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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Defense Contract Audit Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice of membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Performance Review Boards. The Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations to the Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         Upon publication of this notice.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Riney, Chief, Human Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, (703) 767-1236.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

*Headquarters Performance Review Board:*

Mr. Joseph Garcia, Assistant Director, Operations, DCAA, chairperson.

Mr. Ken Saccoccia, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, DCAA, member.

Mr. John Farenish, General Counsel, DCAA, member. 

*Regional Performance Review Board:*

Mr. Francis Summers, Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, DCAA, chairperson. 

Mr. Christopher Andrezze, Regional Director, Western Region, DCAA, member.

Mr. Ed Nelson, Regional Director, Northeastern Region, member.

Dated: October 15, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-5165  Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2011180EN.01002301.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/23

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 180/13

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Ajaccio–Marseille
  Bastia–Marseille
  Calvi–Marseille
  Figari–Marseille
  Ajaccio–Nice
  Bastia–Nice
  Calvi–Nice
  Figari–Nice |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | The day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Deliberation No 11/061 AC of 1 April 2011 of the Corsican Assembly authorising the raising of free in and out tariffs on air crossings, published in the compendium of legal acts of the Corsican regional authorities
  For further information please contact:





  Office des transports de la Corse |
| 19 avenue Georges Pompidou |
| BP 501 |
| 20186 Ajaccio Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 495237130 |
| http://www.office-transports-corse.fr/Contacts_a20.html |

Member State

France

Routes concerned

Ajaccio–Marseille

Bastia–Marseille

Calvi–Marseille

Figari–Marseille

Ajaccio–Nice

Bastia–Nice

Calvi–Nice

Figari–Nice

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

The day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Deliberation No 11/061 AC of 1 April 2011 of the Corsican Assembly authorising the raising of free in and out tariffs on air crossings, published in the compendium of legal acts of the Corsican regional authorities

For further information please contact:

Office des transports de la Corse

19 avenue Georges Pompidou

BP 501

20186 Ajaccio Cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 495237130

http://www.office-transports-corse.fr/Contacts_a20.html

---
# C_2011239EN.01000801.xml

| 17.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/8

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 239/06

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 6.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 6.7.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | USK/567EI. |
| Species | Tusk (Brosme brosme) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of V, VI and VII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 792761 |

Date and time of closure

6.7.2011

Duration

6.7.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

USK/567EI.

Species

Tusk (Brosme brosme)

Brosme brosme

Zone

EU and international waters of V, VI and VII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

792761

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LIBERTY TRANSPORTION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,478,573
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      79,562
<MORTGAGE>                                     227,469
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  140,368
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,047,508
<CASH>                                          35,979
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             254,505
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         333,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,009,428
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,839,566
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   3,812
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           29,179
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                263,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,656
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                       162,553
<OTHER-SE>                                     369,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,009,428
<PREMIUMS>                                     238,221
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            114,360
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              (1,183)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  99,029
<BENEFITS>                                     163,338
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     61,104
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           101,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 6 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 7 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 8 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 9 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 10 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 11 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 12 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 13 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 14 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 15 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 16 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 17 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 18 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 19 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 20 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 21 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 22 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 23 of 23
Exhibit
10.3


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	$200,000.00	December
    31, 2018


 


For
value received, the undersigned, GenResults LLC (“Maker”), hereby promises
to pay to the order of Jemmett Enterprises LLC (“Holder”), the principal sum of $200,000.00 (the “Principal
Amount”), including interest in accordance with the terms set forth below .


 


	 	I.	Payment.
    The Principal Amount together with accrued and unpaid interest and all other charges, costs, and expenses, is due and payable
    on June 30, 2020.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	Interest.
    The Principal Amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum, accruing daily. Notwithstanding, the total interest
    charged on the Principal Amount shall not exceed the maximum amount allowed by law and Maker shall not be obligated to pay
    any interest in excess of such amount.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	Prepayment.
    Maker has the right to prepay all or any part of the Principal Amount of this Note at any time without prepayment penalty
    or premium of any kind.
	 	 	 
	 	4.	Costs
    and Fees. Upon the occurrence of a default by Maker,
    Maker shall pay to Holder all costs of collection, including reasonable
    attorney fees.
	 	 	 
	 	5.	Waiver.
    Maker and all sureties, guarantors, and endorsers hereof, waive presentment, protest and demand, notice of protest, demand
    and dishonor and nonpayment of this Note.
	 	 	 
	 	6.	Assignment.
    Maker may not assign its rights or delegate its duties under this Note without Holder’s prior written consent.
	 	 	 
	 	7.	Amendment.
    This Note may be amended or modified only by a written agreement signed by Maker and Holder.
	 	 	 
	 	8.	Notifications.
    Any notice or communication under this Note must be in writing and either personally delivered, sent by overnight courier
    service, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested
    or by facsimile or electronic email transmission.
	 	 	 
	 	9.	Governing
    Law. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
    of the State of Arizona.
	 	 	 
	 	10.	Miscellaneous.
    This Note will insure to the benefit of and
    be binding on the respective successors and permitted assigns of Maker and Holder. Holder shall not be deemed to have waived
    any provision of this Note or the exercise of any rights held under the Note unless such waiver is made expressly and in writing.
    Waiver by Lender of a breach or violation of any provision of this Note shall not constitute a waiver of any other subsequent
    breach or violation. In the event that any of the provisions of this Note are held to be invalid or unenforceable in whole
    or in part, the remaining provisions shall not be affected and shall continue to be valid and enforceable as though the invalid
    or unenforceable parts had not been included in this Note.


 


In
Witness whereof, the undersigned has executed the Note as of the date first state above.
#### EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMM. v. BROADCASTING CORP.

No. 47 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 702.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1979.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41223 c/w No. 02-41225 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-233-1 USDC No. B-02-CR-402-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Alejandro Sanchez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following a prior deportation and the revocation of supervised release on his conviction for conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He asserts that the sentence-enhancing provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional inNo. 02-41223 c/w No. 02-41225 -2- light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sanchez also seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi . Because a challenge under Apprendi is not jurisdictional, he may not present this claim in an appeal following the revocation of supervised release. See United States v. Teran , 98 F.3d 831, 833 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Longoria , 298 F.3d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc). Moreover, as Sanchez concedes, his Apprendi argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0016

_____________________________

TIMOTHY G. MALONE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

December 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

The Court denies the petition alleging ineffective assistance 

of appellate counsel on the merits.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Timothy G. Malone, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsECtel Ltd.:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-83736) on Forms  F-3 and
F-3/A , and in the  Registration Statements (No.
333-127576 and No. 333-149924) on  Forms  S-8 of ECtel Ltd. of our report
dated June 18, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ECtel Ltd. as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes
in shareholders equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31,
2007 Annual Report on  Form 20-F of ECtel Ltd., and the reference to our firm
under the heading Selected Financial Data in the Annual Report.

Our report dated June 18, 2008 refers
to (a) a class action lawsuit that has been filed against the Company and (b) the
adoption of the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as required
by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based
Payment on January 1, 2006.

Somekh Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
A member firm of KPMG International

Tel Aviv, Israel

June 18, 2008



---

---
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 Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 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 Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  August 23, 2010

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











---
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 19-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### L. Rooney, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Mary Sammis *et al.,*defendants in error.

By two judges. — Where a motion to dismiss a pending suit was made, on the ground that uo affidavit was filed as required by the first section of the Act of October 13th, 1770, and the record showed that the note was payable to Richard Sammis, with no words of negotiability, and the suit was in the name of two females, administratrixes and sole heirs at law of Richard Sammis, and it was in proof that the plaintiffs were widows and sole heirs of Sammis, and the Court refused to dismiss the suit:

*Held,*That the proof that the plaintiffs were the owners of the note in *their own right*is not entirely satisfactory, yet, as the Court was satisfied with the proof, this Court will not disturb the judgment, leaving it to the parties more fully to test this question of the true, equitable ownership of the note before the jury on the trial. 5th March, 1872.

*20Tax. Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

Mary Sammis and Phebe Alford sued Rooney upon his note made in 1863, payable to the order of Richard H. Sammis, averring that they were his executors and his sole heirs at law, and that said note, was solely theirs. They filed no affidavit as to payment of taxes under the Act of 13th October, 1870. For want of such affidavit defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the cause. He admitted that plaintiffs were widows and sole heirs at law as they averred. And thereupon the Court refused to dismiss the cause. The defenses sought to reduce the recovery upon the ground that said note was a Confederate contract, etc. The jury found for plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, upon the grounds that the Court erred in not dismissing the cause, and because the verdict was too large. The refusal of a new trial is assigned as error.

M. H. Branford, for plaintiff in error,

relied on said Relief Act.

Peabody & Brannon, for defendants,

said they were excepted therefrom: 42 Georgia Reports, 514.

McCay, Judge.

We think there was no error in the Court in refusing to dismiss ^his case. The proof is not entirely satisfactory that these widow ladies are the owners of this note in their own right, but there was sufficient to justify the Court in sustaining the suit. The whole matter was for the jury. There was at least a *prima facie*case, so that the Judge did rightly in refusing to dismiss it. If the jury are satisfied on the proof that may be made that the true owners of this note are these widows, the case is within the exceptions to the Act.

Judgment affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 2