alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14501]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Committee Management; Renewals

    The NSF management officials having responsibility for the seven 
advisory committees listed below have determined that renewing these 
groups for another two years is necessary and in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, 
National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This 
determination follows consultation with the Committee Management 
Secretariat, General Services Administration.

1. Advisory Committee for Small Business Industrial Innovation (#61)
2. Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (#1110)
3. Advisory Committee for Education & Human Resources (#1119)
4. Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (#1130)
5. Advisory Committee for Engineering (#1170)
6. Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (#1172)
7. Advisory Committee for Geosciences (#1755)

    Authority for these Committees will expire on June 30, 2003, unless 
they are renewed. For more information, please contact Susanne Bolton, 
NSF, at (703) 292-7488.

    Dated: June 5, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-14501 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
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




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of iTrackr
Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, John Rizzo,
Chief Executive Officer of iTrackr Systems, Inc., hereby 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 and belief, that:




1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2010,
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of iTrackr Systems,
Inc.




Dated:
October 18, 2010




/s/ John RizzoJohn
      Rizzo, Chief Executive Officer ofiTrackr
      Systems, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1272 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1272

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 5, 2010.
Whereas the year 2010 marks the 40th anniversary of the Kent State University 
        shootings that occurred on May 4, 1970;
Whereas, on such date, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on Kent State 
        students who were protesting the United States invasion of Cambodia and 
        the ongoing Vietnam War;
Whereas four unarmed students (Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, 
        and William Schroeder) were killed and nine others (Alan Canfora, John 
        Cleary, Thomas Grace, Dean Kahler, Joseph Lewis, Donald MacKenzie, James 
        Russell, Robert Stamps, and Douglas Wrentmore) were injured;
Whereas the site of the May 4 shootings was entered in the National Register of 
        Historic Places, the official list of the Nation's historic places 
        worthy of preservation, in February 2010;
Whereas, to preserve the memory of the May 4 shootings and encourage inquiry, 
        learning, and reflection, Kent State has established a number of 
        resources, including the May 4 Memorial, individual student memorial 
        markers and scholarships in memory of the four students mentioned above 
        who were killed, an experimental college course entitled ``May 4, 1970 
        and its Aftermath'', and an annual commemoration sponsored by the May 4 
        Task Force; and
Whereas Kent State has engaged the internationally renowned design services 
        firm, Gallagher & Associates, to assist in the development of the May 4 
        visitors center as a central place where individuals can explore and 
        better understand the May 4 shootings: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in commemoration of the 40th 
year anniversary of the Kent State University shootings that occurred on May 4, 
1970--
            (1) recognizes the tragedy of the May 4 shootings and the 
        implications that the shootings have had not only on Kent State and the 
        local community, but also on the Nation and the world; and
            (2) applauds the development of the May 4 visitors center as an 
        additional primary resource to preserve and communicate the history of 
        the May 4 shootings, its larger ethical and societal context and impact, 
        and its enduring meaning for our democratic Nation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Ernst Arrasti, Respondent, v HRH Construction LLC et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[876 NYS2d 373]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 28, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his claim against defendants-appellants for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied said defendants’ cross *583motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion granted only to the extent of dismissing the claims based on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and those based on violations of the Industrial Code other than having to do with a properly constructed ramp, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The ramp from which plaintiff fell while wheeling a loaded A-frame cart full of construction materials was the sole means of access to the concrete floor, which was approximately 18 inches below the hoist platform, and was thus a device to protect against an elevation-related risk within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see e.g. McGarry v CVP 1 LLC,*55 AD 3d 441 [2008]). There was unrebutted evidence that defendants’ failure to equip this ramp with handrails, curbs, cleats or other safety devices was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries *(see Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts,*65 NY2d 513, 524 [1985]).

The evidence fails to raise a triable issue of fact that defendants supervised or controlled plaintiff’s work at the construction site *(see Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]), caused or created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition of which plaintiff complains *(cf. Murphy v Columbia Univ.,*4 AD3d 200, 202 [2004]). Nor did the condition of the ramp render plaintiff’s work site an “unreasonably dangerous work environment” *(O’Sullivan v IDI Constr. Co., Inc.,*7 NY3d 805, 806 [2006]). Accordingly, the claims based on common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 should have been dismissed.

Plaintiffs expert did point out, however, in opposition to the cross motion for summary judgment, that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.22 (b) (3) sets forth specific, positive standards with regard to the construction of runways and ramps, rather than just a general duty of care *(see O’Hare v City of New York,*280 AD2d 458 [2001]). Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact that defendants had violated this regulation by supplying him with a ramp constructed of planking that was not “laid close, butt jointed [or] securely nailed,” and which did not have the requisite “timber curbs at least two inches by eight inches full size, set on edge and placed parallel to, and secured to, the sides of’ the ramp. (§ 23-1.22 [b] [3].)

Other sections of the Industrial Code, referred to in plaintiffs brief, have no basis in the record, and accordingly are dismissed as predicates for the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Renwick, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 32933(G).]
```

[Federal Register: September 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 58412]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se04-52]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Technology Advisory Committee Meeting

    This is to give notice, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(a), that the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Technology Advisory Committee
will conduct a public meeting on Wednesday, October 13, 2004. The
meeting will take place in the first floor hearing room of the
Commission's Washington, DC headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155
21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. The meeting will begin at 1
p.m. and last until 4 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss
technology-related issues involving the financial services and
commodity markets.
    The agenda will consist of the following:
    (1) Surveillance of electronic trading.
    (2) How exchanges deal with disruptions to market operations.
    (3) Report on Industry-wide Disaster Recovery Test.
    The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the Advisory
Committee, Acting Commission Chairman Sharon Brown-Hruska, is empowered
to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in her judgment,
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Any member of the public
who wishes to file a written statement with the Advisory Committee
should mail a copy of the statement to the attention of: Technology
Advisory Committee, c/o Acting Chairman Sharon Brown-Hruska, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20581, before the meeting. Members of the public
who wish to make oral statements should inform Acting Chairman Brown-
Hruska in writing at the foregoing address at least three business days
before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made, if time permits,
for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration.
For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Ananda
Radhakrishnan, Counsel to Acting Chairman Brown-Hruska, (202) 418-5188.

    Issued by the Commission in Washington, DC, on September 27,
2004.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-21995 Filed 9-28-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL-BEY, Grantor Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Muur’s Grantor/In Propria Persona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; T. Bobrek; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-2125.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.

*237Noble Tornello Fontaine Pierce El-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Rustin Per-lungher, Charlotte-Meeklenburg Police Department, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tornello Fontaine appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Fontaine’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See *Fontaine v. City of Charlotte,*No. 3:11-cv-00131-RJC-DCK, 2011 WL 4755560 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2011). Further, we deny Fontaine’s motion for sanctions and for a grand jury trial and, accordingly, deny as moot Defendants-Appellees’ motion to strike Fontaine’s motion. 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.*
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Rent-A-Center, Inc. (the " Company ") for the period ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report "), I, Robert D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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.










/s/ Robert D. Davis


Robert D. Davis


Chief Executive Officer and Director





Dated: September 18, 2015








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Rent-A-Center, Inc. and will be retained by Rent-A-Center, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1211

IsoButane Fixed Swap - Conway IsoButane (in-well) - OPIS

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by OPIS for the location 

specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the OPIS

Conway IsoButane (in-well) price for each business day that it is determined during the contract 

month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in gallons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

gallons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per gallon. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per gallon. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

~rsrsqyrqqqx|xrsv
#### Wixon *vs.*Williams *et al.*

The plea to an action on two promissory notes being failure of consideration, the evidence being conflicting, the jury having found in favor of the defendant, and the presiding judge having exercised his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

February 9, 1886.

Blandford, Justice.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 887 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 887

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2009

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th 
   Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States 
                             Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th Street in 
Davenport, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James A. Leach 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of BTHC XV, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) that:




1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.






Date:  July 1, 2011
/s/ Zhang ShanjiuZhang ShanjiuChief Executive Officer
No. 202.

#### Stone et al., Trustees, *v.*White, Former Collector of Internal Revenue.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Thomas Allen*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *Joseph M. Jones*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### Surf MOORE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-5075.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

Surf Moore, Jackson, MS, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and TATEL and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 9, 2010, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). *See Ciralsky v. CIA,*355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a). To comply with this rule, the complaint should identify the “circumstances, occurrences, and events” that support the claim for relief. *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 556 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets these requirements. *See Ciralsky,*355 F.3d at 671.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.