alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12782]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 050896A]


Marine Mammals; Permit No. 728 (P36C)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of modification.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that permit no. 728, issued to Dr. 
Bernd Wursig and Dr. Graham Worthy, Marine Mammal Research Program, 
Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University, P.O. Box 1675, 
Galveston, TX 77553-1675, to take Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 
(Tursiops truncatus) was extended until December 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33702-2532 (813/570-5301).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification has been issued 
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the provisions of paragraphs (d) 
and (e) of Sec. 216.33 of the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    Dated: May 13, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12782 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
EXHIBIT 10.2


INFOCUS CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE RETENTION BONUS PLAN


PLAN:                                       This plan is designed to provide Vice
Presidents of InFocus (collectively the “Executives” or individually the “Executive”)
with the opportunity for increased compensation based upon the achievement of
InFocus Corporation’s financial goals for the fourth quarter of 2006 and first
quarter of 2007 and the Executive remaining an employee of the Company through
April 30, 2007.


PLAN GUIDELINES


Adoption of Plan:  The Executive Retention Bonus Plan (the “Plan”)
was adopted by the Board of Directors of InFocus Corporation (the “Company”) on
October 27, 2006.


Purpose of Plan:  The purpose of the Plan is to establish the
terms and conditions under which the Company will pay retention bonuses to Executives.


Eligibility:  Eligibility
is limited to Executives of InFocus Corporation as of October 27, 2006.  These individuals are Brian Dennison, Joe O’Sullivan,
Candace Petersen, Monique Herman, Steve Stark, and Roger Rowe.  Executives must remain employed by the
Company on April 30, 2007 to be eligible for the retention bonus amount.


Bonus Amount:  The Plan
provides for the executive officers to receive 8% of their annual salary if the
Company achieves its adjusted operating income goals in the fourth quarter of
2006 and an additional 8% of their annual salary if the Company achieves its
adjusted operating income goals in the first quarter of 2007.  Each quarter’s bonus amount is independent of
the other allowing the bonus to be paid for either, neither or both quarters.


Payment:  Payment of bonuses to Excutives under this Plan
is scheduled to be made in mid-May 2007.


Change in Control:  If a change in control occurs prior to April
30, 2007, and the Executive remains employed by the company as of the date the
change in control occurs, the entire bonus amount will be considered earned as
of the date of the change in control and paid as soon as practical after the
change in control occurs.


Discretion
of the Board of Directors:  Nothing in this Plan shall prohibit the Board
of Directors from awarding a bonus to one or more Executives in addition to the
Executive Retention Bonus awarded pursuant to this Plan.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21452-21453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11694]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EC96-21-000]


SEMASS Partnership; Notice of Filing

May 6, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 30, 1996, SEMASS Partnership (SEMASS) 
filed an application seeking authorization under Section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act to transfer control of jurisdictional facilities in 
connection with the proposed sale by certain partners of SEMASS of 
eighty percent (80%) of the partnership interests in SEMASS to American 
Ref-Fuel Company of SEMASS, L.P.

[[Page 21453]]

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said 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 Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 15, 1996. 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11694 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12114]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 
to 9675

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States v. David B. Fisher, et al., Civil Action No. S92-00636M, was 
lodged on April 23, 1996 with the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. The proposed consent 
decree resolves the United States' claims against five of twelve 
defendants, as well as one third-party defendant, the U.S. Army, for 
unreimbursed past costs incurred in connection with the Fisher-Calo 
Superfund Site located in Kingsbury, Indiana in return for a payment of 
$345,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. David B. Fisher, et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-2-549A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 1000 Washington Street, 203 Federal Building, 
Bay City, Michigan 48707; the Region 5 Office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; 
and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent 
decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In 
requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12114 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00092-CV

In the Matter of J.Y. §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-103907-16)

August 3, 2017

Opinion by Justice Kerr



### JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Ke rr__________________

Justice Elizabeth Kerr
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2337

___________ Daniel A. Human, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri Larry Rowley; Mary Riorden; * Joseph Sampson; Homer F. Shrum; * [UNPUBLISHED] S. Harrower; Tim Tallent; Carl L. * Ulrich, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 28, 2001 Filed: December 6, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Daniel A. Human, a Missouri inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Human claimed that defendants, all-2- prison employees, retaliated against him for providing legal assistance to other inmates by removing him from his law clerk job. For reversal, Human argues that the summary judgment record shows he did not violate any prison rule by possessing blank informal resolution request forms--the reason given for the discipline imposed-- and that his removal from his law clerk job deprived other inmates of legal assistance because reasonable alternative assistance was not made available. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. An inmate has a cause of action under § 1983 for retaliatory discipline when a prison official files disciplinary charges in retaliation for the inmate’s exercise of his constitutional rights. See Moore v. Plaster , 266 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2001). Although Human has no constitutional right to be a jailhouse lawyer, see Gassler v. Rayl , 862 F.2d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 1988), we concluded in a prior appeal that Humanstated a constitutional claim by alleging that defendants removed him from his prisoncreated job for doing his job too well, and we remanded for further consideration of such a claim. See Human v. Rowley , No. 99-1760, 1999 WL 1204488, at *1-2 (8th Cir. Dec. 3. 1999) (unpublished per curiam). On remand, however, Human failed to produce evidence from which a jury could find that he was irrationally fired from his law clerk position for doing a good job. We thus conclude that summary judgment was appropriate as to this claim. SeeMoore v. Plaster , 266 F.3d at 931 (standard ofreview). We also conclude that the district court properly rejected Human’s accessto-court claim. See Hamm v. Groose , 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In re the Marriage of Robert H. FRENTZEL, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Linda I. FRENTZEL, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 67250.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 31, 1995.

John P. Brown, Edward C. Cody, St. Louis, for appellant.

Ronald L. Rothman, Donna Aronoff Smith, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from a judgment in a dissolution action alleging error in the division and valuation of certain property, the sale of the marital home and conditions placed on her while occupying the home, the amount of maintenance, and the award of attorney fees. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the decree is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. A detailed opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum opinion explaining our reasoning. The trial court’s decree is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2005 of ASG Consolidated LLC (the
Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    BRAD BODENMANName:

Brad BodenmanTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

November 14, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ASG Consolidated LLC and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1525

GARY A. BENNETT,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

DANIEL SZOSTKIEWICZ, ETC.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Smith,* District Judge.

Tani E. Sapirstein, with whom Sapirstein & Sapirstein was on

brief, for appellant.

John H. Fitz-Gibbon, with whom Harry L. Miles, Green, Miles,

Lipton, White & Fitz-Gibbon, John C. Sikorski, and Robinson

Donovan, P.C. were on brief, for appellees.

March 24, 2004

__________

*Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
1Bennett elaborates on this assignment of error by attacking

(i) the trial court's willingness to take judicial notice of the

applicable criminal statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and

(ii) the jury instructions related to this evidence. We have

considered and rejected both theories.

-2-

Per Curiam. This appeal follows the entry of a judgment

in favor of defendants-appellees Daniel Szostkiewicz (mayor of the

City of Holyoke), Marc Cournoyer (Holyoke's police chief), and

Stephen Donoghue (Holyoke's former police chief). The

circumstances of the case are limned in our opinion in Bennett v.

City of Holyoke, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. 2004) [No. 03-1520], dated

March 22, 2004, and need not be repeated here.

In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Gary A. Bennett

challenges two mid-trial evidentiary rulings of the district court:

(i) the exclusion of so-called comparator evidence anent Ralph

DiNapoli and Joseph Garcia, and (ii) the admission of evidence

regarding the criminality of Bennett's conduct in surreptitiously

recording a conversation.1

It is black-letter law that a district court possesses

broad discretion in connection with the admission or exclusion of

evidence, and that its determinations in that wise are reviewed

only for abuse of discretion. Udemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8, 14

(1st Cir. 2001); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir.

1999). We have carefully reviewed the rulings at issue here and we

are satisfied that the trial court, in both instances, acted well

within the encincture of its discretion. Given the fact-specific
-3-

nature of both the case and the disputed rulings, further

discussion would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the

judgments entered below in favor of Szostkiewicz, Cournoyer, and

Donoghue will be

Affirmed.
#### Terry JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41614.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 12, 1989.

John T. Yarbrough, St. Louis, for appellant.

*716William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., and FENNER, J„ and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial, after evidentiary hearing, of Rule 29.15 motion for post-con-vietion relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Sohu.com Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and results of operations of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.



/s/ Charles ZhangCharles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of DirectorsFebruary 26, 2010
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,101]

Breed Technologies, Inc. Breed Automotive, L.P. Brownsville, 
Texas; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By letter of April 26, 1996, one of the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance for workers of the subject firm. The denial 
notice was signed on March 28, 1996, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15832).
    The petitioner presents evidence that the worker group did not 
provide a service, but instead produced a product.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-13117 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 432 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 432

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 13, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall be 
considered to have: (1) passed the bill (H.R. 2101) to promote reform and 
independence in the oversight of weapons system acquisition by the Department of 
Defense, as amended by the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill; (2) 
taken from the Speaker's table S. 454; (3) adopted an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2101 as passed by the House pursuant 
to this resolution; (4) passed such bill, as amended; and (5) insisted on its 
amendment and requested a conference with the Senate thereon.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
TAVARIUS WADE

,

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

- 1128

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed February 5, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Liberty County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Tavarius Wade, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, T allahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO

, WETHERELL

, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification

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

with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2005

of WorldSpace, Inc.



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|      |  |                   |  |  |  |                                                               
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                   | 
|Date: |  | September 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    NOAH A. SAMARA                                         
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Noah A. Samara Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President



The certification set
forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
Case 2:17-cr-01464-JAT Document 1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01464-JAT Document 1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01464-JAT Document 1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01464-JAT Document 1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 4
#### Beverly M. SCHROEDER, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. John MUSTERMEN and Jeff Darnell, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 62636.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 26, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 9, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 25, 1994.

Michael B. Stern, Richard W. Fischer, St. Louis, for plaintiffs, appellants.

Sam P. Rynearson, Adrian P. Sulser, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for defendants, respondents.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment on a jury verdict in a personal injury suit resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiffs Beverly Schroeder, Terry Schroeder, and Scott Schroeder brought suit to recover damages for personal injury and loss of consortium. The jury verdict awarded Beverly Schroeder *594$7,000.00 and Scott Schroeder $1,500.00 on their personal injury claims. The jury returned a verdict for defendants on Terry Schroeder’s loss of consortium claim.

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.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).