alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10935]



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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 96-045]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Aeronautics Advisory Committee 
(AAC); Subcommittee on Propulsion Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a NAC, Aeronautics Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on 
Propulsion meeting.
DATES: May 29, 1996, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and May 30, 1996, 8:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis 
Research Center, Administration Building, Room 215, 21000 Brookpark 
Road, Cleveland, OH 44135.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carol J. Russo, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135, 216/
433-2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--NASA Aeronautics Program Overview
--NASA Aeropropulsion Program Overview and Status

    It is imperative that he meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Dated: April 25, 1996.
Leslie M. Nolan,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-10935 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
#### Ronyea Eugene TOOMBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51301.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 30, 1996.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does
hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





|                        |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 19, 2010 |  | /s/ Mark A. Sirgo                                   
|                        |  | Mark A. Sirgo, President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not
be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00179-CR

Jackie L. Stokes

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1390634D)

July 2, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Michael A. Reisner, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
 1.
The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the LLC.
 
 
 Date: November 12, 2010





/s/Michael A. Reisner


Michael A. Reisner


Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President


ICON Capital Corp.


Manager of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H

. JOHNSON ; PAULA A

. JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor

- In

- Interest to Washington Mutual Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns ; DOES, 1

- 25, Inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 56156

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv

- 02609

- DDP

- JEM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11 , 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district

court’s order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 56156

Lendin g Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

. Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc.
, 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9t h Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any

ground supported by the reco rd. Franklin v. Terr , 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Dismissal of the Johnson s ’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was

proper because the Johnsons did not exercise their right of rescission within three

years of when they c onsummated the loan transaction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f);

Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank , 523 U.S. 410, 412

- 13, 419 (1998) (explaining that

“§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3

- year

period”).

AFFIRMED.
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 Gulf United Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
        undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 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
                  the
                  Company.
 
 
 Date:
        April 14, 2006
 
 /s/
        Bruno
        Fruscalzo
 
 Bruno
        Fruscalzo, Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Francis GARDNER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 58917.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 29, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 19, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 18, 1992.

Emily N. Blood, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of § 566.-100, RSMo Cum.Supp.1991.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*703The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### Phillip ACKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 45708.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 12, 1993.

Craig A. Johnson, State Public Defender Office, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Aundreia R. Alexander, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and TURNAGE and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11569]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-220-000]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 3, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 30, 1996, Algonquin Gas Transmission 
Company (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets:

Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 20A
Original Sheet No. 98I

    The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is May 30, 1996.
    Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to (i) recover 
upstream transition costs of $13,828.61 billed to Algonquin by Texas 
Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern) and (ii) to flow 
through a $7.46 refund of Account Nos. 191 and 186 as proposed by 
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Algonquin requests that the Commission grant any waiver that may be 
necessary to place these tariff sheets into effect on the date 
requested.
    Algonquin states that copies of this filing were mailed to all 
customers of Algonquin and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11569 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of John C. Hampton, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

February 17, 1956.

*142
      *Kenneth C. Cole,*Public Administrator of Westchester County, proponent in person.

*Whitman, Ransom & Coulson*for respondent.

Samuel Faile, S.

The Public Administrator of Westchester County has instituted this proceeding for the probate of the wall and for his appointment as administrator *c. t. a.*An answer has been filed by a sister of decedent challenging the petitioner’s right to appointment, and alleging that she and the son of a brother who predeceased decedent are the sole distributees. The answer alleges her prior right to appointment over petitioner pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 133 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

By his will the decedent named his wdfe as sole executor and devised and 'bequeathed his entire estate to his wife as follows: “third — I give, devise and bequeath all of my estate, both real, personal or mixed, of every kind and description and wheresoever situated, and which shall belong to me or be subject to my disposal at the time of my death, after the payment of my just debts, funeral expenses and the expenses of administration of my estate unto my wife, Grace Emery Hampton, her heirs, executors and assigns absolutely and forever

The wdfe of decedent having predeceased him, there is a lapse of any benefits which she otherwise would have become entitled to receive under the wall. The provision in favor of the wife *‘1*her heirs, executors and assigns absolutely and forever ’ ’ are words of limitation and not of purchase. The words ‘ ‘ and his heirs forever ”, “ and his heirs and assigns ”, “ and his heirs, executors and administrators ” and like expressions are commonly used when an estate in fee simple is intended to be conveyed and such phrases are generally accepted as describing the nature of the estate and not as conveying any interest to the heirs of the grantee. (See *Matter of Barrett,*141 Misc. 637, 641-643.)

It appearing that the nephew of decedent and the only other distributee is a nonresident alien and disqualified from receiving letters under subdivision 3 of section 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, letters of administration with the wall annexed are directed to be issued to the sister of decedent upon her duly qualifying and filing a duly approved bond in the amount of $5,000.

Settle decree,
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Graham Alexander, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of Rancho Santa Monica Developments, Inc. (the "Company"),hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge: 

(i) 

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the six months ending May 31st , 2009,and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) 

theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   |  By:
*/s/ Graham G.      Alexander*Name:
Graham AlexanderTitle:
Chief Executive      Officer 
and Chief Financial      OfficerDate:
July 15th ,    2009
  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Quarterly Report of X and O Cosmetics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Glen Landry, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January
           31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
           the period ending January 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
           respects, the financial condition and results of operations of X and
           O Cosmetics, Inc.

Dated: March 15, 2006

X AND O COSMETICS, INC.

By:  /s/ Glen Landry
-------------------
Glen Landry
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Office
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.38

                                  July 18, 2006

Mr. Paul Sagan
[address]

      Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Paul:

      In accordance with Section 9 of your January 4, 2005 Employment Agreement
with Akamai Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), the following sets forth an
amendment thereto.

     Section 5, second  paragraph,  is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

            5. Termination of Employment.

            If you terminate your employment for "Good Reason" following a
   "Change of Control" as those terms are defined in the Initial Option
   Agreement and any Additional Option Agreement (together, the "Option
   Agreements"), in addition to any rights you have under the Option Agreements,
   vesting of all outstanding unvested options held by you as of the termination
   date shall automatically accelerate in full. You shall also be entitled to
   lump sum cash payments equal to: two (2) years of your then-current
   annualized base salary and an award equal to two (2) times your
   then-applicable annual incentive bonus at target. For purposes of this
   paragraph 5, "bonus at target" shall be as set forth in the terms of the
   then-applicable annual incentive bonus plan. Provisions in restricted stock
   unit agreements you have entered into with the Company that relate to the
   effect of a termination of employment are not amended by this Section 5 and
   shall continue in effect.

      Except as set forth herein, the terms of the Employment Agreement, as
previously amended, remain in full force and effect, without amendment. Please
sign below to indicate your acceptance of the terms of this amendment to your
Employment Agreement.

                            Very truly yours,

                            AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                            By:  /s/ George H. Conrades
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                 George H. Conrades, Executive Chairman

      I accept the foregoing amendment to my Employment Agreement with the
Company.

                            /s/ Paul Sagan
                            ------------------------------------------------
                            Paul Sagan

                            Date:  August 9, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20807-20808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11465]



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

[[Page 20808]]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 042496A]


South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Agenda Addition

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Addition to meeting agenda.
SUMMARY: The agenda for the joint meetings of the South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council's (Council) Snapper Grouper Committee, 
Controlled Access Committee, and Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel, which 
are scheduled for May 20-21, 1996, in Charleston, SC, was published on 
May 2, 1996. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an addition to the 
meeting agenda.
ADDRESSES: Town and Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 
29407. Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One 
Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Buchanan, Public Information 
Officer; telephone: (803) 571-4366; fax: (803) 769-4520; E-mail: 
Susan--B<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f683959e97989798b68597909b95d8989b9085d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f6a7c777e717e715f6c7e79727c317172796c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial agenda published on May 2, 1996 
(61 FR 19610). The following addition is to be included in the agenda: 
May 20, 1996, from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m. The Snapper Grouper and 
Controlled Access Committee will meet jointly with the Snapper Grouper 
Advisory Panel to discuss gag grouper management on May 20, 1996, from 
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically 
accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language 
interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the 
Council office (see ADDRESSES) by May 14, 1996. Dated:
[FR Doc. 96-11465 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Charles S. BARNES, et ux, Betty Barnes, Appellants, v. TEXAS BANKERS LIFE & LOAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and Patrick Bussey, Individually, Appellees.

No. 05-93-00141-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Aug. 16, 1993.

*422Jeff L. Pierce, Plano, for appellant.

Forrest N. Troutman, Austin, for appellee.

Before McGARRY, C.J., and ROSENBERG and MORRIS, JJ.

PRESUBMISSION OPINION

McGARRY, Chief Justice.

Texas Bankers Life & Loan Insurance Company seeks leave to file a supplemental transcript that was previously tendered to the Court. For the reasons stated below, we deny the motion for leave in its present form.

The motion includes a general assertion that “the documents contained in the supplemental transcript are material to this appeal in that they support appellee’s position in this appeal.” However, the motion contains no description or list of the specific documents with which appellee wishes to supplement in the record and no discussion of the issues to which the documents are material. A party seeking to supplement the record must show that the omitted matter is material to the disposition of the case on appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 55(b); *Goldsmith v. Stephenson,*634 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Tex.App—Dallas 1982, no writ). Without such a showing, this Court is unable to determine whether the omitted matter is material within the meaning of rule 55(b).

Rule 55(b) is to be liberally construed so that appellate decisions turn on substance rather than procedural technicalities. *Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Gonzales,*820 S.W.2d 121,121 (Tex.1991) (per curiam). However, the moving party must still show that the matter it seeks to add is in someway *necessary*to the disposition of the case on appeal. *Id.*at 121 n. 1; *Goldsmith,*634 S.W.2d at 332. This showing is required for *each*document or item sought to be included in the supplemental record. *See*Tex.R.App.P. 55(b). A con-clusory allegation that an item is material is insufficient to satisfy the rule.

Since some items may be shown to be material while others are not, the better practice would be to reserve preparation of the supplemental record until the appellate court rules on the request for leave.

The motion before us fails to show that each of the documents appellee seeks to include in the supplemental transcript is material to the case on appeal. Accordingly, the motion is overruled without prejudice. *See Goldsmith,*634 S.W.2d at 332.