alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellant, v. FRANCES T. PALMER, Respondent.

No. 12044

July 28, 1980

614 P.2d 5

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Michael Kaplan,*Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Redmon & McGimsey, Ltd.,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*600OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The Department of Motor Vehicles appeals from a judgment entered June 26, 1979, remanding this case for a new hearing. Previously a hearing officer had determined that respondent’s refusal to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test violated Nevada’s Implied Consent Law. *See*NRS 484.383. Respondent’s driving privileges were ordered suspended for a period of six months.

Pursuant to an order of this court, respondent’s answering brief was due on December 31, 1979. To this date, no answering brief has been filed; no extension of time to do so has been sought or granted. Thus, respondent’s answering brief is now more than six months overdue. Under these circumstances, we elect to treat respondent’s conduct as a confession of error. NRAP 31(c); State, Dep’t Motor Vehicles v. Stone, 94 Nev. 775, 587 P.2d 1325 (1978); Kitchen Factors, Inc. v. Brown, 91 Nev. 308, 535 P.2d 677 (1975).

The judgment in respondent’s favor is reversed and the district court is instructed to dismiss, with prejudice, the “petition for judicial review” filed by respondent in the district court on March 14, 1979.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2148]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding 
date shown below:

    License Number: 002238N.
    Name: CSI Cargo System Air and Sea Inc.
    Address: 150-40 183rd Street, Room 106, Jamaica, NY 11413.
    Date Revoked: January 8, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 000344F.
    Name: Godwin Shipping Company Inc.
    Address: 317 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36603.
    Date Revoked: January 15, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 017952N.
    Name: Uniworld Cargo Shipping Lines, LLC.
    Address: 4000 West Side Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047.
    Date Revoked: January 13, 2005.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 004393F.
    Name: Worldserv Transport Corporation.
    Address: 12282 Gamma Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840.
    Date Revoked: March 17, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 05-2148 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```
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 of BSD Medical Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hyrum
A. Mead, President (Principal 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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ Hyrum A. Mead
-----------------
Hyrum A. Mead
President (Principal
Executive Officer)
November 29, 2004
#### In re Governor-Elect Bruce SUNDLUN.

No. 90-592-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 20, 1990.

ORDER

On November 26, 1990, the State Board of Elections certified that at the general election conducted in this state on November 6, 1990, Bruce Sundlun was elected governor of Rhode Island for a period of two years commencing January 1, 1991. On December 13, 1990, the justices were presented with a miscellaneous petition by counsel for the Governor-Elect which asked the advice of the justices regarding whether Governor-Elect Sundlun’s membership on the board of directors of the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) constituted the holding of “an office under the government of the United States within the meaning of Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution of Rhode Island.”

The justices reply in the negative. The rationale for this conclusion will be set forth in a forthcoming opinion.
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 Quarterly Report of Ionics, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, 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, as amended; 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/Douglas R. Brown
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Douglas R. Brown
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 9, 2004



                                      -1-
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


          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 of Ionics, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, 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, as amended; 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/Daniel M. Kuzmak
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Daniel M. Kuzmak
                                 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 9, 2004



                                      -2-
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                      5,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,323
<PP&E>                                           3,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,072
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           361
<OTHER-SE>                                       (296)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,587
<SALES>                                         11,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,628
<CGS>                                            9,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        


</TABLE>
#### THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, in and for The County of Clark, and THE HONORABLE JEFFREY SOBEL, District Judge, Respondent, and REGINALD SLAUGHTER, Real Party in Interest. THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, in and for The County of Clark, and THE HONORABLE JEFFREY SOBEL, District Judge, Respondent, and DENNIS BARTHOLOW, Real Party in Interest.

No. 22546

No. 22547

August 5, 1992

835 P.2d 806

*Roy A. Woofter,*City Attorney, and *Bruce W Nelson,*Deputy City Attorney, Las Vegas, for Petitioner.

*Rex Bell,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*Thomas F. Pitaro,*Las Vegas, for Real Parties in Interest.

*566OPINION ON REHEARING

*Per Curiam:*

On December 12, 1991, this court issued an opinion in these consolidated petitions granting the requests of the state to prohibit the district court from exercising jurisdiction over appeals from certain judgments of conviction. Specifically, we held that when a municipal court converts a fine to jail time as a coercive measure to enforce payment of the fine, the order of the municipal court does not constitute a modification or amendment of the original judgment of conviction that resulted in the fine; thus, no appeal from the underlying judgment of conviction could lie following the conversion of the fine to jail time. City of Las Vegas v. District Court, 107 Nev. 885, 822 P.2d 115 (1991). We noted, however, that the real parties could challenge the conversion of their fines to jail terms by filing appropriate petitions for writs of habeas corpus. *Id.*at 887 n.2, 822 P.2d at 116.

The real parties in interest have petitioned for rehearing. The petitions, however, do not demonstrate that this court overlooked or misapprehended any material fact, or that this court misapplied the law. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for rehearing. *See*NRAP 40(c).

Nevertheless, we note that the indigent individuals who are subject to having their fines converted to jail terms are generally untrained in the law. Thus, it may be difficult for such individuals to understand how to proceed with the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, as an exercise of this court’s general supervisory authority over the municipal courts, we direct the municipal courts, in all future cases, to provide each indigent person whose fine is converted to jail time with a simplified form, complete with simplified instructions, to facilitate his or her filing of an appropriate petition for a writ of habeas corpus, thus allowing the district courts to determine whether the fine has been properly converted consistent with due process of law.
Exhibit 23  LOGO March 1, 2018 San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Compass Bank, Trustee 2200 Post Oak Blvd., Floor 19 Houston, Texas
77056 Ladies and Gentlemen: Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2017 based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc. and dated March 1, 2018.  Sincerely,LOGOCAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Document









MEMORANDUM


TO:    Susan Larkin


FROM:    Andrew Sutor [Sign or Initial Here]     
    
DATE:    December 14, 2021


RE:    First Amendment to Employment Agreement




    This memorandum (“First Amendment”) will confirm our agreement to amend and modify the terms of your Employment Agreement, dated March 4, 2020 (the “Agreement”), between Audacy Operations, Inc. (f/k/a “Entercom Operations, Inc.”) (the “Company”) and you, Susan Larkin (the “Employee”).
    1.    Amendments
1.1The Agreement is modified to reflect that references to “Entercom” or “the Company” are defined to refer to Audacy Operations, Inc., unless otherwise specified.
1.2Paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement (entitled “Salary”) is hereby amended to reflect that, the Company will pay Employee, on a bi-weekly basis, or such other basis that the Company may advise Employee in writing, a salary at an annualized rate of $750,000.00 retroactive to June 1, 2021 and through May 4, 2023.
1.3Paragraph 2(c)(ii) of the Agreement (entitled “Future Equity Grants”) is hereby amended to reflect that, commencing in 2022, Employee will be eligible for an annual equity grant with an aggregate target amount of $500,000, or such other amount as determined by the Compensation Committee.
2.    Effect of Amendment.  All terms and provisions of the Agreement not expressly modified herein shall remain in full force and effect and are binding on the Employee and the Company.


    Please countersign this memorandum to confirm your acceptance of these terms and return it to me.


ACCEPTED & AGREED TO:






By:        /Susan Larkin/                
    Susan Larkin


Dated:        12/14/2021            
Page 1 of 1
AUD 129027
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Suring, WI, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1089

Issued: February 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 12, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 22, 2021,

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1089.

In a letter dated February 14, 2022, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request f or the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1089 is dismissed.

Issued: February 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-3360 

_____________________________ 

DAVID PHILLIPS, a/k/a GARY 

REED, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. 

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge. 

July 9, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

David Phillips, a/k/a Gary Reed, pro se, Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2007304EN.01000301.xml

| 15.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4906 — CPI Europe Fund/Corpus/Real Estate Portfolio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 304/04)

On 29 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4906. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4906. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of K.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Riverview, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1583

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,989.00.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$1,989.00.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id.
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT that the fee petition is granted in the amount of 

$1,989.00.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
Document

Exhibit 10.27

EXHIBIT F


AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES FOR INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


In accordance with Section 8.09 of the Revolving Credit and Security Agreement dated as of June 20, 2019 among OFSCC-FS, LLC, as borrower (the “Borrower”), the lenders from time to time parties thereto, BNP Paribas, as administrative agent (the “Administrative Agent”), OFSCC-FS Holdings, LLC, as equityholder, OFS Capital Corporation, as servicer (the “Servicer”), Citibank, N.A., as collateral agent, and Virtus Group, LP, as collateral administrator (as the same may from time to time be amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified, the “Revolving Credit Agreement”), the Servicer will cause a firm of nationally recognized independent public accountants to furnish in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants a report to the effect that such accountants have verified, compared to the systems, underwriting files, compliance certificates, underlying loan documents, or other relevant materials, or recalculated each of the following items in the Monthly Report to the applicable system or records of the Servicer:


ꞏ Collateral Loan List:
o    Loan Type (First Lien Loan, First Lien Last Out Loan, Second Lien Loan)
o    Loan Class (Class 1 Loan, Class 1A Loan, Class 2 Loan, Class 3 Loan)
o    Principal Balance
o    Adjusted Principal Balance
o    Collateral Loan Purchase Date (date Collateral Loan was added to facility)
o    Purchase Price
o    Collateral Loan Maturity Date
o    Interest Rate (Floating/Fixed), Index, LIBOR Floor, spread, PIK
o    Moody’s Industry Classification
o    Moody’s and S&P ratings (if applicable)
o    Unfunded Amount
o    Net Senior Debt Leverage Ratio and Net Total Debt Leverage Ratio
o    Debt Service Coverage Ratio
o    Interest Coverage Ratio
o    Borrowing Base
o    Advances Outstanding
o    Discretionary Sales Calculations in accordance with Section 10.01(a)
o    Defaulted Collateral Loan Sales Calculations in accordance with Section 10.03(a)(iv) (includes substitutions)
o    Excess Concentration Amounts
o    Minimum OC Coverage Test by Class
o    Priority of Payments in accordance with Section 9.01 of the Revolving Credit Agreement


At the discretion of the Administrative Agent and a firm of nationally recognized
independent public accountants, one Monthly Report and one Payment Date Report beginning
with the 2019 fiscal year will be chosen and reviewed in accordance with Section 8.09 of the
Revolving Credit Agreement.