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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [AK-962-1410-HY-P] 

In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the provisions of section 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1613(a), will be issued to Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation for 60,000 square feet (1.3774 acres). The lands, located within T. 9 N., R. 34 E., Umiat Meridian, Alaska, are more particularly described as: Lot 6, Block 1, U.S. Survey No. 4234, Townsite of Kaktovik, Alaska. 

                    Notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four (4) consecutive weeks, in the                     *Arctic Sounder*. Copies of the decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of Land                           ( print page 4039)                        Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).                 

Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional corporation, shall have until February 16, 2001 to file an appeal. However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. 

Ronald E. Royer,

Land Law Examiner, Branch of ANCSA Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 01-1304 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
154 So. 919

#### T. G. STEWART et al. v. J. I. CASE THRESHING MACHINE CO.

3 Div. 74.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 10, 1934.

C. E. Alexander, of Prattville, for appellants.

H. E. Gipson, of Prattville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
# C_2019263EN.01002201.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of PF

(Case C-509/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of a Member State - Legal position - Guarantee of independence)

(2019/C 263/27)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Party to the main proceedings

PF

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as including the Prosecutor General of a Member State who, whilst institutionally independent from the judiciary, is responsible for the conduct of criminal prosecutions and whose legal position, in that Member State, affords him a guarantee of independence from the executive in connection with the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---
ex10-1.htm




 








AMENDMENT NO. 3


Effective September 14, 2010







To







THE PMI GROUP, INC.


2005 OFFICER DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


(September 19, 2007 Restatement)







THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. 2005 Officer Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) effective as of January 1, 2005, having amended and restated the Plan effective as of September 19, 2007, and having further amended the restated Plan effective as of February 20 and November 20, 2008, hereby again amends the restated Plan, effective for all currently unvested Company Contributions as of September 14, 2010 and those to be made in the future, as follows:


 


1.           The first sentence Section 6.2 is amended to read as follows:


“Except as provided in the following sentence, a Participant’s interest in his or her Company Contribution (if any) shall become one hundred percent (100%) vested and nonforfeitable on the earliest of (a)  January 1 of the third calendar year following the calendar year as of which such Company Contribution was made (but only if the Participant does not incur a Separation from Service before the end of such vesting period), (b) the date on which a Change in Control Event occurs, or (c) the date on which the Participant incurs a Separation from Service due to death or Disability.”


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment No. 3 to the restated Plan as of the date specified below.


 


THE PMI GROUP, INC.


Date: September 15, 2010                                                                By _/s/ Charles Broom_________________


Charles Broom


Senior Vice President, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quantum Materials Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris Benjamin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.





By:
/s/ Chris BenjaminChris Benjamin,Chief Financial OfficerAugust 5, 2011
# C_2017195EN.01004201.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/42

---

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)

(Case T-246/17)

(2017/C 195/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘Национальный Продукт’ — registration application No 14 747 513

Mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1017/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer of Approach Resources Inc.
(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 APPROACH RESOURCES INC.Date: May 6, 2010
    /s/ J. Ross CraftJ. Ross CraftPresident and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Vino Kumar SAVAL and Gita Kamala Nanikram, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75622.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 5, 2011.

Alison L. Dixon, Law Office of Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert Markle, OIL, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Joan Elizabeth Marshall, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.

Agency Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXXXXX ].

Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, M. MARGARET McKEOWN *1*
      **and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

. Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Hall on this panel after her death.

ORDER

Respondent’s motion to vacate the judgment is granted. The opinion and dissent filed on September 23, 2010 are hereby withdrawn.
Exhibit 10.4

August 6, 2010

Monster Offers

Re:   LOCK-UP AGREEMENT

Gentlemen:

The undersigned, a director and major security holder of Monster Offers, a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), understands that the Company is the
process of conducting a private placement offering to further capitalize the
Company.  This lock up agreement adds a level of protection to new investors,
to prevent the undersigned from liquidating his stock holdings and adversely
effecting the market of the stock.

The undersigned is the record owner of 10,000,000 shares of the common stock
of Monster Offers, par value $0.001 per share (the "Shares), and understands
that some of their Shares may be eligible for sale under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, subject to certain limitations included in said Rule.

It is further agreed that:

1.      The undersigned will not sell any of their shares of the common stock
owned by the undersigned, directly or indirectly, until August 6, 2011.

The undersigned acknowledges that Empire Stock Transfer, 1859 Whitney
Mesa Dr., Henderson, NV 89014, the transfer agent for the Company, has been
advised of the restrictions described herein and that any attempts by the
undersigned to violate said restriction may result in legal action(s) by the
Company.  The undersigned further agrees, upon the request of the Company,
that in addition to any other restrictions reflecting that the Shares have
not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, may be
placed on individual certificates issued.

THIS LOCK-UP AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS
PRINCIPLES THEREOF.

Sincerely,

/s/ Paul Gain
-------------
    Paul Gain

cc: Empire Stock Transfer


<PAGE>
Argued and submitted January 25,

motion to strike granted; affirmed February 17, 1999

#### Reita HRIBERNICK, *Petitioner, v.*CITY OF GRESHAM and GSL Properties, *Respondents.*

(No. 98-118; CA A104499)

974 P2d 791

Eric J. Tenbrook argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Black Helterline LLP.

Richard D. Faus argued the cause for respondent City of Gresham. Jeff H. Bachrach argued the cause for respondent GSL Properties. With them on the brief were Andrew H. Stamp and O’Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Rossman, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

*520PER CURIAM

Petitioner appealed to LUBA from the City of Gresham’s (city) approval of a subdivision. The city and the applicant, respondent GSL Properties (GSL), moved for a “voluntary remand” of the land use decision to the city. LUBA granted the motion over petitioner’s objection and remanded the decision to the city.

Petitioner seeks our review. She assigns error to LUBA’s granting of the voluntary remand and to its denial of her objections to the local record. We agree with LUBA’s disposition of the voluntary remand motion, and we also agree with LUBA that, in view of that disposition, “[a]ny error that * * * may have been committed in settling the record may be rendered moot by the city’s proceedings on remand.”

We write only to emphasize that petitioner is *not*foreclosed, under the rationale of *Beck v. City of Tillamook,*313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992), from reasserting in subsequent proceedings any points that she raised before LUBA or us and that were not resolved on their merits by LUBA or us in the present appeal and review. *See Hendgen v. Clackamas County,*119 Or App 55, 58, 849 P2d 1138 (1993).

The city and GSL have moved to strike certain material from petitioner’s brief and abstract, on the ground that it contains or refers to matters not in the record. The motion is granted.

Motion to strike granted; affirmed.
# C_2020010EN.01001602.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 — Outsource Professional Services Ltd v Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-528/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)

(2020/C 10/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd in relation to the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd in relation to the appeal proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---
# Interest Rates
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Terwilliger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Houston American Energy Corp. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Houston American Energy Corp.





By:
/s/ John F. TerwilligerName:
John F. TerwilligerTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerDated:
March 15, 2011
FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

October 5, 2023

(Submitted electronically via the CFTC Portal) 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission 

FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre, 8th Floor

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 2058

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request - Risk Management Framework Amendments -

Clarifying Certain Aspects of the Documentation of ICE Risk Model 1

Dear FOIA Compliance Staff:

In conjunction with the above referenced self-certification submitted today via the CFTC Portal by ICE Clear 

U.S., Inc. ("ICUS”), pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and Commission 

Regulation 40.6(a), ICUS respectfully requests Confidential Treatment for all information attached to the 

submission until further notice, as more specifically described below.

***********************

Under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC Section 552, Section 809(g) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5) and any other 

applicable regulations under or implementing FOIA, ICUS hereby respectfully requests that confidential 

treatment be maintained for the document, bates stamped "ICUS 2023 10 05 - 000001 to 000008," until further 

notice. ICUS also requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after receiving any FOIA 

request for such documents or any other court order, subpoena or summons for the same. Finally, ICUS 

requests that it be notified in the event the Commission intends to disclose such documents to Congress or to 

any other governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA or other applicable law. ICUS does not 

waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA or other applicable law with respect to any subpoena 

or summons for such document(s).

The basis for the request is that disclosure of these document(s) would reveal confidential commercial and 

financial information of ICUS, the disclosure of which could have a material adverse effect on, and cause injury 

to, the operations and competitive position of ICUS. This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other 

protection from disclosure or confidential treatment accorded by law, and ICUS will rely on and invoke any such 

confidentiality protection.

***********************

If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact me at (212) 748-3964 or 

Eamonn.Hahessy@ice.com.

Sincerely, 

Eamonn Hahessy

General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

ICE Clear U.S., Inc.
EXHIBIT 32-2

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund VI, L.P., Series 10 (the  "Partnership")  for the year ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
September 20, 2004
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF FORM 10-Q/A REPORT OF




KL
ENERGY CORPORATION




FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2010




The
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of KL Energy
Corporation (“KL”), that to his knowledge:





1.
            This Form 10-Q/A 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 such 10-Q/A Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      KL.





This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to the 10-Q/A Report. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to KL and will be retained by KL and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
Certification is executed as of September 28,
2010.


/s/
      THOMAS J. BOLANThomas
      J. BolanChief
      Financial Officer
151 So. 919

#### W. B. BURMEISTER v. FARMERS’ *&*MERCHANTS’ BANK OF FOLEY.

1 Div. 782.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 21, 1933.

John N. Allen and Harry T. Smith & Caffey, all of Mobile, for appellant.

Lloyd A. Maguey, of Eoley, for appellee.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

It is manifest, both from the bill of complaint and the answer, that the bulbs, producing or developing into the flowers in question, were claimed by and in the possession of Krahe when he executed the mortgage in the name of the Premier Eloral Company to the appellee bank December 12, 1931. There is no specific mention in the mortgage of bulbs, but it does purport to convey all crops on the Cooney Place or to be raised each successive year until the debt is paid in full. The mortgage also purports to convey all personal property of every kind. If the bulbs were out of the ground, and not a growing crop, they would probably be personal property and covered by the mortgage. But the bill does not seem to be after bulbs, but to acquire and preserve a crop of flowers grown during the year 1933. So the question is, not who owned the bulbs, but who owned or grew the crop of flowers for the year 1933 ? If the complainant owned the bulbs, and they were converted by the respondent, he would no doubt be liable in an action at law. But, regardless of the original ownership of the bulbs, the question is: Did the complainant’s mortgage cover the crop for the year 1933? The crop for the year 1933 was not produced by the mortgagor and, in fact, was not grown until after the complainant foreclosed its mortgage.

We also think that the amended bill and answer negative the fact that the crop of flowers in question was grown by the respondent-as the agent of or for the mortgagor or the complainant. Indeed, the bill avers “that said bulbs are planted in ground owned neither by Complainant nor Respondent but rented by the Respondent.”

The trial court erred in not dissolving the injunction and not vacating the order appointing the receiver, and the decree of the circuit court is reversed, and one is here rendered dissolving the injunction and vacating the appointment of a receiver, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
#### Chaim Sieger, Respondent, v Helen Sieger, Appellant.

Decided February 16, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.