alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-798]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY

Agency for International Development

Renewal of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
Administrator has determined that renewal of the Advisory Committee on 
Voluntary Foreign Aid for a two-year period, beginning January 1, 1995, 
is necessary and in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elise Storck, (703) 351-0204.

    Dated: January 4, 1995.
Jan Miller,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-798 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
```
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

May 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60165

Summary Calendar

 

NOUHAD RACHED EL HAJJAOUI,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition For Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA NO. A29-184-563

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nouhad Rached El Hajjaoui (“Hajjaoui”) filed a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus in district court

challenging his detention without bond while the Immigration and

Naturalization Service conducted removal proceedings. In his

petition he asserted, inter alia, a claim that he was a national

of the United States. The district court denied Hajjaoui’s
No. 03-60165

-2-

habeas corpus petition and transferred Hajjaoui’s nationality

claim to this court.

28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits a transfer if this court would have

been able to exercise jurisdiction on the date that the case was

filed in the district court, the district court lacked

jurisdiction over the case, and the transfer is in the interest

of justice. Hajjaoui filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the

district court prior to the date that the immigration judge

issued the removal order and he did not appeal the removal order

to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Therefore, this court could

not have exercised jurisdiction over the petition on the date

that Hajjaoui filed the petition in district court. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed not later than 30

days after the date of the final order of removal); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1) (a court may review a final order of removal only if

the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies as of right);

Emejulu v. INS, 989 F.2d 771, 771 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that

this court would not assume original jurisdiction over habeas

corpus claim).

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MURFREESBORO BANCORP FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,004
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,115
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,383
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,855
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,602
<LOANS>                                         69,910
<ALLOWANCE>                                        874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,279
<DEPOSITS>                                      90,267
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,478
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                806
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,068
<OTHER-SE>                                        (340)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 107,279
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,472
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  381
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    27
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,880
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 999
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,121
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              759
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     43
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          43
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        43
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.91
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   817
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  874
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               874
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            874


</TABLE>
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803',))86(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&2676
#### In the Matter of Christopher Tendorf, Appellant, v Catherine Delmonte, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the same memorandum as in *Matter of Tendorf v Delmonte*([appeal No. 1] 162 AD2d 998 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Killeen, J.—visitation.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
[CONFORMED COPY]

Exhibit 4.59

Third Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

by and between

ZeniMax Media Inc.

and

SBS Broadcasting S.A.

April 16, 2002

---

Third Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

This Third Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Third Amendment") is made as of this
16th day of April 2002, to amend the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 30, 2000, as modified by a First Amendment dated May 15, 2001, a Second Amendment
dated June 14, 2001 (the "Agreement") by and between ZeniMax Media Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") and SBS Broadcasting S.A., a Luxembourg corporation (the "Purchaser" or
"SBS").

In
consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants in the Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the Company and SBS hereby agree as follows:

In
consideration of SBS' agreement under section 1, the Company shall continue to host the SBS corporate website (www.sbsbroadcasting.com) until
June 30, 2002. SBS shall pay the Company only with respect to live web casting assignments at the rate of $200/hour, which rate is consistent with past practices between the parties, based on a
submitted invoice from the Company.

The
parties agree that all other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

2

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | COMPANY:          
| |  | ------------------
| |  | ZENIMAX MEDIA INC.
| |  | By:               
| |  | Name:             
| |  | Title:            

| |  | Address: | 1370 Piccard Drive,
Suite 120
Rockville, MD 20850
| |  | -------- | -------------------------------------------------

| |  | PURCHASER:           
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | SBS Broadcasting S.A.
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

| |  | Address:   | SBS Services (U.K.) Limited
36 Ives Street
London SW3 2ND
United Kingdom                          
| |  | ---------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Copies to: | SBS Services (U.K.) Limited
36 Ives Street
London SW3 2ND
United Kingdom
Attn: Corporate Secretary

3

---

QuickLinks
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3427

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 9, 2009

1215 

# Order

January 9, 2009

137472

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137472 COA: 286837 Allegan CC: 07-015257-FH THOMAS CLAUDE KERN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY 

### , J., not participating.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4616

Yaesu USA Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14762

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00044-SCB-JSS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TONY L. FORD, 

a.k.a. BoBo, 

a.k.a. Bo, 

a.k.a. Big Head, 

 Defendant-Appellant,

DAVID GEE,

Sheriff of Hillsborough County,

 Movant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 14, 2017)

Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Ford, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

pro se motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Ford also 

appeals the district court’s denial of his two motions for reconsideration of the 

denial of Rule 60(d)(3) relief. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion 

and the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, 

Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(d)(3)); Arthur v. King, 500 

F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (motion for reconsideration). 

After a jury trial, Ford was convicted of multiple drug-trafficking offenses; 

he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ford’s convictions and sentences were 

affirmed on direct appeal. Ford later filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255, which was denied as untimely.

Ford then sought -- via a Rule 60(d)(3) motion -- to have his criminal 

judgment set aside based on alleged fraud on the court. Because Rule 60 applies 

only to civil cases, however, Ford may not use a Rule 60 motion to challenge his 

criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 

Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

(11th Cir. 2003); see also Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996) 

(“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas 

petitions.”). The district court abused no discretion in denying Ford’s Rule 

60(b)(3) motion. 

In his motions for reconsideration, Ford reargued the merits of his Rule 

60(d)(3) motion, presented evidence that could have been raised before entry of 

judgment, and demonstrated no manifest error of law or fact. Given this situation, 

the district court denied properly Ford’s motions. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343 

(“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence 

or manifest errors of law or fact.” (alteration omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 3 of 3
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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;d)
    
    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;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee 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.
 Date: March 30, 2007/s/ Jeffrey A.QuiramJeffrey A. QuiramPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7790]



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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Security for the Protection of the Public Financial 
Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to 
Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Casualty)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for 
Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 2, Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(d)) and 
the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR 
Part 540, as amended:

West Travel, Inc. (d/b/a Alaska Sightseeing/Cruise West), 4th and 
Battery Bldg., Suite 700, Seattle, Washington 98121

Vessel: SPIRIT OF COLUMBIA

    Dated: March 24, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7790 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
fs12011ex4i_climateesco.htm


Exhibit 4.1




 


[FRONT]




 


 


 


Form of Share Certificate


 


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


 


[LOGO]


 


CUSIP NO. [sample]


 


CLIMATE ESCO LTD.


 


AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 100,000,000 SHARES


 


PAR VALUE: $0.00001 PER SHARE


 


THIS CERTIFIES THAT


 


[SAMPLE]


 


IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF __________________


 


Shares of Climate Esco Ltd. Common Stock transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.


 


Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 



	
Dated:


 


 


 


 

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
Secretary 

	  	
President 












 


[CLIMATE ESCO LTD. CORPORATE SEAL NEVADA]


 




  





  











  






 


[BACK]


 


 


Signature must be guaranteed by a firm which is a member of a registered national stock exchange, or by bank (other than a savings bank), or a trust company. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.


 


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not on the above list.


 


For Value Received, _______hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


 



	
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 


	
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 


	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	
(Please print or typewrite name and address, including zip code or assignee) 













	  
	  	  	
Shares 












 


of the capital stock represented by the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 



	  	  	
 Attorney 







 


to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 



	
Dated: ____________________________________________












 


NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever