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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1251 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1251

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 14, 2010.
Whereas June 6, 2010, marks the 66th anniversary of the D-Day landings at 
        Normandy, France;
Whereas more than 150,000 Allied troops participated in the Normandy landings;
Whereas approximately 70,500 Americans stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day 
        and more than 1,400 of them gave their lives fighting for the cause of 
        freedom;
Whereas the U.S. Army Air Forces alone flew 8,000 planes on more than 14,000 
        sorties during D-Day;
Whereas more than 4,000 ships carrying soldiers and supplies crossed the English 
        Channel;
Whereas 800 Allied planes dropped more than 13,000 men in parachutes;
Whereas more than 100,000 Allied soldiers made it ashore while 9,000 of their 
        comrades were wounded or killed;
Whereas there are 9,387 graves in Colleville-sur-Mer, America's cemetery in 
        Northern France where all graves face west, toward America;
Whereas there are 307 graves containing the remains of unknown soldiers;
Whereas within the Garden of the Missing there are 1,557 names of soldiers who 
        were never found;
Whereas captured Germans were sent to American prisoner-of-war camps at the rate 
        of 30,000 POWs per month from D-Day until Christmas, 1944; and
Whereas the Allied landings on D-Day led to the liberation of France and 
        culminated in the ultimate annihilation of the Nazi empire: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the American troops who gave their lives in the Battle of 
        Normandy;
            (2) recognizes the 66th anniversary of the D-Day landings at 
        Normandy, France; and
            (3) expresses gratitude to the ``greatest generation'' of Americans 
        who fearlessly fought for freedom.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, **Francis R. McAllister,**certify that;1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stillwater Mining Company (the “Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15(d)-15(f)) for the Company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s Board of Directors: a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’sinternal controls over financial reporting.   Dated: February 26, 2007 /s/Francis R. McAllister  Francis R. McAllister  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register: September 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 48608]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07se99-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Tuesday, September 28, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement Review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-23269 Filed 9-2-99; 10:14 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 511.

#### Cousins *v.*Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World.

Jurisdictional statement submitted January 11, 1932.

Decided January 18, 1932.

*Mr. John D. Cofer*for appellant.

*Mr. Charles L. Black*for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question. *Hiawassee River Power Co.*v. *Carolina-Tennessee Power Co.,*252 U. S. 341, 344; *Lawler*v. *Walker,*14 How. 149, 152; *Maxwell*v. *Newbold,*18 How. 511, 516, 517; *Yazoo & Mississippi R. Co.*v. *Adams,*180 U. S. 41, 45, *48; Mutual Life Ins. Co.*v. *McGrew,*188 U. S. 291, 309, 312.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kat Gold Holdings Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kenneth Stead, Chief Executive Officer and 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, to the best of my knowledge
that:

1. The Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Sections 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.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with
the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.

|      |                  |  |     |                                                            
|----- | ---------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 12,
 2010 |  | By: | /s/ Kenneth
 Stead                                         
|      |                  |  |     |                                                            
|      |                  |  |     | Name:
 Kenneth Stead                                       
|      |                  |  |     | Title: Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---
```

[Federal Register: December 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 74780]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de05-40]


[[Page 74780]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 am, Friday, January 20, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-24184 Filed 12-14-05; 11:09 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
No. 252.

#### Glover *v.*Simpson, Warden.

Jurisdictional statement distributed September 10, 1936.

Decided October 12, 1936.

*Mr. Harold E. Neibling*for appellant.

*Mr. John G. Egan*for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Moore*v. *Missouri,*159 U. S. 673; *McDonald*v. *Massachusetts,*180 U. S. 311; *Graham*v. *West Virginia,*224 U. S. 616; *Levell*v. *Simpson,*297 U. S. 695.
STATE OF VERMONT Superior Court - Environmental Division

=================================================== ======================= E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== =======================
Merchant & Anderson Site Plan Application Docke t No. 205-10-09 Vtec (Appeal from Village of Waterbury Planning Commiss ion determination)

Title: Motion to Clarify Admissibility (Filing No. 5)
Filed: October 29, 2010 Filed By: Laruen S. Kolitch, Attorney for Appellees Amy Anderson and Michael Merchant Response: None (the Court considered Appellant’s No v. 5th motion as a response.)

Granted Denied X Other

Pending before the court is Neighbor’s motion to cl arify the admissibility of evidence at trial, which raises similar evidentiary issues to t he motion Applicants recently filed to exclude the evidence and testimony of John Pitrowiski, whom Neighbor plans to call as an expert witness at trial. We addressed the common legal issues in an Entry Order issued today in response to Applicants’ motion; that Order provides a more deta iled explanation for our reasoning in declining to exclude Mr. Pitrowski’s testimony at t his time. To the extent that Applicants seek an order prohibi ting John Pitrowiski from offering evidence at trial due to the tardy or allegedly ina dequate disclosure by Neighbor, we decline to grant such a severe sanction. Therefore, we conclu de that Appellant my offer the testimony of John Pitrowiski at trial. To the extent that new o bjections are raised to Mr. Pitrowski’s testimony or other evidence introduced through him, the Court will address such objections as they arise during the trial.

___________________________________________ __ _November 18, 2010

____ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

=================================================== ================= Date copies sent to: ____________ Cle rk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: Paul S. Gillies, Attorney for Appellant Valerie Zimmerman Lauren S. Kolitch, Attorney for Appellee/Applic ants Amy Anderson and Michael Merchant Attorney David W. Rugh for Interested Person Vi llage of Waterbury
S06A1721.

#### PRICE v. PRICE.

(636 SE2d 546)

Thompson, Justice.

Fronice Price filed a petition to probate the will of her deceased husband, Grady Price. The will was a joint will, mutually executed by *127Grady and Fronice on January 12, 1980. The deceased’s son, David Price, filed a caveat alleging, inter alia, that Fronice and Grady were not legally married.

Decided October 16, 2006.

*Terry D. Jackson,*for appellant.

*Glyndon C. Pruitt,*for appellee.

On December 8, 2005, the probate court ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on the matter on April 12, 2006. One month before the hearing, on March 9, David’s counsel served David with notice of his intent to seek an order permitting him to withdraw as counsel. David received the notice four days later, and counsel filed a request for permission to withdraw as counsel on March 24. The probate court granted counsel’s request to withdraw on March 30.

On April 6, David filed a motion for continuance “due to medical reasons.” He attached medical records showing he was hospitalized on December 16, 2003, treated for herniated discs, and discharged shortly thereafter. He also attached a record showing that he was seen in an emergency room on March 22, 2006, due to neck pain and that he was released with the proviso that he would be unable to work for 24 hours.

The trial court issued an order setting David’s motion for a hearing on April 12, 2006, the day set for a hearing on the caveat. In so doing, the court ordered David to “present a doctor’s affidavit confirming his inability to go to trial.”

A hearing was held on April 12 as scheduled and all parties appeared. The hearing was not transcribed and we find no express ruling upon the motion for continuance. However, the record does contain an order of the probate court admitting the will to probate. David appeals.

Assuming that David sought a ruling on his motion for a continuance and that it was denied, in the absence of a transcript, it cannot be said that the probate court abused its discretion in denying the motion; nor can it be said that the probate court erred in admitting the will to probate. That is because, without a transcript, this Court must assume that the evidence adduced below was sufficient to support the probate court’s findings. *Tanksley v. Parker,*278 Ga. 877 (1) (608 SE2d 596) (2005). Whether Fronice had the burden of proof in the probate court is of no consequence. On appeal, David bears the burden of showing error by the record. *Cormier v. Cormier,*280 Ga. 693, 695, n. 4 (631 SE2d 663) (2006).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


	
  Notice of Grant

  	
  Cogent Communications Group, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name: Schaeffer, Dave

  	
  2004 Incentive Award Plan

  



 


Effective as of the date
specified below, (the “Grant Date”) you have been granted 100,000 shares of
common stock $.001 par value of Cogent Communications Group, Inc. (the Company)
subject to the vesting requirement described below.  You will become vested in 8,333.33 shares on
January 1, 2006 and in an additional 8,333.33 shares on the first day of each
subsequent month such that you will be fully vested on December 1, 2006.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will be
fully vested upon the termination of your employment by reason of death or
disability and upon a Change of Control. 
Upon termination of employment you will forfeit any unvested portion of
the stock except as provided below.  If
you are terminated other than for Cause or you terminate your employment for
Good Reason, you shall on the date of notification by the Company of such
termination other than for cause or on the date of your notification of the
Company of your resignation for Good Reason, become vested in all of the
unvested portion of the stock, i.e. you will be fully vested in the stock
granted above.


 


Good Reason means: a) the assignment to you of duties
inconsistent with your status as Chief Executive Officer of the Company or a
substantial adverse alteration in the nature or status of your
responsibilities; b) a reduction in your salary; c) relocation of your
principal place of employment outside of the Washington, DC area.  For purposes of this agreement, the Company
shall have “Cause” to terminate your employment hereunder a) upon your
conviction for the commission of an act or acts constituting a felony under the
laws of the United States or any state thereof, or b) upon your willful and
continued failure to substantially perform your duties hereunder (other than
any such failure resulting from your incapacity due to physical or mental
illness), after written notice has been delivered to you by the Company, which
notice specifically identifies the manner in which you have not substantially
performed your duties, and your failure to substantially perform you duties is
not cured within ten (10) business days after notice of such failure has been
given to you. No act or failure to act on your part shall be deemed “willful”
unless done or omitted to be done, by you not in good faith and without
reasonable belief that your act, or failure to act, was in the best interest of
the Company.


 


The shares are granted under
and governed by the terms and conditions of the Cogent’s 2004 Incentive Award
Plan as may be amended from time to time. 
Defined terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in the 2004
Incentive Award Plan, unless otherwise defined herein.


 


 


Cogent Communications Group,
Inc.


 


	
  /s/ Edward
  Glassmeyer

  	
   

  	
  November 4,
  2005

  
	
  by:

  	
  Edward Glassmeyer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Chairman, Compensation Committee

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  on behalf of
  the Board of Directors
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Reston Inn and Conference Center Venture v. Board of Zoning Appeals

November 26, 1990

Case No. (Law) 101141

By JUDGE THOMAS S. KENNY

I have not entered the writ of certiorari in this case because it appears that it may not be timely. The petition was filed November 16, but the action complained of was taken on October 9, 1990. Section 15.1-497 provides that such a petition must be filed within thirty days "after the filing of the decision in the office of the board."

If the "filing of the decision" was subsequent to the October 9 decision, [the] petition [should be revised] to reflect that fact.

Also, I believe the proposed writ is overbroad in the documentation it requires the board to produce. The purpose of the writ is to procure before this court the record on which the Board based its decision; it is not a substitute for discovery. I would not include items 7 through 11 mentioned in [the] proposed writ, nor would I include staff memoranda, drafts or supplements from item 6.
Exhibit (d)(150)

**AMENDMENT TO**

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS**

**and**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF FIDELITY EUROPE CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND**

	This Amendment made as of this 1st day of August, 2007, amends the Sub-Advisory Agreement (the "Agreement"), datedMarch 1, 2001, by and between Fidelity Management & Research Company, a Massachusetts corporation with principal offices at82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts (hereinafter called the "Advisor"); Fidelity International Investment Advisors, aBermuda company with principal offices at Pembroke Hall, Pembroke, Bermuda (hereinafter called the "Sub-Advisor"); andFidelity Investment Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, on behalf of Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund (hereinaftercalled the "Portfolio").

	WHEREAS the Advisor and Sub-Advisor (the "Parties") wish to clarify their relationship by amending the Agreement inaccordance with the terms of this Amendment;

	NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

	1.  Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is hereby supplemented as follows:

	Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a partnership between the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor and the Trust.  Nothing inthis Agreement makes the Sub-Advisor an agent of the Advisor or the Trust and the Sub-Adviser has no authoritywhatsoever to exercise discretionary powers over the global portfolios and investment funds, except as provided pursuantto paragraph 1(b) herein, of the Advisor and the Trust, or otherwise to bind the Advisor's and the Trust's assets undermanagement.

	The Sub-Advisor shall furnish services as an independent contractor and not as an employee or agent of either the Advisoror the Trust.  The Sub-Advisor has no power or authority to act for, represent, or bind the Advisor or the Trust or anycompany affiliated with either of them.

	2.****In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby confirmed and remains in full force and effect.

	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, without giving effect to the choice of laws provisions thereof.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be signed in their behalf by their respectiveofficers thereunto duly authorized, and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the date written above.
Exhibit (d)(154)

**FORM OF**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS**

**and**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF FIDELITY PACIFIC BASIN FUND**

	This Amendment made as of this __ day of _____, 200_, amends the Sub-Advisory Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated April 1, 2001, by and between Fidelity Management & Research Company, a Massachusetts corporation with principal offices at 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts (hereinafter called the "Advisor"); Fidelity International Investment Advisors, a Bermuda company with principal offices at Pembroke Hall, Pembroke,Bermuda (hereinafter called the "Sub-Advisor"); and Fidelity Investment Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, onbehalf of Fidelity Pacific Basin Fund (hereinafter called the "Portfolio").

	WHEREAS the Advisor and Sub-Advisor (the "Parties") wish to clarify their relationship by amending theAgreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment;

	NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

	1.  Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is hereby supplemented as follows:

	Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a partnership between the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor and the Trust.Nothing in this Agreement makes the Sub-Advisor an agent of the Advisor or the Trust and the Sub-Adviserhas no authority whatsoever to exercise discretionary powers over the global portfolios and investmentfunds, except as provided pursuant to paragraph 1(b) herein, of the Advisor and the Trust, or otherwise tobind the Advisor's and the Trust's assets under management.

	The Sub-Advisor shall furnish services as an independent contractor and not as an employee or agent of either the Advisor or the Trust.  The Sub-Advisor has no power or authority to act for, represent, or bind theAdvisor or the Trust or any company affiliated with either of them.

	2.****In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby confirmed and remains in full force and effect.

	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, without giving effect to the choice of laws provisions thereof.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be signed in their behalf by theirrespective officers thereunto duly authorized, and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the datewritten above.

[SIGNATURE LINES OMITTED]
No. 145.

#### Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. et al. *v.*White.

Motion to dismiss submitted September 10, 1935.

Decided October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Howard*
      *535
      *L. Kern*and *S. Lasker Ehrman*for appellants.

*534
      *Per Curiam:*

The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question. *Lynch*v. *New York,*293 U. S. 52, 54; *Herndon*v. *Georgia,*295 U. S. 441, 443; *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.*v. *Mims,*242 U. S. 532, 535; *Hartford Life Ins. Co.*v. *Johnson,*249 U. S. 490, 493.

*535
      *Mr. S. S. Hargraves*for appellee.