alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5


 


June 30, 2014


 


Mr.  Kristin A. Dolan


Cablevision Systems Corporation


1111 Stewart Avenue


Bethpage, NY 11714







Dear Kristin:


 


Re:            Amendment to Time Sharing Agreement







Reference is made hereby to that certain Time Sharing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated April 7, 2014 by and between you and CSC Holdings, LLC (“CSC”).


 


You and CSC hereby agree that, effective as of June 1, 2014, Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in full as follows:


 


“2.       Payment for Use of Aircraft.  Lessee shall pay Lessor the following actual expenses of each flight conducted under this Agreement (the “Reimbursement Amount”) not to exceed the maximum amount legally payable for such flight under FAR Section 91.501(d)(1)-(10):








		(a)	fuel, oil, lubricants and other additives;











		(b)	travel expenses of crew, including food, lodging and ground transportation;











		(c)	hangar and tie-down costs away from the Aircraft's base of operation;











		(d)	additional insurance obtained for the specific flight at the request of Lessee;











		(e)	landing fees, airport taxes and similar assessments;











		(f)	customs, foreign permit and similar fees directly related to the flight;











		(g)	in-flight food and beverages;











		(h)	in-flight telecommunication expenses;











		(i)	passenger ground transportation; and











		(j)	flight planning and weather contract services.











Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that any income is required to be imputed to you with respect to personal use of the Aircraft, calculated using the Standard Industry Fare Level method in accordance with Internal Revenue Service Regulation §1.61-21, the amount payable by you pursuant to this Section 2 shall be reduced by the amount necessary so that the total out of pocket cost to you, including taxes owed as a result of imputed income, is no greater than the Reimbursement Amount.”







Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Name: Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Title: SVP, CSO & Aviation










Accepted and agreed:







/s/ Kristin A. Dolan


Kristin A. Dolan


 


 


-2-
STATE v. Earl James WATSON

387P05-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, For State of NC.

Mary March Exum, Attorney at Law, For Watson, Earl James.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of February 2017 by State of NC to Strike Reply to State's Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF JAMES DEVONSHIRE



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











---

Exhibit 13.1





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 of CDG Investments Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Devonshire, President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director 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:



(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.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



/s/ James Devonshire







James Devonshire,

Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
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 

          - [NV-058-04-1610-DR-241E] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP).

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management policies, and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Establishment Act, the BLM announces the availability of the ROD/RMP for Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (RRCNCA). The Nevada State Director will sign the ROD/RMP, which becomes effective immediately. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of the ROD/RMP are available upon request from the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Manager, Timothy P. O'Brien, Las Vegas Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89130 or via the Internet at:                         *http://www.nv.blm.gov/​vegas*. Copies can also be requested by calling (702) 515-5000.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Timothy P. O'Brien, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Manager, 4701 N. Torrey Pines, Las Vegas, NV 89130, or by telephone at (702) 515-5058, email                         *Timothy_O'Brien@blm.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The RMP describes the actions to conserve, protect, and enhance the endangered species, wilderness characteristics, unique geological, archeological, ecological, cultural, and recreation resources that are encompassed within the RRCNCA for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The RRCNCA ROD/RMP                           ( print page 55414)                        provides management decisions for 197,000 acres.                 

Juan Palma, 

Field Manager, Las Vegas. 

[FR Doc. 05-18973 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
Franklin FALIN, Employee v. THE ROBERTS COMPANY FIELD SERVICES, INC., Employer, Self-Insured (Key Risk Management Services, Inc., Third-Party Administrator)

No. 77P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

William J. Austin, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, For The Roberts Company Field Services, Inc., et al.

Kyle R. Still, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Brian M. Ricci, Attorney at Law, Greenville, For Falin, Franklin.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of March 2016 by Defendants 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 22nd of September 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1856

MELANIE KELLEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF HARTSVILLE; CITY OF DARLINGTON, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cv-03682-RBH) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Melanie Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Melanie Kelley appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on her civil rights complaint and the district court’s 

order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.* 

 The district court referred Kelley’s complaint to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Kelley that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, 

Kelley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. 

 The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Kelley 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

 *

 Although Kelley did not specify whether her post-judgment 

“motion for reconsideration” was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) or 60(b), because it was filed within the ten-day limit 

for Rule 59(e) motions, it is treated as such. See Dove v. 

CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). 

2 
3 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 

Kelley’s complaint. 

 With regard to Kelley’s Rule 59(e) motion, we find 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the motion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. 

Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s denial of Kelley’s Rule 59(e) motion. 

 We also deny Kelly’s motion for a transcript at 

government expense. 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
SMS STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-A


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE


To:  i)   Bank One, National Association, not in its individual capacity but
          solely as Eligible Lender Trustee,
     ii)  Bankers Trust Company, New York, N.Y., Indenture Trustee,
     iii) General Re Financial Products Corporation, Swap Counterparty

     In  accordance  with  Section  3.08 of the  Servicing  Agreement  among SMS
     Student Loan Trust 1999-A,  as Issuer,  USA Group Loan  Services,  Inc., as
     Servicer  ("Servicer"),  USA Group  Secondary  Market  Services,  Inc.,  as
     Seller, and Bank One, National Association,  not in its individual capacity
     but  solely  as  Eligible  Lender  Trustee,  dated as of  February  1, 1999
     ("Servicing Agreement"),  the undersigned,  in their official capacities as
     Authorized Officers of Servicer, hereby certify as follows:

         a) a review of the  activities  of Servicer  during the period from the
         Closing Date to September 30, 1999 and of its performance has been made
         under such officers' supervision, and

         b) to the  best of such  officers'  knowledge,  based  on such  review,
         Servicer  has  fulfilled  all  its  obligations   under  the  Servicing
         Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Servicing Agreement.

In witness  whereof,  USA Group Loan  Services,  Inc.,  has caused  this  Annual
Statement as to Compliance to be duly executed as of September 30, 1999.

USA GROUP LOAN SERVICES, INC.



by /s/ Laura S. Blackburn
Laura S. Blackburn, Vice President



by /s/ Daniel L. Yost
Daniel L. Yost, Senior Vice President


cc: USA Group Secondary Market Services, Inc.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Jon D. Van Deuren, Chief Financial Officer of Aames Investment Corporation certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aames InvestmentCorporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 they were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made know to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: May 13, 2005:
In the MATTER OF: X.L.S.

No. COA17-590

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

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 of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, B.G. Susan Robinson, President and 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:

(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/ B.G. SUSAN ROBINSONB.G. Susan Robinson President and Chief Executive
Officer


March 31, 2009
Exhibit 32(b)

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the Company) for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                                                              |  |                   
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                                                           |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza
|David A. Fiorenza
Vice President and Treasurer April 28, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1290

DAVID BETHEA,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Administrative Review

Board. (07-057; 2006-STA-023)

Submitted: September 19, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bethea, Petitioner Pro Se. John Robert Shortall, OFFICE OF

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Bethea seeks review of the Administrative Review

Board’s decision and order dismissing his complaint of retaliatory

discharge filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2007 & Supp.

2008). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s

decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

the reasons stated by the Board. Bethea v. Wallace Trucking Co.,

No. 07-057 (A.R.B. Dec. 31, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED
II 

Calendar No. 328 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4152 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2014 

Received 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Read the first time 

MARCH 12, 2014 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF COSTS OF LOAN GUARANTEES 

4 FOR UKRAINE. 

5 From amounts appropriated or otherwise made avail6 able under ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in division K of the 

7 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113– 

8 76), and prior Acts making appropriations for the Depart9 ment of State, foreign operations, and related programs, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4152 PCS 

1 funding from unobligated balances shall be made available 

2 for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the Congres3 sional Budget Act of 1974, of loan guarantees for 

4 Ukraine, which are authorized to be provided in an appro5 priations Act, in accordance with section 504 of the Con6 gressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That amounts 

7 made available for the costs of such guarantees shall not 

8 be considered ‘‘assistance’’ for the purpose of provisions 

9 of law limiting assistance to such country: Provided fur10 ther, That none of the funds may be made available from 

11 amounts designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 

12 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

13 of 1985. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 328 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4152 

AN ACT 

To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for 

Ukraine. 

MARCH 12, 2014 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the MATTER OF: G.M.C., T.L.C.

No. COA16-1257

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SHAWNTAY LAKEITH SWANN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, 

Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00443-WLO) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James R. Saunders, HARRINGTON, SAUNDERS & JONES, P.A., 

Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, 

United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Shawntay Lakeith Swann appeals his life sentence 

entered pursuant to his convictions for distribution of crack 

cocaine. The Government filed two Informations of Prior 

Conviction, one prior to voire dire of the jury and one after 

voire dire had begun but prior to the jury being sworn. Swann 

asserts that he did not receive timely notice of the second 

conviction, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000). However, 

because this issue was not raised at trial, it is reviewable 

only for plain error. United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142, 

148 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). 

Moreover, Swann’s claim is foreclosed by our decision in Beasley

that a district court that accepts an § 851 information after 

the jury was selected but before it was sworn has not plainly 

erred. Id. at 149-50. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Swann’s 

motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. 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
# C_2009044EN.01006802.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/68

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)

(Case T-489/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 44/116)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
RECEIVED IN The J-.'urt of Appeals Sixth District NOV 3 0 2015 COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Texarkana, Texas - CTATF OF TFYA^ 

### Debra Autrey, Clerk bI Alb Oh lEXAb

RE: APPELLATE CASE NUMBER: 06-15-00005-CV TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 2013-391 

### STYLE: BILLIE MURPHYTREMBLE, SHARON TREMBLE DONALDSON, SELIA TREMBLE SHAWKEY, WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, JR., THE ESTATE OFWILMER FORRESTTREMBLE, SRV Appellants, Vs. LUMINANT MINING COMPANY LLC, ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS 

### CORPORATION, ANDSUBSIDIARIES, Appellees. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: In response to the court date ofOctober 27, 2015, we the Tremble 

### Familyare asking the court to reinstate the Appeal on our behalfin reference to the No SummaryJudgment.