alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005331EN.01001601.xml

| 28.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P4 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2005/C 331/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P4 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P4.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director of Energy Production, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after the period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 66 94.

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Tammy Renee Hanks, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00057

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 007

- 1418

- 12 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the award of attorney ’ s fees against Hanks

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Tammy Renee Hanks, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AU GUST 19, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17655]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2021-6025]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank), as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FORM TITLE: EIB 84-01 Application for 
Export Working Capital Guarantee.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2021 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB 10-02) or by email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a1e0b180b441a0f040e0f182a0f120307440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a3e2b382b643a2f242e2f380a2f322327642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>, or by 
mail to Tara Pender, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 
Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The application tool can be reviewed 
at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/forms/eib84-01.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information, 
please Tara Pender, 202-565-3655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title and Form Number: EIB 84-01 Application for Export Working 
Capital Guarantee.
    OMB Number: 3048-0013.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Need and Use: This form provides EXIM Bank staff with the 
information necessary to determine if the application and transaction 
is eligible for EXIM Bank assistance under their export working capital 
guarantee program.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.

EXIM Bank

    Annual Number of Respondents: 200.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 400 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: Annually.
    Government Expenses:

EXIM Bank

    Reviewing Time per Year: 300 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $12,750.00 (time*wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $15,300.00.


Bassam Doughman,
IT Project Manager, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-17655 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Paul L. Ruflin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Robert J. Colletti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                         |  |                                                                 
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                        
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | /s/ Paul L. RuflinPaul L. Ruflin
Chief Executive Officer        
|                        
|                        
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | /s/ Robert J. CollettiRobert J. Colletti
Chief Financial Officer

25
#### The People ex rel. Richard W. G. Welling, Respondent, *v.*Alexander Meakin et al., Commissioners, etc., Appellants.

(Argued October 20, 1890;

decided December 2, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made May 16, 1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory mandamus.

*Edward Browne*for appellants.

*Lewis L. Delafield*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur except Ruger, Ch. J., and Andrews, J., not voting.

Order affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Colleen B. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2009



/s/    Colleen B. BrownColleen B. BrownPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Form of Waiver


 Exhibit 10.2 
 FORM OF WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required to
comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008. 
 I acknowledge that this
regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I
participate as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program. 
 This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Oak Hill Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John D. Kidd, 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:


          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


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





/s/ John D. Kidd



John D. Kidd
Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 12, 2002
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Science Research: Raleigh, NC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Raleigh, North Carolina Plant Science Research People & Locations







Erin  Silva
                        Plant Science Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (919) 515-9496
                        
                        
                        Fax: (919) 515-3593(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Retention Bonus Agreement



 Exhibit 10.02 
 RETENTION BONUS AGREEMENT 
 This agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into between Mary F. Morgan
(“Employee”) and NuStar GP, LLC (“NuStar”).
 To encourage Employee to remain employed by NuStar and diligently perform her
responsibilities for two (2) years following the execution of this Agreement, NuStar will, contemporaneous with the signing of this Agreement, pay Employee a lump sum bonus of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000), net of applicable taxes
and other necessary withholding.
 However, if Employee voluntarily terminates her employment with NuStar before two (2) years from the signing of this
Agreement, Employee will be required to pay back a portion of the retention bonus determined by a fraction, the numerator of which will be twenty-four (24) minus the number of full months Employee was employed during the above-referenced time
period, and the denominator of which will be twenty-four (24). 
 In addition, if employee is terminated by NuStar for “Cause” (as hereinafter
defined) before two (2) years from signing this Agreement, Employee will be required to pay back a portion of the retention bonus determined by a fraction, the numerator of which will be twenty four (24) minus the number of full months
Employee was employed during the above-referenced time period, and the denominator of which will be twenty-four (24). 
 “Cause” shall mean
the (i) Employee’s conviction by a state or federal court of a felony involving moral turpitude, (ii) Employee’s conviction by a state or federal court of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds of NuStar,
(iii) NuStar’s (or its applicable affiliate’s) reasonable determination that Employee has committed an act of fraud, embezzlement, theft or misappropriation of funds in connection with such Employee’s duties in the course of his
or her employment with NuStar (or its applicable affiliate), (iv) NuStar’s (or its applicable affiliate’s) reasonable determination that Employee has engaged in gross mismanagement, negligence or misconduct that causes, or could
potentially cause, material loss, damage or injury to NuStar, any of its affiliates or their respective employees, or (v) NuStar’s (or its applicable affiliate’s) reasonable determination that: (a) Employee has violated any
policy of NuStar (or its applicable affiliate), including but not limited to, policies regarding sexual harassment, insider trading, confidentiality, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, substance abuse and/or conflicts of interest, which
violation could result in the termination of Employee’s employment, or (b) Employee has failed to satisfactorily perform the material duties of Employee’s position with NuStar or any of its affiliates. 
 This Retention Bonus Agreement is not a contract of employment and does not modify the at-will employment relationship that exists between Employee and
NuStar.
 Signed in San Antonio, Texas on December 17, 2008. 
  

	
	 /s/ Mary F. Morgan

	Mary F. Morgan
	
	 /s/ Mary Rose Brown

	Mary Rose Brown, Senior Vice President- Administration, NuStar GP, LLC
(5 App. Div. 47)

#### ZIEGLER v. LAMB.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May, 1896.)

Discovery—Examination of Parties before Trial.

Examination of a party before trial is not permissible to enable the adverse party to ascertain whether he has a cause of action against other persons not parties.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by William Ziegler against Hugh Lamb. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendant before trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Albridge C. Smith, for appellant.

J. Tredwell Richards, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This order should be reversed. The plaintiff makes no affidavit upon which to obtain the order for the examination of the defendant before trial. His attorney alone makes the affidavit. But, further, it clearly appears from the attorney’s affidavit that he does not need the defendant’s examination for the purpose to which he refers, namely, the purpose of amending his complaint by setting up the real owners of the land. The defend*66ant admits that he has the legal title to the property, and that is sufficient. There is no provision allowing the examination of a party to an action before trial, so as to enable his adversary to ascertain whether he has a cause of action against other persons not parties. The avowed object of this examination is to discover whether or not such persons exist, and we know of no principle that would justify the granting of such an application.

The order, should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order for the examination of the defendant before trial granted, with $10 costs.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                  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 Patriot Bank Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James G. Blume, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ JAMES G. BLUME
--------------------------
James G. Blume
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 29, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13128

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-01915-CV-JLK

MICHAEL PEREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

Cross-Appellee, 

versus 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 

Defendant-Appellee

Cross-Appellant, 

WILLIAM ALLSBURY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 29, 2006)

Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY*, District Judge.

_____________________________

* Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida,

sitting by designation.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Perez appeals the district court’s award of costs to Miami-Dade

County (“County”) after the district court granted summary judgment in the

County’s favor. Perez makes the following arguments on appeal. First, he

contends that the County failed to comply with the rules of the district court when

it failed to timely file any document in support of its initial motion to tax costs and

by failing to support its request with particularity. Second, Perez claims that the

district court awarded thousands of dollars of costs not permitted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1920. Finally, he argues that the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in the underlying appeal should be reversed, and therefore, the district

court’s award of costs to the County should be vacated.

The County argues that the district court’s award of costs should be

affirmed. However, the County cross-appeals the district court’s determination of

the award, claiming that the district court employed the incorrect standard in

denying the award of the trial transcript and two deposition transcripts. The

County concedes, however, that if we reverse summary judgment in the underlying

appeal, the award of costs should be vacated.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “costs other

than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the
3

court otherwise directs.” “Absent a contrary legislative directive, a ‘prevailing

party’ is one who prevails on ‘any significant issue’ and thereby achieves some of

the benefits sought by bringing suit.” Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of

Volusia County, Fla., 307 F.3d 1318, 1323 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Tex. State

Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92, 109 S. Ct.

1486, 1493, 103 L. Ed. 2d 866 (1989)).

Here, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

the County in the underlying substantive appeal. Perez v. Miami-Dade County,

No. 05-10261 (11th Cir. Feb. 17, 2006) (per curiam). This being the case, the

County is no longer the prevailing party for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(d). Therefore, we vacate the district court’s award of costs in favor

of the County.

VACATED.