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

          - [OR-958-1430-ET; HAG-01-0206; OR-13498]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5820, which withdrew forest system lands from the mining laws to protect the Cow Creek Recreation and Administrative Site, was allowed to expire on January 21, 2001, in Douglas County, Oregon.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 11, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles R. Roy, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-952-6189.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5820, published in the                     **Federal Register,**46 FR 6947, January 22, 1981 as FR Doc. 81-2262, for the Forest Service, withdrew 120 acres of forest system lands from the mining laws to protect the Cow Creek Recreation and Administrative Site has been allowed to expire.                

                    At 8:30 a.m. on June 11, 2001, the segregative effect for the Federal                           ( print page 31250)                        interests in the above mentioned PLO, is lifted, and the land opened to such forms of disposition as may by law be made of forest system lands, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.                

Dated: May 24, 2001.

Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,

Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.

[FR Doc. 01-14561 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
Exhibit
32.1







Certification






The
undersigned certifies for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of NORTH
HORIZON, INC. (“NORTH HORIZON”) that to his knowledge, the Form 10-Q of NORTH
HORIZON with financial statements for the quarter ended June 30,
2008, fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operation of NORTH HORIZON.






Date: July
      14, 2008/s/
      Wallace BoyackWallace
      BoyackChief
      Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL A. RAMOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 303 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Peter Wardle, the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Protosource
Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     December 31, 2004 (the "Report") 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 10, 2006



                                        /s/ PETER WARDLE
                                        ----------------
                                        Name: Peter Wardle
                                        Title: Chief Executive and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
32.1
            
            Certification
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002




CERTIFICATION






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






I, Ronald
A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bella Viaggio,
Inc. (the "Company") certify that:






1. I have
reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bella Viaggio, Inc.;






2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and






3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.






Date:
August 19, 2008






/s/
Ronald A. Davis


Ronald A.
Davis,


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                   STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                           OWNERSHIP                   INCORPORATION
----------                                                           ---------                   -------------
<S>                                                                  <C>                         <C>
AmeriGas Finance Corp.                                                  100%                           DE
AmeriGas Propane, L.P.                                                98.99%                           DE
           AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.                                  99%                           DE
                     AmeriGas Eagle Parts & Service, Inc.               100%                           PA
           AmeriGas Propane Parts & Service, Inc.                       100%                           PA
           AmeriGas Eagle Propane, Inc.                                 100%                           DE
                     AmerE Holdings, Inc.                               100%                           DE
                     AmeriGas Eagle Holdings, Inc.                      100%                           DE
                               Active Propane of Wisconsin LLC          100%                           DE
AmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp.                                            100%                           DE
AP Eagle Finance Corp.                                                  100%                           DE
</TABLE>
Exhibit (d)(158)

**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 EUROPE FUND**

	This Amendment made as of this __ day of _______, 200_, amends the Sub-Advisory Agreement (the"Agreement"), dated March 1, 2001, by and between Fidelity Management & Research Company, a Massachusettscorporation 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 Europe 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.
#### George Lee Edward HURD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI ESTILL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6970.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.

George Lee Edward Hurd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Lee Edward Hurd, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hurd v. Warden,*No. 0:11-cv-00602-RMG, 2011 WL 2020881 (D.S.C. May 24, 2011). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
----

| Subsidiary                                                             |                | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation or Organization |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Advised      Asset Group, LLC                                          |                | Colorado                                           |
| GWFS      Equities, Inc.                                               |                | Delaware                                           |
| FASCore,      LLC                                                      |                | Colorado                                           |
| Emjay      Corporation                                                 |                | Wisconsin                                          |
| EMJAY      Retirement Plan Services, Inc.                              |                | Wisconsin                                          |
| First      Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company             |                | New      York                                      |
| Great-West      Life & Annuity Insurance Company of South Carolina | South      Carolina |
| GW      Capital Management, LLC (1)                                    |                | Colorado                                           |
| GW      Investor Services, LLC                                         |                | Colorado                                           |
| Lottery      Receivable Company ONE LLC                                |                | Delaware                                           |
| LR      Company II, L.L.C.                                             |                | Delaware                                           |
| Maxim      Series Fund, Inc.                                           |                | Maryland                                           |
| National      Plan Coordinators of Delaware, Inc.                      |                | Delaware                                           |
| Orchard      Trust Company                                             |                | Colorado                                           |
| Singer      Collateral Trust IV                                        |                | Delaware                                           |
| Singer      Collateral Trust V                                         |                | Delaware                                           |
| Westkin      Properties Ltd.                                           |                | California                                         |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Tramble, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 28]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J., at hearing; Arlene D. Goldberg, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 18, 2007, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The showup identification, made in close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime, was not unduly suggestive *(see People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 544-545 [1991]). The showup was not rendered suggestive by the fact that defendant was in handcuffs and guarded by officers when viewed by the victim *(see e.g. People v Gatling,*38 AD3d 239, 240 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 865 [2007]). Defendant’s distinctive appearance did not render the showup suggestive; if anything, it enhanced the reliability of the victim’s identification.

The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful *(see People v Guerrero,*12 NY3d 45 [2009]).

*444We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: December 4, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[page 75677]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de00-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 22, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor 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. 00-30858 Filed 11-30-00; 10:46 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
Notice of Extension of Term of Employment Agreement to David E. Hooston



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TERM OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  

	


			
	To:	 	David E. Hooston
	From:	 	Board of Directors, Placer Sierra Bancshares
	Date:	 	October 28, 2005

  
 This is to notify you
that Placer Sierra Bancshares (the “Company”) hereby notifies you that the Company has exercised its right to extend the term of your employment through December 31, 2008, pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Employment Agreement between
you and Company, dated January 1, 2003. 
  

			
	 “COMPANY”
 PLACER SIERRA
BANCSHARES

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert J. Kushner


	 	 	 Robert J. Kushner
 Chairman of the
 Compensation Committee of the
 Board of Directors
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23






                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS







To The Board of Directors and Shareholders
BTG, Inc.:


        We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 33-97302) on Form S-8 of BTG, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated
May 24, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of BTG, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, cash flows, and comprehensive
income for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1999, and
the related schedule, which reports appear in the March 31, 1999 annual report
on Form 10-K of BTG, Inc. and subsidiaries.







/s/ KPMG  LLP




McLean, Virginia
June 23, 1999
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Toni A. Bush, Respondent. St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[875 NYS2d 322]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 3, 2008, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a medical typing specialist for the employer, provided care to a retired coworker for a number of years. Prior to the coworker’s death in October 2005, pension checks made payable to the coworker in care of claimant were deposited directly into the coworker’s bank account. Following the coworker’s death, claimant sent a copy of the coworker’s death certificate to the employer’s human resources department and thereafter began receiving pension checks from the provider at her address. Claimant returned the first such check and advised the provider that the coworker had died. When the checks continued to be mailed to her, claimant assumed that she was receiving the checks in accordance with the coworker’s previously expressed wishes and cashed them. When the employer learned of this, claimant was fired. Following a hearing at which claimant testified to these events and the employer presented no evidence, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the employer and concluded that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, reversed, prompting this appeal by the employer.

Whether a claimant engages in disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Williams [City of New York—Commissioner of Labor],*47 AD3d 994 [2008]; *Matter of Jimenez [New York County Dist. Attorney’s Off—Commissioner of Labor],*20 AD3d 843, 844 [2005]), and *1180not every mistake, exercise of poor judgment or discharge for cause will rise to the level of misconduct *(see Matter of Pfohl [Hunter’s Hope Found., Inc.—Commissioner of Labor],*9 AD3d 729, 730 [2004]; *see also Matter of Kuryla [Finger Lakes Community Coll.—Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2007]). Here, the Board elected to credit claimant’s testimony and concluded that it was reasonable, under the circumstances presented, for “claimant to believe that arrangements had been made for her to benefit from the pension.” Credibility determinations lie exclusively within the province of the Board *(see Matter of Rogers [Beena 1 Corp.—Commissioner of Labor],*47 AD3d 1178, 1178-1179 [2008]; *Matter of Radu [Commissioner of Labor],*13 AD3d 701, 702 [2004]), and inasmuch as there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision, it will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Rumble, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 260]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Mullen, J.), rendered March 14, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him is without merit. The defendant was arrested close to the location where an undercover officer observed him making three apparent drug sales, minutes after that officer transmitted the defendant’s description by radio to other officers. He was wearing the attire that the officer had described when he was stopped, in the middle of the night, in an area with minimal pedestrian and vehicular traffic *(see People v Williams,*170 AD2d 629 [1991]; *People v Zarzuela,*141 AD2d 788 [1988]). Additionally, although the defendant contends that the officer who detained him prior to his arrest by a different officer had no basis for stopping him, under the circumstances of this case it can be inferred that the detaining officer was acting at the direction of the undercover officer *(see People v Ramirez Portoreal,*88 NY2d 99, 114 [1996]; *see also People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416, 421 [1999]). Moreover, the People were not required to produce the undercover officer, rather than the arresting officer, at the hearing *(see People v Petralia,*62 NY2d 47, 51-52 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 852 [1984]; *People v Green,*13 AD3d 646 [2004]). Accordingly, the court properly declined to suppress the physical evidence seized following the defendant’s arrest.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589, 600 [1978]; *People v Beauliere,*36 AD3d 623 [2007]; *People v Waldron,*162 AD2d 485, 486 [1990]) and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v White,*41 AD3d 1036 [2007]; *People v Castellanos,*234 AD2d 381 [1996]; *People v Budhai,*182 AD2d 693 [1992]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.