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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

*Correction:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 8, 2005, Volume 70, Number 173, pages 53375-53376. The time and date of the meeting has been changed.                 

*Time and Date:*                     2 p.m.-3:30 p.m., September 22, 2005.                 

*Meeting Location:*                     Teleconference.                 

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     J. Felix Rogers, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 4770 Buford Highway, MS-K92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone 404.639.6101.                 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

Alvin Hall, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 05-18404 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40697

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELOISA DE LA CRUZ-CARDENAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-111-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Eloisa De La Cruz-Cardenas has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De La Cruz-Cardenas has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        277,997 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,614 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              424,025       
<PP&E>                                      4,822,779      
<DEPRECIATION>                              (400,550)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              5,034,014      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         194,971
<BONDS>                                     1,718,111  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                 1,000,495 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,120,437       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                5,034,014         
<SALES>                                       502,165          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              509,678          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 185,006          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,037       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             84,585       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               121,413       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           121,413      
<DISCONTINUED>                                  3,923  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   88,049 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.28 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.28 
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004070EN.01022302.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/223

---

(2004/C 70 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002

Subject:

At the beginning of October, I received an answer from the Commission to my question on the return by Bavaria of European Social Funds monies for 2002 (E-1953/03) (1). There is a mistake in the answer, however. It refers to 2000 instead of 2002.

1

The German Bundesland Bavaria was unable to commit funding of EUR 17 million from the rural development programme, provided under the 2002 EU budget, and returned it to Brussels.

Can the Commission give a prompt reply to the following questions.

| 1. | Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria?

| 2. | What are the sums involved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What are the sums involved?

| 3. | What areas of assistance are affected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What areas of assistance are affected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

(25 November 2003)

| 1. | The commitments for the European Social Fund (ESF) made for 2000 had to be spent till the end of 2002 due to n+2 rule (Article 31, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2)). As this was the case, no decommitment had to be prepared for ESF in the Objectives 2 Single Programming Document (SPD). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The commitments for the European Social Fund (ESF) made for 2000 had to be spent till the end of 2002 due to n+2 rule (Article 31, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2)). As this was the case, no decommitment had to be prepared for ESF in the Objectives 2 Single Programming Document (SPD).

2

| 2. | For the years 2001 and 2002, the n+2 rule applies at the end of 2003 and 2004 respectively. Whether Bavaria will be affected by the n+2 rule for the 2001 commitment will be known by the end of 2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the years 2001 and 2002, the n+2 rule applies at the end of 2003 and 2004 respectively. Whether Bavaria will be affected by the n+2 rule for the 2001 commitment will be known by the end of 2003.

| 3. | This question has already been discussed at technical level with the Bavarian Authorities and will be readdressed during the annual review meeting (date not known yet) and the Programme Monitoring Committee meeting (13 and 14 November 2003). |
| --- | --- |

3.

This question has already been discussed at technical level with the Bavarian Authorities and will be readdressed during the annual review meeting (date not known yet) and the Programme Monitoring Committee meeting (13 and 14 November 2003).

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 206.

1

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

2

---
Order entered July 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01309-CV

REWA C. HALTON, RODNEY G. HALTON & ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03485-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s July 26, 2019 unopposed second motion for extension of 

time to file its response brief. Appellee seeks a forty-five day extension so that the parties may 

have an opportunity to settle the dispute. 

We note appellants filed a corrected brief, as directed to do so, on July 22, 2019. We 

GRANT the motion and ORDER appellee to file either its brief or a status report no later than 

September 13, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE 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  Annual  Report  of  Enclaves  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
G. Hayes, Chief Executive 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, that, to my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of 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: May 18, 2006

                                           /s/ Daniel G. Hayes
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Daniel G. Hayes
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
```
# CE2004088EN.01060501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/605

---

(2004/C 88 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   Publicity for the 2008 CSF in Greece

Recently, publicity promoting the 2008 Community Support Framework has been screened on Greek television at peak viewing times (e.g. before or during news bulletins).

The content of this publicity is pure propaganda in that it highlights the government's ‘achievements’ in education, the economy etc., making only a passing reference to the Community's vital financial contribution.

Does the Commission know the exact cost of the publicity for the 2008 CSF? Which Community appropriations are covering the cost? Is the Commission aware of the content of the publicity? Did the Commission authorise payment for publicity, particularly at peak viewing times? Can such propaganda continue to be broadcast in the run-up to the Greek general election?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The launching of information campaigns on European regional policy is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. It is for the Member State to identify the most appropriate manner to inform the public while respecting the provisions in relation to Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 (1) and those contained in the Community Support Framework (CSF). The Honourable Member may wish to note that these provisions also require publicity actions to be interrupted two months before any election date. The Commission has no information at its disposal to suggest that there has been any misuse of Community funds in Greece for the information campaign.

It is not possible to make an assessment of the total amount of resources that will be mobilised for publicity and information in Greece during the third CSF since these are included within the total appropriations for technical assistance, and are not separately identified within those appropriations.

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds, OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.

----
exhibit1044.htm



 








	


	
Exhibit 10.44



























November 3, 2010


 


Keith Omsberg






















 


Dear Keith,







 


This letter serves as an amendment to your employment agreement with Tier Technologies, Inc. dated May 6, 2009 (the "Employment Agreement").  As of the date you execute this amendment, you hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.    Delete the first sentence of Section 2, Term of Employment, and replace with the following:


 


      "The Company hereby continues to employ the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such continued employment, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on November 3, 2012, subject to earlier termination of the Term of Employment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement."


 


2.    Revise the first sentence of Section 11(c) as follows: (i) replace "thirtieth (30th)" with "sixtieth (60th)" and (ii) insert at the end of the sentence ", which release must become effective and irrevocable no later than the sixtieth (60th) calendar day following the date of termination."


 


Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect, including but not limited to your obligations under the Proprietary and Confidential Information, Developments, Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreement that you signed for the benefit of the Company.







11130 Sunrise Valley Blvd. • Suite 300 • Reston, VA 20191 • Ph: 571-382-1000 • Fax: 571-382-1384







www.tier.com 









  





  











  








This amendment and the Employment Agreement contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, understandings, discussions, negotiations and undertakings, whether written or oral, with respect thereto. This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without reference to the conflict of laws provisions thereof). This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.


 


For and on behalf of


Tier Technologies, Inc.







/s/ Alex P. Hart


Alex P. Hart


Chief Executive Officer












I have read the above amendment to the Employment Agreement, and I voluntarily accept the terms and conditions set forth above.








	
/s/ Keith S. Omsberg

	  	
November 5, 2010


	
Keith S. Omsberg

	  	
Date

















11130 Sunrise Valley Blvd. • Suite 300 • Reston, VA 20191 • Ph: 571-382-1000 • Fax: 571-382-1384







www.tier.com
LLOYD v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 181PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 4, 2015.

Sean F. Perrin, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of September 2015 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of September 2015."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

August 26, 2008 

136737 

LEROY MARKEITH SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff, 

v 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

 SC: 136737 

 AGC: 0615/08 

0616/08 

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

partial filing fee as required by the order of June 24, 2008, the Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to close this file. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 26, 2008 

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Darrell Marcus PAGE.

No. 210P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Nora Henry Hargrove, Assistant Public Defender, for Page.

Alexandra Hightower, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*235*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of May 2008 by Defendant 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 26th day of August 2008."
exv10w13









    EXHIBIT 10.13



 



    Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) has
    entered into an agreement with each of the following persons,
    which is substantially identical, except as set forth below, to
    the form of Employment Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.12 to
    this Annual Report on
    Form 10-K.



 



    Najabat H. Bajwa




    Kurt F. Busch




    Jing Cao




    Raouf Y. Halim




    Gerald J. Hamilton




    Bret W. Johnsen




    Anil S. Mankar




    Thomas J. Medrek



 



    The multiple set forth in Section 6(i)(B) of the Employment
    Agreement for Mr. Halim is three and the multiple set forth
    in Section 6(i)(B) of the Employment Agreement for the
    other persons is two.
# CE2004088EN.01060502.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/605

---

(2004/C 88 E/0624)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
# CE2004078EN.01025502.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/255

---

(2004/C 78 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Structural Funds

Subject:

Does the Commission keep records or have a breakdown of the amount and type of Structural Funding allocated to EU constituencies, regions or cities that can be made available to MEPs? Are there, for example, centrally kept records for such funds for London in the UK, specifically for the London Boroughs of Islington, Hackney and Waltham Forest?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

(19 December 2003)

Of the programmes financed under the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, it is principally those that are cofinanced under Objectives 1 and 2 that are targeted geographically. Under Objective 2, which intervenes in London, assistance is concentrated on the worst-affected areas at sub-regional level. In the case of London, the Objective 2 programme covers 95 wards in 13 London Boroughs, including parts of Waltham Forest and Hackney. No areas in the London Borough of Islington are covered under the Objective 2 programme.

In accordance with General Regulation 1260/99 (1), the Objective 2 programme is subject to management and control, monitoring and evaluation as a single entity and, accordingly, the Commission has no information on the break-down of the Structural Funds between the Boroughs concerned.

1

The Honorable Member may wish to contact the Management Authority for the London Objective 2 programme (2) in order to explore the possibility of obtaining financial data at sub-programme level.

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

(2)  Government Office for London European Unit, Riverwalk House, 157/161 Millbank, London SW1P 4RR, tel. 0044-207-217-3067, fax 0044-207-217-3461.

2

---