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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# Time and Date:

 10 a.m., Thursday, September 15, 2005.

# Place:

 Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7074, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# Status:

 Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Request from a Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community Charter.

2. Proposed Rule: Section 741.6(a) of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Financial and Statistical and Other Reports.

3. Final Rule: Part 712 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Credit Union Service Organizations.

# Time and Date:

 9 a.m., Thursday, September 15, 2005.

# Place:

 Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# Status: 

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. One (1) Insurance Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).

2. Internal Board Procedures and Technical Corrections. Closed pursuant to Exemption (2).

# Recess: 

9:30 a.m.

# For Further Information Contact: 

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: (703) 518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-18173  Filed 9-8-05; 3:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
STATE v. David FELTON.

No. 186P10-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

David Felton, Swan Quarter, for Felton, David.

Zachary Padget, Associate Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
STATE v. ORR.

No. COA08-653.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS222928, 06CRS222929, 06CRS222930, 06CRS222932, 06CRS222934).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
csgs-ex1025bo_215.htm



Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.25BO

 

SEVENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

 

This Seventy-second Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CSG”), and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”).  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement dated February 9, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

CSG and Customer agree to the following as of the Effective Date (defined below):

 

1.    Pursuant to the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement executed by CSG and Customer dated January 10, 2010 (CSG document no. 2301479) (the "Ninth Amendment") Customer has requested and CSG has agreed to provide an ****** ******* ******, No Attachments Precision eMail® bundle at the ********** bundle level.  

 

2.   Therefore, pursuant to Schedule F of the Agreement and for the fees provided therein, CSG shall provide the ****** ******* ******, No Attachments Precision eMail bundle to Customer, commencing as of the Effective Date. 

 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is executed on the days and year last signed below to be effective as of the date last signed below (the "Effective Date").

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING 

COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

	
 

By: /s/ Michael Ciszek
	
 

By:  /s/ Joseph T. Ruble

	
 

Name: Mike Ciszek
	
 

Name:  Joseph T. Ruble

	
 

Title:  VP, Billing & Collections
	
 

Title:  EVP, CAO & General Counsel

	
 

Date:  5/21/15
	
 

Date:  22 May 2015
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of VASCO Data Security International, Inc.



|                                            |  |                                  
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                          |  | State or Country of Incorporation
|VASCO Data Security, Inc.                   |  | Delaware, U.S.A.                 
|VASCO Data Security Europe NV/SA            |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security NV/SA                   |  | Belgium                          
|Lintel Security NV/SA                       |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd    |  | Singapore                        
|VASCO Data Security Pty Ltd                 |  | Australia                        
|VASCO Data Security Australia Pty Ltd       |  | Australia                        
|VASCO Data Security B.V.                    |  | The Netherlands                  
|VASCO Data Security Austria GmbH            |  | Austria                          
|Able NV                                     |  | Belgium                          
|Able Holding BVBA                           |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security International, GmbH     |  | Switzerland                      
|VASCO Data Security Solutions, GmbH         |  | Switzerland                      
|VASCO Segurança de Dados Brasil Ltda.       |  | Brazil                           
|Kabushiki Kaisha VASCO Data Security Japan  |  | Japan                            
|VASCO Data Security Private (India) Limited |  | India                            
|VASCO Data Security Middle East SPC         |  | Bahrain                          
|VASCO Data Security UK Limited              |  | UK                               
|VASCO Data Security France SAS              |  | France
STATE of North Carolina v. Deangelo McCLENNY.

No. COA15-306.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50345 Conference Calendar

DALE ST. JOHN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CV-31
- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dale St. John, #653767, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He contends that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by transferring him to Lockhart Work Facility. We have reviewed the record and brief and conclude that St. John has identified no error in the dismissal. See St. John v. Scott , No. A-96-CA-031 JN (W.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 1996).No. 96-50345 - 2 -
St. John’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution St. John that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, St. John is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 693 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Automated 

Defibrillation in Adam’s Memory Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

Automated Defibrillation in Adam’s Memory Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Automated 

5 Defibrillation in Adam’s Memory Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT. 

7 Section 312(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 244(e)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

9 ‘‘fiscal year 2003’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2006’’ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 693 IS

1 and inserting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 2003 through 

2 2011’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina, v. Daven Lorenzo TEETER, Defendant.

No. COA 15-176.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**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**





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Bill Joll, the president and chief
      executive officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge:





(i)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





By:
            /s/Bill
                JollBill
                Joll*President
                and**Chief
                Executive Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*





October
      10, 2007
NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES LIABILITY AND PROPERTY JOINT RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY v. Ernest M. CURRY, Jr.

No. 362P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Courtney C. Britt, William A. Buifer, George H. Pender, Raleigh, for NCACC/LPP.

*30H. Mitchell Baker, Troy Slaughter, Wilmington, for Curry.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 662 S.E.2d 678.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of August 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."

MARTIN, J., recused.
#### Charles Tawil et al., Appellants, v Max Wasser, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[801 NYS2d 619]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 26, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Max Wasser for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Max Wasser, an attorney, demonstrated, prima facie, that he was not retained by and did not otherwise represent either of the plaintiffs in connection with the real property transfer which the plaintiffs alleged was contemplated as partial payment of certain loans made to the defendant Ginette Tawil, sued herein as Jeanette Tawil. In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to their claims predicated on legal malpractice, the first and second causes of action in the complaint dated May 13, 2002 *(see DeFalco v Cutaia,*236 AD2d 358 [1997]; *Council Commerce Corp. v Schwartz, Sachs & Kamhi,*144 AD2d 422 [1988]; *Volpe v Canfield,*237 AD2d 282 [1997]).

Wasser also demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the plaintiffs’ third purported cause of action, in which the plaintiffs combined allegations of “false misrepresentations” and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that cause of action *(see Sheridan v Bieniewicz,*7 AD3d 508 [2004]; *Rovello v Klein,*304 *949AD2d 638 [2003]; *O’Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y.,*265 AD2d 313 [1999]; *DeFalco v Cutaia, supra; Grassi v Tatavito Homes,*90 AD2d 479 [1982]; *Estate of Ginor v Landsberg,*960 F Supp 661 [1996], *affd,*159 F3d 1346 [1998]). Wasser further demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action predicated upon Judiciary Law § 487, by establishing that there was no evidence of his intent “to deceive, or a chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency that proximately caused the [plaintiffs’] alleged damages” *(Knecht v Tusa,*15 AD3d 626, 627 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see O’Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y, supra).*In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action *(see Knecht v Tusa, supra; O’Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., supra).*In any event, as this “statute only applies to wrongful conduct by an attorney in a suit actually pending” *(Henry v Brenner,*271 AD2d 647, 648 [2000]; *see Manna v Ades,*237 AD2d 264 [1997]), it is inapplicable to the facts as asserted by the plaintiffs. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,940
<SECURITIES>                                     8,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,285
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,715
<PP&E>                                           9,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,012
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,944
<SALES>                                         91,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,976
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                       644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,006
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         77,575
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              259,630 
<PP&E>                                      7,362,929
<DEPRECIATION>                              (508,394)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,329,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         262,444
<BONDS>                                     2,786,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                 1,041,700
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,329,342
<SALES>                                       283,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              286,341
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 106,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             50,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                59,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            59,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                  1,869
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   39,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .38
        

</TABLE>
# **Exhibit32.1**

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, the Chief Executive Officer of Western Sizzlin Corporation(the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 and the financial statements contained therein, fully complywith the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financialstatements thereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2007,and the period then ended.
| /s/ Sardar Biglari |   | Date: November 14, 2007 |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|

 

----
STATE v. TOMLIN.

No. COA07-1558.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS89524).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**Exhibit
31.2**


**CERTIFICATION**




I, Gerald
Tucciarone, certify that:

1.
    I
      have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hauppauge Digital,
Inc.;
2.Based on
my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.The
issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15-(e)) for the issuer and have:

a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the issuer, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this report based on such evaluation; and
c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter
      (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
5.The
issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s
auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and
b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
****Date: May 13, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Gerald
    Tucciarone,Gerald
      Tucciarone,Title:   Chief Financial
      Officer and Treasurer