WHEREAS, The PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc. (“PNC”) sponsors The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. ERISA Excess Pension Plan, as amended and restated effective April 6, 2004 (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Plan authorizes PNC to amend the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, PNC wishes to
amend the Plan to permit the cash-out of small sums; and 
 WHEREAS, notwithstanding the foregoing, PNC intends that the Plan remain
“grandfathered” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Plan is
hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2010: 
 1.    The first paragraph under Section 4
(“Distributions”) is amended to add the following new sentences to the end thereof as follows: 
 “Notwithstanding
the foregoing, if at the time of distribution as specified in this Section 4, the value of a Participant’s Account is $5,000 or less, such distribution shall be paid as soon as administratively feasible after the occurrence of the
distribution event and shall be paid in the form of a lump sum in lieu of any other benefit under the Plan. No other form of distribution is available and no spousal consent is required.” 

Executed and adopted by the Chief Human Resources Officer of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. this 23rd day of December, 2010 pursuant to the
authority delegated by the Corporation’s Personnel and Compensation Committee. 
  

			
	
	/s/ Joan L. Gulley
	Joan L. Gulley
	Chief Human Resources Officer
exv10w24






Exhibit 10.24




AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

AMONG HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.,

HARLAND FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

AND RAJU SHIVDASANI




     WHEREAS, Harland Clarke Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Harland Clarke Holdings”) and
Harland Financial Solutions, Inc., an Oregon corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), and Raju Shivdasani
(the ‘‘Executive’’) entered into an employment agreement (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”)
dated as of May 5, 2008;



     WHEREAS, Harland Clarke Holdings, the Company and the Executive wish to modify certain terms
of the Employment Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement, as set
forth below:




	 	1.	 	Section 1.1 is hereby modified, effective August 31, 2009, by deleting
“Enterprise Solutions Group” and inserting in its place “Harland Financial Solutions”.
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 3.1 is hereby modified, effective January 1, 2010, by deleting the
annual rate of Base Salary of $375,000 and inserting in its place the annual rate of
Base Salary of $425,000.
	 
	 	3.	 	Section 3.2.1 is modified, effective January 1, 2010, by deleting the
Percentage of Consolidated EBITDA table and inserting in its place the following table:





	 	 	 
	Percentage of Consolidated	 	Percentage of Base
	EBITDA in Business Plan	 	Salary
	<89.9%
	 	0.00%
	90 to 94.9%
	 	65.00%
	95 to 99.9%
	 	69.00%
	100 to 105%
	 	75.00%
	105.1 to 110%
	 	79.16%
	110.1 to 115%
	 	83.33%
	115.1 to 120%
	 	87.50%
	120.1 to 125%
	 	91.67%
	125.1 to 130%
	 	95.84%
	130.1 to 135%
	 	100.00%
	135.1 to 140%
	 	104.17%
	140.1 to 145%
	 	108.34%
	145.1% +
	 	112.50%






	 	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise remain in
place, except as expressly amended herein.






Page 1 of 2









 






     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement as of
February 22, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles Dawson
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Charles Dawson 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President & CEO 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	HARLAND FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Martin Wexler
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Martin Wexler 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Treasurer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Raju Shivdasani
 	 
	 	 	Raju Shivdasani 	 
	 	 	 
	 




Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction 

over State laws restricting pornography, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. CANNON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal 

court jurisdiction over State laws restricting pornography, 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 ‘‘The Pornography Ju5 risdiction Limitation Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5528 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No court created by Act of Con3 gress shall have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall 

4 have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide a question 

5 of whether a State pornography law imposes a constitu6 tionally invalid restriction on the freedom of expression. 

7 ‘‘(b) COURT PRECEDENT NOT BINDING.—A decision 

8 of a Federal court, to the extent the decision relates to 

9 a question described in subsection (a), is not binding 

10 precedent on a State court. 

11 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

12 ‘‘(1) The term ‘State pornography law’ means 

13 a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, 

14 to the extent the law restricts a depiction, descrip15 tion, or display of nudity or sexual conduct. 

16 ‘‘(2) The term ‘State court’ means a court of 

17 a State or political subdivision of a State. 

18 ‘‘(3) The term ‘State’ means a State of the 

19 United States, the District of Columbia, and any 

20 commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 

21 States.’’. 

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

23 at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5528 IH

1 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

2 item: 

‘‘1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS