alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-10640 (Summary Calendar)

_____________________ DANIEL FRANK RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellee
versus CITY OF ARLINGTON, Defendant-Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:05-CV-2343)

--------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this interlocutory appeal, Defendant-Appellant City of Arlington (the “City”) contends that the district court erred in denying the City’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claim of Plaintiff-Appellee Daniel F. Rhodes for an alleged tort claim. The City’s motion was grounded in its assertion of absolute immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”). The City also complains of the district court’s refusal2

to dismiss Rhodes’s request for declaratory relief regarding expungement of public records that he alleges to be false byvirtue of the acts of City employees who are implicated in his tort action. The City also resists Rhodes’s assertion that we lack appellate jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal of the order denying the City’s 12(b)(6) motion. We have now reviewed the record on appeal and the factual and legal arguments of the parties as set forth in their briefs. First, for essentially the reasons expressed by the district court,
we agree that we do have appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the City’s dismissal motion. Even though our jurisprudence makes clear that a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity based vicariously on qualified immunity of its officers, agents, or employees, the same does not hold true for the direct immunity of a municipality such as that accorded to them under the TTCA. For purposes of the collateral order doctrine, the district court’s order declining to dismiss the City from this suit on the basis of its asserted immunity is collateral to the merits of the claims advanced by Rhodes against the City and others. Implicated is the pervasive maxim that immunity protects not only against liability but against standing trial as well. That said, we decline to write separately to any extent, as doing so would be unnecessarily redundant: For the reasons stated and explained fully in the Conclusions and Recommendation of the3

United States Magistrate Judge, as well as those announced in the Order of the district court adopting those Conclusions and Recommendation, we affirm the court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss and return the case for further proceedings there. 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 of Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and will be retained by
Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
September 28, 2004


/s/ MICHAEL S. SHORE
-------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Shore
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
September 28, 2004
Overview of

USE OF ICRP 66 TO CALCULATE RESPIRATORY TRACT DOSES

(OCAS-TIB-008)

Workers may have the potential to receive a radiation dose to the respiratory tract due to the nature 

of work at many Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. At these facilities, tiny radioactive

particles can become airborne and travel through the air very much like dust particles.

Due to the small size of these particles, workers may breathe them in unknowingly. Once 

inhaled, some particles may be deposited inside the respiratory tract (e.g., lungs); others are 

exhaled. While in the body, the radionuclides (i.e., radioactive elements) attached to these 

particles decay and the energy given off contributes to the dose received by the tissue. 

This procedure provides supplemental guidance to the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS)* staff on how to 

calculate the doses to the lungs and other organs in the respiratory tract due to the inhalation of 

airborne particles containing radionuclides. The people who do the dose reconstruction are 

required by regulations that govern their work to use the best available science to perform dose 

reconstructions. This includes guidance provided by the International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP).

Under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), the dose to the particular tissue that developed cancer must be estimated. ICRP

Publication 66: Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection (ICRP 66) is a 

document developed by the ICRP that provides guidance on how to calculate dose to the 

respiratory tract after breathing in airborne radionuclides. 

Following ICRP 66, NIOSH uses a computer program to facilitate the calculation of the internal 

doses to a particular organ. The specific organs of concern and the assumptions used to calculate 

the doses to them are shown in a table in the procedure. However, not all organs are included in the 

ICRP guidance. In order to deal with this limitation, other representative organs or tissues are used

to calculate the doses. The procedure under review provides guidance on which tissues and organs 

included in ICRP 66 can be used as substitutes for those organs not specifically covered.. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RESULTING FROM THE TECHNICAL REVIEW

The technical contractor’s review of this procedure produced three findings: 

Findings #1 and #2: Guidance on the selection of substitutes is not always clear.

* Formerly known as the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS).

Summary – OCAS-TIB-008, Rev. 00 2 SC&A – September 13, 2010
Finding #3: The method described to assign the highest dose to the mouth, 

nose, and throat does not follow ICRP 66 recommendations. 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS

In response to the findings identified above, NIOSH issued Revision 1 of this procedure, which 

addressed all of the concerns satisfactorily. 

All findings in the procedure Use of ICRP 66 To Calculate Respiratory Tract Doses (OCAS-TIB0008) are closed.
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 Dong Fang Minerals, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form
10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Areport@), I, Jian
Hong Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated
this 14th day of September, 2009.








JIAN HONG LIUJian
      Hong Liu
                  Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0001115 30-JUL-2014 08:46 AM

SCWC-12-0001115 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. ALVAH L. RUIS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0001115; CR. NO. 09-1-0245K) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack and Wilson,JJ.) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Alvah L. Ruis’ Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on June 18, 2014, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, July 30, 2014. Frank L. Miller for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5640 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools 

that participate in the school lunch program under such Act to serve 

whole milk. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. MARINO (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to allow schools that participate in the school lunch 

program under such Act to serve whole milk. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wholesome Healthy 

5 Original Lactic Excellence Making Intelligent Literate 

6 Kids Act’’ or the ‘‘WHOLE MILK Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5640 IH

1 SEC. 2. WHOLE MILK PERMISSIBLE. 

2 Section 9(a)(2)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National 

3 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘. Such milk shall 

6 be consistent with the most recent Dietary Guide7 lines for Americans published under section 301 of 

8 the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Re9 search Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341)’’; and 

10 (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘, unflavored 

11 whole milk,’’ after ‘‘unflavored fluid milk’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133275 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133275 COA: 267945 Kent CC: 04-012450-FC SHAWN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
# Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2008

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has helped tear down barriers for millions of people living with disabilities. On the anniversary of this important legislation, our Nation underscores our commitment to ensuring that all individuals have an equal opportunity to realize their full potential.

On July 26, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed this groundbreaking Act into law, better enabling citizens with disabilities to participate fully in all aspects of life. Over the course of nearly two decades, this Act has made our schools and workplaces more welcoming, helped change attitudes that once seemed unchangeable, and expanded opportunity for many exceptional Americans. The ADA is one of the most successful civil rights laws in our history and has been an essential part of countless American lives.

My Administration is committed to working to empower those with disabilities so that all our people can achieve the American dream. Building on the success of the ADA, the New Freedom Initiative of 2001 has had a positive impact for many of our citizens. Technological advances have helped individuals gain greater access to everyday life. Students with disabilities are given the tools they need to succeed, and in the workplace, innovative hiring and employment practices are helping to integrate Americans with disabilities into the workforce. The Ticket to Work and AbilityOne programs have helped them become more self-sufficient by expanding access to employment. Our Nation has benefited from the progress we have made since the enactment of the ADA, and it is our responsibility to continue working toward a country where all people are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

On this anniversary, we highlight our commitment to the ADA and celebrate the progress that has been made toward full participation of people with disabilities in our society. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 26, 2008, as a day in celebration of the 18th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I call on all Americans to celebrate the vital contributions of individuals with disabilities as we work towards fulfilling the promise of the ADA to give all our citizens the opportunity to live with dignity, work productively, and achieve their dreams. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. 08-1478

Billing code 3195-W8-P
Exhibit 10.22


 





AMENDMENT


TO


PURCHASE AGREEMENT


AND


CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This Amendment (this
"Amendment") is executed as of September 26, 2014, by SOLAR WIND ENERGY TOWER, INC., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”);
and JDF CAPITAL INC., or its assigns (the “Holder”) to amend the Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”)
and that certain Convertible Promissory Note dated June 3, 2014 among those parties (the "Note").


 


The Borrower and the
Holder desire to amend the Purchase Agreement and the Note and further agree as follows:


 


1.Capitalized Terms.Except
as expressly provided in this Amendment, all capitalized terms used in this Amendment have meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase
Agreement and the Note and those definitions are incorporated by reference into the Purchase Agreement and the Note.


 


2.Additional Note Funding.
The Purchase Agreement and the Note provided that the additional Note funding in the purchase amount of $330,000, to consist of
a cash payment of $300,000 and 10% pre-paid interest, will occur within 15 business days of effectiveness of the Registration Statement.
Both parties agree to amend the Purchase Agreement and the Note so that such additional Note funding shall occur within 5 business
days of the effectiveness of the Registration Statement.


 


3.Counterparts. This Amendment
may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original as against the party whose signature appears
thereon, and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall become binding when one or
more counterparts hereof, individually or taken together, shall bear the signatures of all the parties reflected hereon as the
signatories.


 


4.Third Parties.Except as
specifically set forth or referred to herein, nothing herein express of implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon
or give to any person other than the parties hereto and their permitted successors or assigns, any claims, rights, remedies under
or by reason of this Amendment.


 


5.Governing Law. This Amendment
shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, without regard to the principals of conflict
of laws thereof.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


 


 


SOLAR WIND ENERGY TOWER, INC.


 


 


By:
/s/ Ronald W. Pickett                 


Name: Ronald W. Pickett


Title:


 


 


JDF CAPITAL INC.


 


 


By: /s/ John D. Fierro                    


Name: John D. Fierro


Title: President
Exhibit 10.29

      NINTH AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

     This Agreement, made and entered into and effective as
of the 31st day of December, 1998 (the "Effective Date"), by
and among John A. Urquhart, whose address is 111 Beach Road,
Fairfield, Connecticut 06430 ("Consultant"), Enron Corp., a
Delaware corporation ("Enron" or "Company"), and Enron Power
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("EPC"), is an amendment to
that certain Consulting Services Agreement entered into
among the parties and effective as of the first day of
August, 1991.

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Consulting
Services Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Consultant's
continued engagement with Company and of the covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   The parties agree that the Term of the Consulting
Services Agreement is extended through December 31, 1999.
Upon mutual consent of both parties, the Term may be
extended for a period of twelve (12) months beyond December
31, 1999.
                                                
     2.   Effective December 31, 1998, Section ii. of
Paragraph (3)A. of the Consulting Services Agreement is
deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

          "ii. For the period beginning January 1, 1999 and
          ending December 31, 1999, Consultant shall be paid
          a fee of Thirty-Three Thousand Seventy-Five
          Dollars ($33,075.00) per month (the "Fee").  If or
          when the number of days in the twelve month period
          for which Consultant provides consulting services
          thereunder exceeds the Consulting Time, then
          Consultant shall be paid a daily rate of Four
          thousand Four Hundred Ten Dollars ($4,410.00;
          "Additional Remuneration"); provided however, for
          the period from January 1, 1999 and ending
          December 31, 1999, such daily Additional
          Remuneration shall be paid to Consultant if or
          when the number of such days exceeds ninety (90)
          days."
                                                
     3.   The last sentence of Paragraph 3 of section (3)E.
of the Consulting Services Agreement is deleted and the
following inserted in its place:

          "This grant shall not be exercisable after
December 31, 2000."

     This Agreement is the ninth amendment to the Consulting
Services Agreement as previously amended, and the parties
agree that all other terms, conditions and stipulations
contained in said Consulting Services Agreement and the
previous amendments thereto shall remain in full force and
effect and without any change or modification, except as
provided herein.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.

                              JOHN A. URQUHART

                              JOHN A. URQUHART



ENRON CORP.                   ENRON POWER CORP.

KENNETH L. LAY                PEGGY B. MENCHACA
Title:                        Title: Vice President  &
                                     Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 4918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Open SystemC Initiative

     Notice is hereby given that, on December 11, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Open SystemC Initiative 
(``OSCI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, CISC Semiconductor Design + Consulting GmbH, Klagenfurt, 
AUSTRIA; and Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, 
SWITZERLAND have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Celoxica, 
Ltd., Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM; Denali Software, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; 
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Herzalia, ISRAEL; SpiraTech Ltd., 
Manchester, UNITED KINGDOM; and Tenison Technology EDA Ltd., Cambridge, 
UNITED KINGDOM have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
     No other changes have been made in either the membership or 
planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this 
group research project remains open, and OSCI intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
     On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350).
     The last notification was filed with the Department on June 21, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51839).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 08-344 Filed 1-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M