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 Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 15 and July 27, 2005, the National Science Foundation published notices in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. Permits were issued on October 5, 2005 to:                 

J. Allan Campbell (Permit No. 2006-017).

George Steinmetz (Permit No. 2006-020).

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-20626  Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Quality Systems, Inc. 
 2014 Director Compensation Program 

 

																	
	 	  	Tier
0
Employee
Director	 	  	Tier 1
Non-
Employee
Director	 	  	Tier
2
Nominating & Governance
and Compensation Committee
Chairpersons	 	  	Tier
3
Audit Committee and
Board Chairpersons	 
	 Base Compensation
	  	$	0	  	  	$	80,000	  	  	$	92,500	  	  	$	100,000	  
	 Value of Restricted Stock
	  	$	0	  	  	$	80,000	  	  	$	92,500	  	  	$	100,000	  

 2014 Director Compensation Plan Terms: 

 

	 	1.	Meeting attendance is expected to be at or near a 100% level. 

  

	 	2.	Pay Tiers: Tier 0 is for directors who are full-time employees of the Company. Tier 1 is for non-employee directors who do not chair a committee. Tier 2 is for
Nominating and Governance Committee and Compensation Committee Chairpersons. Tier 3 is for Audit Committee and Board Chairpersons. A Chairperson of any other committee will be paid at the highest tier otherwise eligible, according to the
specifically named functions above. All directors are paid only at one tier (and not multiple tiers), which is their highest eligible tier. 

  

	 	3.	Each director is to be awarded restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (“Restricted Stock”) upon election or re-election to the Board
equivalent to the value amounts set forth in the table above. The shares of Restricted Stock will be valued at the price of the Company’s common stock at the close of trading on the date of grant. The Restricted Stock will be issued according
to the standard form of the Company’s approved Amended and Restricted Stock Agreement and pursuant to the Company’s Second Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Option and Incentive Plan and will carry a restriction requiring that the Restricted
Stock vest in two equal installments over two consecutive years with the vesting dates being the meeting dates of the Company’s annual shareholders’ meeting following the director’s election or re-election to the Board. In the event
of an annual shareholders’ meeting immediately following which a director that previously received Restricted Stock under the 2014 Director Compensation Plan is no longer a member of the Board, then any unvested shares of Restricted Stock held
by such director shall immediately vest and become transferable. The Restricted Stock shall be granted on a pro-rata basis for directors appointed to serve less than a full year. 









	 	4.	All directors must own a minimum of 2,000 shares of the Company’s common stock purchased on the open market, which must be retained as long as they are a director.
New directors have nine months in which to fulfill their minimum common stock holding requirements after their election or appointment to the Board. 

  

	 	5.	Base compensation shall be paid quarterly.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ PPC BROADBAND, INC., DBA PPC, FKA JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2017

- 1347

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in No. 5:11 -cv- 00761

- GLS

DEP, Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J. M ICHAEL J AKES , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellee. Also represented by J OSE M. R ECIO ; R OBERT L. B URNS , II, Reston, VA; J USTIN A. H ENDRIX , Palo Alto, CA; J OHN D. C OOK , D OUGLAS J. N ASH , Barclay Damon, LLP, Syracuse, NY; J OHN T. G UTKOSKI , Boston, MA.K IMBALL R ICHARD A NDERSON , Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant

- appellant . Also repr esented by H OWARD I. S HIN , New York, NY; M ARK S. D AVIES , K ATHERINE M. K OPP , Orrick, Herrington & Su tcliffe LLP, Washington, DC ; E LIZABETH M OULTON , Menlo Park, CA; D ANIEL A. R UBENS , New York, NY; J OSEPH P. L AVELLE , DLA Piper US LLP, Washington, DC.

C LYDE M OODY S IEBMAN , Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP, Sherman, TX, for amicus curiae Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge

, M AYER and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20563]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111


Use of Ancillary Service Endorsement for Mailing Certain Types of 
Checks

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is withdrawing a proposed rule that would 
require ancillary service endorsements on mailpieces containing certain 
types of checks.

DATES: Withdrawal effective October 14, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Chatfield, Mailing Standards, 
United States Postal Service, 202-268-7278.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 6263), the Postal Service presented 
for public comment a proposed revision to Mailing Standards of the 
United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM[supreg]) to 
require the use of ancillary service endorsements on mailpieces 
containing certain types of checks mailed at Standard Mail postage 
rates. The proposed revision was intended to protect postal customers.
    We received comments from the financial industry discussing a 
number of safeguards for customers that reduce the incidence of fraud 
and the misuse of information on these checks. We have concluded that 
the requirements in our proposal are unnecessary, and we withdraw our 
proposal.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 05-20563 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
STATE v. Carnell Lavance CALHOUN

54P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Carnell Lavance Calhoun, for Calhoun, Carnell Lavance.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

From N.C. Court of Appeals (P18-799); From Buncombe (05CRS005942-43 05CRS052754 05CRS052758-62 06CRS11447)

*625The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of December 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omeros Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Gregory A. Demopulos, M.D.Gregory A. Demopulos, M.D.Chief Financial Officer
(in an interim capacity)
r* ,l t k s s~" ^stpSto' 'AS S ««^ b*Wvc_V<£T^us JAN Z 92013 QEBRASHI5AK, ti.HRK Z 82W5 \**w ^ SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS GoXfA*. L, ^ad\cA DEBRASPISAK, CLERK 

### vA^<AW*A e^VwveA oW \MoAWr<, TcjjuVjwXj aci^v^ SuA^U^v\WU^



## 'Ku^^i. AfccL&u^'Hb Wu^eii ova Ha^ j^e^A AJvjlvucW Ataxfe. - 4JVc cioxv\v^ \coWy\u" oA ^a£ ^axojd^a^ Atx>AA 4o 4tcxu^\V<L a>ou.vAcL GwA. Ov<W^l (W'Av^d '\svi \W At^\ Ce*j$4 -cua<1 K^uSoaS, UjWu vV\ 

## ^Wr OV^cC AW W\ 6xjA\^^W^ fa ColCA UJ< Hv Q. 

## h&*\- \&m^^ffi+\\X>'£^^1'^^' 1^^' t^uicb^j 'Coas^\;wu

P§~ "a/Clufc^^ o&£\'^

### 3- <SOV%N OamL t5» \t^ W_ ^UtC.cL <x CjQ\^va v-C*VVa AVv^. *i\\GuJiWC.p

loco Lu*^^^^ .^V<i. ^ 3,00 

### Sso vV^g^u Ave a), to G4 V\A.tc:y^\ iXvcCvvcAx U.S. Mvj« ..tA>» 

# L^kL t\in!:";;"rH "i'FX.<'X::::i ")"'*. R<!;j!iC'C DALLAS TX 7.50 27 JAM 2.015 FM 3 I.. 

# JAN29 20B ^AVUAV COURTOFAPPEALS ^ ^^A ^!^^ ^ 1 SECOND DISTRICT OFTEXAS \lT) \ W *^«JOS taklb ni sj v^ *\T) 3 ^ DEBRASPISAK, CLERK V \ *Zl' \ , ^ I****,, .!•>'"" •-"•••. ''"a USS su.J-;--**! ^:-'i&$- JC^-w^^ »m FOHEVER 1

?"• ". '—'•*-• •|»»J»ir^irPi..f.ilHJi#i)}i|iiiii|,|iiJf/!iJ,J,j|j
TOWN OF APEX v. RUBIN

410P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 21, 2018

David P. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Apex.

Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Kenneth C. Haywood, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Rubin, Beverly L.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of November 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of November 2018."
Exhibit
15.2


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









The Board of
Directors


Infosys
Technologies Limited:




We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-32196) on
Form S-8 and (No. 333-160036) on Form F-3 of Infosys Technologies Limited of our
reports dated April 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Infosys Technologies Limited and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and 2009, and
the related consolidated statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31,
2010, and the related financial statement schedule II, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2010, which
reports appear in the March 31, 2010 annual report on Form 20-F of Infosys
Technologies Limited.








KPMG


Bangalore,
India


April 30,
2010
----

**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**

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

|   | By:    | /s/                Freddie M. Kotek    |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Freddie                M. Kotek        |
|   | Title: | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | November                14, 2005       |

----
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ORA ALEXANDER MOTLEY

No. 7127SC56

(Filed 28 April 1971)

Criminal Law § 155.5 — failure to docket record in apt time

Appeal is subject to dismissal for failure of defendant to docket the record on appeal within the time permitted under Court of Appeals rules.

Appeal by defendant from *Falls, Superior Court Judge,*29 July 1970 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.

Defendant was tried on a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging her with the felonies of forgery and uttering a forged instrument.

*210The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the felony of forgery and also guilty of the felony of uttering a forged instrument. From judgments of imprisonment on each count, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

*Attorney General Morgan and Staff Attorney Sauls for the State.*

*J. Ralph Phillips for defendant appellant.*

MALLARD, Chief Judge.

The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals within the time allowed by the rules and no extension of time was granted. For failure to docket the record on appeal within the time permitted under the rules, the case is subject to dismissal.

However, we have carefully considered each of the defendant’s assignments of error and find no prejudicial error in the trial.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF BDO AUDIBERIA AUDITORES**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31076), Form S-8 (File No. 333-122329), Form S-3 (File No. 333-109607), Form S-3 (File No. 333-40936) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-147964) of Private Media Group, Inc. of our reports dated April 6, 2009, relatingto the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule II of Private Media Group, Inc. 

/s/ BDO AUDIBERIA AUDITORES 

**BDO Audiberia Auditores**

Barcelona, Spain 

April 14, 2009
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-112-CR

JOSEPH MARTINEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

In two issues, appellant Joseph Martinez contends that his convictions

for possession and delivery of the same ten pounds of marijuana are the same

for double jeopardy purposes and that the trial judge erred by refusing to include

a jury question on possession of marijuana under five pounds. We reverse the
2... When an appellant is convicted of two offenses that are the same for

double jeopardy purposes, we retain the conviction for the most serious

offense, which is the offense of conviction for which the greatest sentence was

assessed. Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 337–38 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006). Here, that is the sentence of ten years’ confinement for delivery.

2

judgment as to the possession charge and acquit appellant on that charge only;

however, we affirm the judgment as to the delivery charge.

The State concedes appellant’s first issue and asks that we delete

appellant’s conviction for possession. Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first

issue.

In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to

include a question on possession of under five pounds. But because by

sustaining appellant’s first issue, we must reverse the conviction for

possession, his second issue is now moot and we need not address it.2 See

Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Dixon v. State, 932 S.W.3d 567, 571 (Tex. App.—Tyler

1995, no pet.).

Having sustained appellant’s first issue and having determined that his

second issue is therefore moot, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the

conviction for delivery of marijuana, but we reverse the trial court’s judgment
3

as to the conviction for possession of marijuana and render a judgment of

acquittal as to that offense only.

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 11, 2008
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 on Form 20-F of Daimler AG (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Dieter Zetsche, as Chairman of the Board of Management of the Company, and Bodo Uebber, as Member of the Board of
Management, Finance & Controlling / Financial Services, of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



|/s/DIETER ZETSCHE
|-----------------
|Name:            
|Title:           
|Date:            

|
|

|/s/BODO UEBBER
|--------------
|Name:         
|Title:        
|Date:         

---



QuickLinks
#### Lance J. THIBIDEAU, Petitioner, v. The ESTATE OF Leslie BLANE, Respondent.

Nos. 4D03-887, 4D03-1540.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 13, 2003.

*912Bruce David Green of Bruce David Green, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauder-dale, for respondent.

KLEIN, J.

The trial court discharged the petitioner as the personal representative of an estate after discovering that he was a disbarred attorney and convicted felon. Convicted felons are not legally qualified to act as personal representatives. § 733.303(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). The court also issued an order for petitioner to show cause why he had not committed a fraud, and indicated that it had no faith in petitioner’s Credibility-

Petitioner then moved to disqualify the court and the court granted the motion in part, disqualifying itself only from the proceeding on the order to show cause. Petitioner argues that the court should have granted the motion as to the entire proceeding.

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) provides that if a motion for disqualification is legally sufficient, it must be granted and the judge shall “proceed no further in the action.” *S. Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac,*840 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(judge who granted motion for disqualification as to the case could not subsequently preside over a hearing on sanctions against counsel).

We construe the rule to mean that when the motion seeks to disqualify the judge from the entire case, it cannot be granted in part, as was done in this case. Even if the rule did not preclude a partial granting of this motion, we would still be required to grant relief because petitioner’s involvement in this case will not end with his removal as personal representative and the ruling on whether he perpetrated a fraud on the court. Petitioner, while he was personal representative, distributed assets, and these distributions are being questioned. In addition, petitioner is a beneficiary of the estate.

We therefore grant the petitions.

POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jawanz BACON

No. 266P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Bacon, Jawanz.

James Bernier, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 31st of August 2017 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:

*391"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
In the MATTER OF: K.K.L-H.

No. COA18-598

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REVERSED. REMANDED IN PART.