alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10641]



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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Proposed Additions to the Procurement List; Correction

    In the document appearing on page 15225, FR Doc. 96-8506, in the 
issue of April 5, 1996, in the first column, the following NSN shown as 
7520-01-424-4862 should read 7520-01-424-4861. In the same document, 
appearing in the same column, the NSN shown as 8135-00-689-9466 should 
read 8135-00-618-1783.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-10641 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rolando Porter, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on January 13, 1988, convicting defendant, following a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of from *4Vi*to 9 years, is unanimously affirmed.

*286On November 3, 1986, Police Officer Michael Shalley was on the rooftop of a 15-story building when he observed the corner of West 95th Street and Amsterdam Avenue through a telescope with a magnification of 40 times. Officer Shalley saw defendant and his accomplice sell two vials of cocaine to a buyer. Soon thereafter, defendant was arrested by a backup team. At the ensuing trial, he asked the court to instruct the jury that it could not look through the telescope during its deliberations. The Judge denied this request but advised the jurors to refrain from endeavoring to replicate the scene of the crime;' the court also warned the jurors of the dangers of any attempted reenactment.

Defendant now contends that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that it could not look through the telescope during its deliberations. However, the Judge’s ruling in this respect was certainly not improper *(see, United States v Hawkins,*595 F2d 751, 753) and was, on the contrary a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (CPL 310.20; *People v Owens,*69 NY2d 585, 590; *People v Duncan,*46 NY2d 74, 80). Furthermore, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that the court’s charge was not adequate to protect him from the jury reenacting the scene of the purported sale. In that regard, the jury can be presumed to have followed the court’s instructions *(People v Berg,*59 NY2d 294, 299-300), and defendant has not presented convincing evidence to suggest otherwise. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
MICKLER J. SINGLETARY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2128

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed September 5, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mallory D. Cooper , Judge

.

Mickler J. Singletary, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of Opus Resource Group, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the company on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys
financial condition and results of operations.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|March 30, 2004                            
|                                          
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-10-0000128 20-SEP-2013 07:49 AM
Exhibit 10.7

FIRST AMENDMENT to SUBLEASE AGREEMENT  DATED JANUARY 10, 2002

[Canopy Properties, Inc./ Caldera International, Inc.]

This
FIRST ADMENDMENT is entered into as of the Fifteenth (15th) day of September 2003 between Canopy Properties, Inc. ("Tenant") and Caldera International, Inc.
("Subtenant").

Whereas
Tenant and Subtenant entered into a Sublease dated January 10, 2002, Tenant and Subtenant hereby agree to amend the Sublease as follows:

1.     The
name of the Subtenant is hereby changed to The SCO Group.

2.     Effective
September 15, 2003, Tenant and Subtenant agree that Tenant shall sublease the Premises for which Subtenant was to become responsible effective
March 1, 2004, to a third party subtenant for a period of twelve months, renewable up to twenty-nine months, which would be the equivalent time period of Subtenant's
Sublease through Month forty-eight of Subtenant's Sublease.

Subtenant
acknowledges that Tenant has entered into said third party subtenant agreement at a market rate which is below Subtenant's obligated rate for the same time period, and that
Subtenant will be
responsible for the difference between it's rate and that of the new subtenant for the part of the third party space that Subtenant is responsible for.

The
amounts of the rent reduction to Subtenant may vary during this time period based on the amount of space the third party tenant occupies, and the renewal rates negotiated at the
times of renewal. The initial difference in rent owed Tenant by Subtenant will be $18,750 annually from March 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004, on 5,000 rentable square feet, reducing
Subtenant's obligations for this period from $708,756 annually to $626,255.

3.     Provided
that Subtenant elects to allow this third party subtenant to further renew it's sublease on March 1, 2006, again acknowledging that the third party
subtenant will likely renew at a rate below Subtenant's obligation, even though that renewal will be at market rates, since Subtenant will at that time be paying off deferred rent in it's overall
lease-payment schedule, therefore Subtenant will continue to be responsible for the difference in the two rates, the amount of which will be at least $29,112 annually from March 2006 through
February 2007, on 6,065 rentable square feet, should the third party renewal be at their same rate for the now committed space. If the third party renewal rate is higher, or if the third party
subtenant should sublease a larger part of the Additional Premises, the above obligation would be reduced accordingly.

All
other terms, conditions and provisions of said Lease shall remain in full force and effect.

|LANDLORD:               |  | TENANT:                    
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Canopy Properties, Inc. |  | The SCO Group              
|By:                     |  | /s/BOYD WORTHINGTON        
|Its:                    |  | VP, Real Estate Development

---

QuickLinks
#### Bonnie ALCORN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68823.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 7, 1996.

Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General and Jill C. LaHue, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before KAROHL, Acting P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-112-000, Docket No. EL95-17-000]

Entergy Services, Inc., et al.; Initiation of Proceeding and 
Refund Effective Date

 January 10, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 6, 1995, the Commission issued an order 
in the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket No. 
EL95-17-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
    The reform effective date in Docket No. EL95-17-000 will be 60 days 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-906 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      OF CANAM URANIUM CORP.





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Canam Uranium
      Corp. for the quarter ended July 31, 2008, the undersigned, Ryan Gibson,
      President and principal financial officer of Canam Uranium Corp., does hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
      ended July 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Canam Uranium Corp.





Date:
      September 19, 2008





/s/
                Ryan GibsonRyan
                GibsonDirector
                and interim acting principal executive officer and interim acting
                principal financial officer solely for the purposes of this
                Certification
Exhibit 10.28  EARTHLINK, INC.  Board of Directors Compensation Plan  Effective January 2010  1.Retainers a.Each independent director
receives a $35,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in advance ($17,500
following January Board meeting and $17,500 following July Board
meeting). b.The Lead Director receives
an additional $20,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in advance ($10,000
following the January Board meeting and $10,000 following the July Board
meeting). c.The Audit Committee chair and
the Leadership and Compensation Committee chair each receive an additional
$20,000 annual retainer, paid semi-annually in advance ($10,000 following January Board
meeting and $10,000 following July Board meeting). d.The Corporate Governance and
Nominating Committee chair receives an additional $10,000 annual retainer, paid
semi-annually in advance ($5,000 following January Board meeting and
$5,000 following July Board meeting).  2.Meeting Fees a.Each independent director is
paid $1,000 for each full Board meeting and Committee meeting he or she attends
in person and $500 for each full Board meeting and Committee meeting he or she
attends telephonically.  3.Restricted Stock Units a.Independent directors
receive an initial grant when they join the Board of Restricted Stock Units
(RSUs) valued at $45,000. b.Additionally, independent
directors receive a grant of RSUs valued at $40,000 on the first business day
of January of each year and a grant of RSUs valued at $40,000 on the date
of the July Board meeting each year. c.RSUs will vest one year from
the date of grant, provided the director is serving as an independent director
at that time.  i.Note:  Each RSU is equal to one share of EarthLink
stock.  Upon vesting, the RSUs may be
received in shares of stock (in which case the recipient has taxable income
equal to the value of the shares received on the date of vesting).  4.Meeting Expenses a.EarthLink reimburses
directors for their expenses incurred in attending Board of Directors and
Committee meetings.  5.Education Expenses a.EarthLink will pay reasonable
program fees and associated travel expenses for each director to participate in
one or more additional relevant director education programs.  In selecting director education programs,
directors should consider general Board governance and specific Committee
focus.
Exhibit
10.3





This letter agreement
shall describe the basic terms of our mutual understanding pursuant to which DC
Associates (“DC”) will license to NeoStem, and its successors (“NeoStem”)
executive office space and related services pursuant to its rights to do so
under its lease with the landlord for the subject premises.


	
  Commencement Date:

  	
   

  	
  November 1, 2006

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Term:

  	
   

  	
  Month to month

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Terminable:

  	
   

  	
  By either party on 30 days prior written notice

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Location:

  	
   

  	
  420 Lexington Avenue

  Suite 450

  New York, New York 10170

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Executive Offices:

  	
   

  	
  Four furnished inner offices and three desks in
  common space and use of conference room and other common space as per
  provided floorplan plus separate work space mutually agreeable to both parties
  as well as the name on the door and the hall.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Monthly Fee:

  	
   

  	
  $9,500 which includes the cost of telephone,
  internet, photocopier, scanner, fax, coffee and soft drinks, mail usage,
  hosting of e-mail, shared receptionist and use of conference room(s). NeoStem
  will pay for office supplies in the amount of $500 monthly.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Monthly Cash Payment Due:

  	
   

  	
  First business day of each month during the term.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed and Accepted:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  DC Associates

  By: /sMichael Crow

  Name: Michael Crow

  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  Date: October 27, 2006

  	
   

  	
  NeoStem, Inc.

  By: /s/Robin Smith

  Name: Robin L. Smith

  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  Date: October 27, 2006
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIA SANDOVAL-AMARO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74638

Agency No. A075-682-513

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Lucia Sandoval-Amaro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUN 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74638

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759,

761 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to

reopen because petitioner’s failure to file the motion before the expiration of her

voluntary departure period rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of

removal. See id. at 763-64; 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (the failure to depart voluntarily

within the time period results in a ten-year bar to certain forms of relief, including

cancellation of removal).

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion

to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture because she did

not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in

Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538

F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie

eligibility for relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(b)
                                                              Form 10-K for 1995
                                                                File No. 1-11237





                    CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTION



        I, Robert J. Ingato, an Assistant Secretary of AT&T Capital Corporation,
hereby certify that the following resolutions were duly adopted by the Audit
Committee of AT&T Capital Corporation's Board of Directors at a meeting held on
March 1, 1996:

        RESOLVED: that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1995
substantially in the form presented to the Committee at this meeting is
approved, with such changes as the Chief Financial Officer may approve, provided
that any material changes will also be approved by the General Counsel and the
Chief Executive Officer and that the Audit Committee will be advised of any
material changes made in the financial statements (or related notes) in the Form
10-K; and

        FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial
Officer and the Controller are each severally authorized to sign the Form 10-K
in the name and on behalf of the Company.





                                                   Robert J. Ingato

Dated:  March 6, 1996                              Robert J. Ingato
Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Sunshine Act Meetings 18171

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Notice of Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Thursday,

April 13, 1995.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA

22314–3428.

STATUS: Open.

BOARD BRIEFING:

1. Insurance Fund Report.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Open

Meeting.

2. Request from State of Michigan for

Exemption under Section 701.21(h), NCUA’s

Rules and Regulations, Member Business

Loans.

3. Proposed Rule: Amendments to Section

701.21(c)(8), NCUA’s Rules and Regulations,

Prohibited Fees.

4. Proposed Rule: Amendments to Part 704,

NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Corporate

Credit Unions.

5. Request from Midflorida Schools Federal

Credit Union for a Field of Membership

Expansion.

RECESS: 10:45 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Thursday,

April 13, 1995.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room

4047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA

22314–3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Closed

Meeting.

2. Administrative Action under Section

205 of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed

pursuant to exemption (8).

3. Appeal under Part 709, NCUA’s Rules

and Regulations. Closed pursuant to

exemption (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,

Telephone (703) 518–6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–8923 Filed 4–6–95; 3:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

Addition of Item to the Agenda of April

3, 1995

At a meeting on April 3, 1995, the

Board of Governors of the United States

Postal Service voted unanimously to

add to the agenda consideration of filing

a request with the Postal Rate

Commission for a rulemaking

proceeding on initiatives for

improvement of postal ratemaking and

classification procedures.

The Board determined, in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(2), that

Postal Service business required that

consideration be given at this meeting

even though the item had not been on

the agenda of the meeting as originally

noticed in the Federal Register (60 FR

15176, March 22, 1995) and that no

earlier public notice was possible.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. section

552b(f)(1) and 39 C.F.R. section 7.6(a),

the General Counsel of the United States

Postal Service has certified that in her

opinion the meeting could properly be

closed to public observation pursuant to

5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(3) and (10); 39

U.S.C. section 410(c)(4); and 39 C.F.R.

section 7.3 (c) and (j).

Requests for information concerning

the meeting should be addressed to the

Secretary of the Board, David F. Harris,

at (202) 268–4800.

David F. Harris,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8884 Filed 4–6–95; 3:06 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5714 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5714

 To require the Comptroller General of the United States to report on 
   the country of origin of end items and components procured by the 
             Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2023

  Mr. Khanna introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Comptroller General of the United States to report on 
   the country of origin of end items and components procured by the 
             Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY AND REPORT ON COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF 
              END ITEMS AND COMPONENTS PROCURED BY DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study to identify the degree to which the Department of 
Defense is dependent on entities located in foreign countries for the 
procurement of end items and components.
    (b) Report and Briefing.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2024, the 
        Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
        Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
        report, and provide a briefing to such committees, on the 
        findings of the study described in subsection (a).
            (2) Elements.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall 
        contain the following:
                    (A) A description of the extent to which the 
                procurement processes of the Department of Defense do 
                not require a determination of the country of origin of 
                end items and components.
                    (B) Descriptions of supply chain risk for end items 
                and components procured from countries other than ally 
                or partner countries.
                    (C) A description of any Department of Defense 
                plans to mitigate supply chain risks, such as plans for 
                alternative supply chains or alternative countries from 
                which to procure end items and components.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``component'' has the meaning given the term 
        in section 3011 of title 10, United States Code.
            (2) The term ``end item'' has the meaning given the term in 
        section 4863(m) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```