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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-102215; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2024-81, SR-NYSEAMER-2024-80, SR-NYSEARCA-2024-113, SR-NYSECHX-2024-37, SR-NYSENAT-2024-33]

                    On December 17, 2024, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (the “Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to amend the connectivity fee schedule to add fees for connectivity from the Mahwah Data Center to one or more trading floors. The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 3, 2025.[3] 

On December 31, 2024, the Exchanges withdrew the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2024-81, SR-NYSEAMER-2024-80, SR-NYSEARCA-2024-113, SR-NYSECHX-2024-37, SR-NYSENAT-2024-33).

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 102043 (December 27, 2024), 90 FR 351 (SR-NYSE-2024-81); 102042 (December 27, 2024), 90 FR 360 (SR-NYSEAMER-2024-80); 102041 (December 27, 2024), 90 FR 347 (SR-NYSEARCA-2024-113); 102040 (December 27, 2024), 90 FR 356 (SR-NYSECHX-2024-37); 102039 (December 27, 2024), 90 FR 342 (SR-NYSENAT-2024-33).                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-01545 Filed 1-22-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### Hiwot WOREDE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1536.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 26, 2008.

Decided April 28, 2004.

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., the Fogle Law Firm, L.L.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Patricia A. Smith, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Hiwot Worede, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming an immigration judge’s ruling and denying relief on her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We find that the Board’s conclusion that Worede failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to qualify for relief from deportation was not “manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000); *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); *Huaman-Comelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals,*979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir.1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          56,303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  561,362<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,357<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                     59,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               716,592
<PP&E>                                       1,771,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                 581,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,506,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          551,545
<BONDS>                                        988,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,262
<OTHER-SE>                                     810,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,506,461
<SALES>                                      3,228,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,242,781
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,960,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               203,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,969
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,123)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
<FN>
<F1>Excludes $46,868 of long-term notes receivable.
<F2>Excludes $4,953 of allowance for long-term notes receivable.
<F3>Included in Total costs and expenses line.
</FN>


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANTHONY RAY LEWIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-5432 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 16, 2015. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward, Judge. Anthony Ray Lewis, pro se.

PER CURIAM.
Anthony Ray Lewis appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crimina l Procedure 3.800(a). The postconviction court' s order contains no findings, no explanati on for the court's ruling, and no record attachments from which this court could determine conclusively that Lewis is not entitled to relief. We therefore reverse the post conviction court's order and remand for reconsideration of Lewis's rule 3.800(a) motion. Se e Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) ("On appeal from the denial of relief, unless th e record shows-2- conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the o rder shall be reversed and the cause remanded for . . . appropriate relief."); Gassaway v. Sta te, 993 So. 2d 1186, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("If the trial court again summarily denies the motions, it must set forth its rationale and attach any relevant portions of the rec ord which support its denial."). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

KHOUZAM, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Robert POTCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.**

AFFIRMED.
MC TRUST, etc., Appellant, v. Solita Cohen DE MISHAAN, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-211

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 08, 2019

Philip D. Parrish, P.A., and Philip D. Parrish ; Scale Law and Jaime D. Guttman, for appellant.

Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten ; Raquel A. Rodriguez, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Mishaan ("Steven"), as trustee and on behalf of MC Trust, appeals a final judgment dismissing with prejudice his action against Solita Cohen de Mishaan ("Solita"), individually and as trustee of MC Trust, for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.1 We affirm.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Solita because she is not a resident of Florida and because Steven failed to meet his burden of establishing that she had the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Florida or that the alleged actionable tort was committed *1066in Florida. Upon our review of the evidentiary hearing transcript and the record on appeal, we agree. *See* § 48.193(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) ; § 736.0202(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) ; *Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais*, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) ; *Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc.*, 937 So.2d 730, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).2

Affirmed.

1

Because we affirm the trial court's order on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, we do not reach the merits of the forum non conveniens issue.

2

We affirm without comment the other issues raised on appeal.
Linda STAPINSKI, Appellant, v. Joshua STAPINSKI, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3958

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
R.V. v. W.R.C. and L.C.

2160428

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

Affirmed.
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 36 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Government of Egypt of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 3), 2022 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Egypt of certain 

defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Government of Egypt is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

6 and services, described in Transmittal No. 20–64, 

7 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

8 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

9 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional 

10 Record on January 31, 2022: Three (3) SPS–48 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 36 IS 

1 Land Based Radar (LBR), spares, motor genera2 tors, repeaters, radomes, technical manuals, site sur3 veys, installation, calibrations, testing, operator 

4 training, and maintenance training associated with 

5 the SPS–48 LBR; obsolescence replacements of 

6 processor, track management system, communica7 tion equipment, uninterrupted power supply (UPS), 

8 generators, and/or Transmitter Control Unit in field9 ed SPS–48 LBR systems; updated built-in-testing 

10 (BIT) and overhaul of fielded SPS–48 LBR antenna 

11 systems; and other related elements of logistical and 

12 program support. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court 

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

415-355-8000

May 09, 2018

No.: 18-71347

D.C. No.: 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

Short Title: Boon Global Limited, et al v. USDC-CAOAK

Dear Petitioner/Counsel

A petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition has been received in the Clerk's 

Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court 

of Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. Always 

indicate this docket number when corresponding with this office about your case.

If the U.S. Court of Appeals docket fee has not yet been paid, please make 

immediate arrangements to do so. If you wish to apply for in forma pauperis status, 

you must file a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis with this court.

Pursuant to FRAP Rule 21(b), no answer to a petition for writ of mandamus and/or 

prohibition may be filed unless ordered by the Court. If such an order is issued, the 

answer shall be filed by the respondents within the time fixed by the Court.

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 21-2, an application for writ of mandamus and/or 

prohibition shall not bear the name of the district court judge concerned. Rather, 

the appropriate district court shall be named as respondent.

 Case: 18-71347, 05/09/2018, ID: 10867296, DktEntry: 1-2, Page 1 of 1 Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 65 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 1
Filing a Discrimination Complaint

If you believe you have been unlawfully discriminated against, you must contact an

EEO counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory incident or, in the

case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action.

EEO laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,national origin,

age, disability, and genetic information.

The Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) receives all of its EEO services 

under a contractual agreement with the Farm Credit Administration (FCA). EEO

counseling is provided by external professional EEO counselors.

Contact information for EEO counselors is as follows:

• Toll free phone: 1-844-322-3233

• TTY: 703-883-4352

The role of the EEO counselor is to conduct interviews to obtain a full understanding of

the problem, review records relating to a complaint or concern, attempt to resolve

complaints informally, and advise aggrieved persons concerning rights and procedures

for filing formal complaints.

Employees are protected from retaliation for filing a complaint, participating in an 

investigation of an EEO complaint, or opposing an employment practice made illegal

under any of the statutes enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Retaliation would provide grounds for an additional discrimination claim.

If you have any questions about filing a discrimination complaint, please contact

Thais Burlew, FCSIC's EEO Director, at (703) 883-4290;TTY: (703) 883-4352; or Email:

burlewt@fca.gov.
Joachim D. EMILE, Appellant, v. Dania EXCELLENT, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2052

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 17, 2019

Jordan H. Jordan of the Law Office of Jordan Howard Jordan, Coral Springs, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellee filed a petition against appellant for protection against stalking. During a hearing, the parties verbally agreed to an injunction for no contact for one year. Appellant also agreed to surrender his gun and ammunition. The trial court entered a written final judgment, but included a finding that appellee was a victim of stalking, which was not a part of the agreement. Appellant moved to vacate the injunction, and the trial court denied the motion. We affirm the final judgment. However, because of the discrepancies between the face of the written order and the parties' verbal agreement, we remand for the trial court to strike the second paragraph of Section II of the judgment, in which the trial court found that appellee was a victim of stalking, as well as all conditions not verbally agreed to by the parties, including the enforcement provisions in Section V that were never discussed. *See**Glick v. Glick* , 874 So.2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("A trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order."). Pursuant to the parties' verbal agreement, the following provisions of the final judgment remain in force: Section III 1 (prohibited actions), 2a., b., and c. (no contact), and 3b. and c. (firearms and ammunition).

*Affirmed and remanded with instructions.*

WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
1 ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO SEVER 

AND STAY THE ’844, ’780, AND ’494 PATENTS 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN JOSE DIVISION) 

FINJAN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER ON JOINT REQUEST TO SEVER 

AND STAY THE ’844, ’780, AND ’494 

PATENTS

To preserve the resources of the parties and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court 

grants the joint request of counsel to sever United States Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; and 

8,677,494 from this matter and stay the litigation, including deferring trial of those three patents, 

pending completion of any appellate review of the District Court’s amended order (Dkt. No. 869) 

of March 29, 2021 in Finjan v. ESET (S.D. Cal Case No. 17-cv-0183.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________________ 

Hon. Beth Labson Freeman 

United States District Court 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 769-1 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.20    
    


EXECUTION
COPY 


 
 

MASTER LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMINATION AGREEMENT    
    


        This MASTER LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this "Termination Agreement"), dated as of
July 17, 2003, is made by and between EFI DEVELOPMENT FUNDING, INC., a Delaware corporation ("EFI"), and SIERRA DEPOSIT COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Sierra"). 


 
 

RECITALS    



        WHEREAS,
EFI and Sierra entered into the Master Loan Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement"), dated as of August 29, 2002,
and the related Master Loan Purchase Agreement Supplement (the "PA Supplement"), dated as of August 29, 2002, to effect the sale of such Loans by
EFI to Sierra; 


        WHEREAS,
as of the date hereof, EFI has not sold any Loans to Sierra under the Purchase Agreement or the PA Supplement; 


        WHEREAS,
as of the date hereof, EFI and Sierra intend that no Loans will be sold to Sierra by EFI and desire to terminate the Purchase Agreement; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 


 
 

ARTICLE I
  
    TERMINATION    




        Section 1.01.    Termination.    On and as of the date hereof, the parties to the Purchase Agreement hereby
agree to terminate and hereby do terminate the Purchase Agreement as of the date hereof and release each other from any and all obligations thereunder. 


 
 

ARTICLE II
  
    MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS    
    



        Section 2.01.    Definitions.    All terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have meanings
ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement. 


        Section 2.02.    Counterparts.    This Termination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all
such counterparts together constituting but one and the same instrument. 



        Section 2.03.    Governing Law.    THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT IS GOVERNED BY AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 





 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Termination Agreement as of the 17th of July, 2003. 



	 	 	EFI DEVELOPMENT FUNDING, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  LISA M. HENSON      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	Lisa M. Henson
	 	 	 	 	Title:	Vice President
	

 	
 	

SIERRA DEPOSIT COMPANY, LLC,
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  JOHN COLE      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	John Cole
	 	 	 	 	Title:	President and Treasurer




2









QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.20


MASTER LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMINATION AGREEMENT

RECITALS

ARTICLE I TERMINATION

ARTICLE II MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Exhibit 32   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 Tintic Gold Mining Company (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, George Christopulos, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated: May 11, 2009 /s/ George P. Christopulos George P. Christopulos, CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of the Board
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 09, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 09, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0003. MICHAEL J. MCBROOM v. DENISE M. MCBROOM.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: DR160144