alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): October 18, 2005

                         CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

        Delaware                    001-11001                     06-0619596
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission                (I.R.S. Employer
of incorporation)                  File Number)              Identification No.)

                                3 High Ridge Park
                           Stamford, Connecticut 06905
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

                                 (203) 614-5600
                         (Registrant's Telephone Number,
                              Including Area Code)

                              No Change Since Last
                              --------------------
                    Report (Former name or former address, if
                           changed since last report)

     Check the  appropriate  box below if the Form 8-K  filing  is  intended  to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations of the registrant under any of the
following provisions:

[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
230.425)

[ ] Soliciting  material  pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange
Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange
Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

<PAGE>


ITEM 5.02 Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors;
          --------------------------------------------------------------------
          Appointment of Principal Officers
          ---------------------------------

          (b)  Scott N. Schneider,  Director,  resigned from the Company's Board
               of Directors, effective October 18, 2005.






<PAGE>



                                    Signature


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                         CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
                                  (Registrant)



                            By: /s/ Robert J. Larson
                                ---------------------------
                                Robert J. Larson
                                Senior Vice President and
                                Chief Accounting Officer


Date:  October 24, 2005
Exhibit 23.1








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm














ChyronHego Corporation


Melville, New York




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting a part of this Registration Statement of our report dated March 7, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Chyron Corporation appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.











/s/ BDO USA, LLP





Melville, New York





July 24, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7036 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7036

 To prohibit the Federal Government from compiling or maintaining any 
 list or other record of Federal employees who have requested or been 
     granted a religious exemption or accommodation to any Federal 
requirement for any Federal employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2022

  Mrs. McClain (for herself, Mr. Perry, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
 Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gooden of 
   Texas, and Mr. Huizenga) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Government from compiling or maintaining any 
 list or other record of Federal employees who have requested or been 
     granted a religious exemption or accommodation to any Federal 
requirement for any Federal employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Abusive Government 
Efforts Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST LIST OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS AND 
              ACCOMMODATIONS TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE COVID-19 VACCINATION 
              MANDATE.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be used to compile or 
maintain any list or other record of Federal employees who have 
requested or been granted a religious exemption or accommodation to--
            (1) the vaccination mandate under Executive Order 14043 
        (requiring coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination for Federal 
        employees, dated September 9, 2021); or
            (2) any other Federal requirement for any Federal employee 
        to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
    (b) Destruction of Any Existing List.--The President shall 
permanently destroy any Federal list or other record that is described 
in subsection (a) and in existence as of the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6343]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Four Indian Kings (from the Portrait Gallery of Canada),” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or                               ( print page 51876)                            custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Smithsonian Institution, Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, DC, from on or about September 12, 2008, until on or about January 25, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: August 29, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-20654 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Juan ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen MITCHELL, Asst. Warden, Darrington Unit, Texas Dept. of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 75-2479.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 1976.

*276Juan Enriquez, pro se.

Ed Idar, Paul R. Gavia, Marianne Wesson Cantrick, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before TUTTLE, THORNBERRY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant in this case is an inmate at the Darrington Unit of the Texas Department of Corrections. On June 28,1973, he filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 alleging, *inter alia,*that he had been placed in solitary confinement after a prison disciplinary hearing which violated his rights to due process, in part by violating his right to counsel.

At trial, appellant attempted to raise an additional issue — that his rights were violated in that the Hearing Committee took notice of the fact that he chose not to testify in reliance on the Fifth Amendment. The trial court found that this issue was not before it and declined to rule on it; as to the other issues, the trial court found they were without merit and dismissed appellant’s complaint.

On this appeal, appellant again argues the Fifth Amendment issue. Because of our disposition of this appeal it is unnecessary to decide whether it is properly before this Court.

Disposition of this appeal was withheld pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Baxter v. Palmigiano,*510 F.2d 534 ist Cir. 1974), *cert.*granted, 421 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 44 L.Ed.2d 678 (1975), and *Clutchette v. Procunier,*497 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1974), *mod. in*510 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1975), *cert. granted sub nom. Enomoto v. Clutchette,*421 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 44 L.Ed.2d 678 (1975). Following consolidation of these cases, the Supreme Court held both that a prison inmate does not have a right either to appointed or retained counsel at prison disciplinary hearings that are not part of a criminal prosecution, and that an inmate’s decision to assert the Fifth Amendment and remain silent at a disciplinary hearing can be given adverse evidentiary significance. *Baxter v. Palmigiano,*-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810, 44 U.S.L.W. 4487 (1976).

This disposes of the major issues raised in this appeal. We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. § 1983 states:

> “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Amendment to Compensation Arrangement



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 March 4, 2005 
  
 Paul F. Rocheleau 
 9700 Cragmont Drive 
 Richmond, Virginia 23233 
  
 Dear Paul: 
  
 On May 8, 2002, Albemarle
Corporation provided you a letter agreement outlining the terms of your employment with the Company. Item 8 of that letter outlines the agreement regarding a Change of Control. Upon further review and discussion with the Executive Compensation
Committee, the Company would like to amend and replace the first sentence of Item 8 as follows: 
  
 “In the event a Change of Control were to occur and one or more of the following events happen with respect to your employment within a period of 24 months thereafter, you may resign and receive a lump sum
payment and other benefits as described below.” 
  
 This amendment is
effective as of March 4, 2005. By signing below, you acknowledge your acceptance of this amendment. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Jack P. Harsh


	 Jack P. Harsh

	 Vice President, Human Resources

	
	 /s/ Paul F. Rocheleau


	 Paul F. Rocheleau
#### Strout Realty, Inc., Respondent, v James Mechta, Appellant.

In an action for payment of a brokerage commission, *517the parties were directed to appear before this court to be heard on the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, against the defendant for his conduct in pursuing frivolous appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, both entered April 5,1989 *(see, Strout Realty v Mechta,*161 AD2d 630).

Upon the proceedings before this court on June 20, 1990, at which the parties were given an opportunity to be heard upon the issue of sanctions, it is

Ordered that James Mechta, the defendant *pro se,*is directed to pay $1,949 in costs and $2,000 sanctions, for a total of $3,949, to McCabe & Mack, the attorneys for the plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, for his conduct in pursuing frivolous appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), both entered April 5, 1989.

The contents of the aforesaid orders and the facts of the underlying action were set forth in our prior decision and order dated May 14, 1990 *(see, Strout Realty v Mechta, supra),*which dismissed the appeal from so much of one of the orders as granted the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to direct the defendant to appear for a further examination before trial and otherwise affirmed both orders insofar as appealed from. We concluded therein that "the defendant’s conduct in pursuing yet another appeal that so obviously lacks merit in either fact or law must be characterized as frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c)”. During the proceeding held on June 20, 1990, counsel for the plaintiff stated his firm made an expenditure in countering the instant frivolous appeal of $1,949. The defendant did not contest this figure. Accordingly, we direct that the defendant compensate the plaintiff’s attorneys for their costs in the amount of $1,949, and that he pay an additional $2,000 in sanctions, to deter such frivolous appeals in the future *(see, Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway,*76 NY2d 411). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of Republic Resources, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, (the
Report), I,  Robert A. Maczewski, Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1) |  | the
Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of 1934; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2) |  | the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
Companys financial position and results of operations.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By: /s/ Robert A. Maczewski
 Robert A. MaczewskiPrincipal Accounting Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November
14, 2003

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.13    
    


 
 

COMPENSATION TO OUTSIDE DIRECTORS    
    



	 
	 	2004
	 	2005

	Annual Retainer Fee:	 	$	10,000	 	$	25,000
	Annual Fee for Committee Chairmanships:	 	 	—	 	$	5,000
	Attendance for Board Meetings (includes telephonic attendance):	 	$	2,500	 	$	2,500
	Attendance by Committee Member at Committee Meeting (includes telephonic attendance):	 	$	1,000	 	$	1,000





All
reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses, which are incurred in connection with Board and Committee meetings will be reimbursed. 


In
addition, the Outside Directors will receive stock grants in the future. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.13


COMPENSATION TO OUTSIDE DIRECTORS
Compensation Arrangement Summary



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Summary of Compensation Arrangement between Agilent and William P. Sullivan 
  
 Effective March 1, 2005, William P. Sullivan was elected President, Chief
Executive Officer and a Director of Agilent. Mr. Sullivan is provided with the following compensation arrangement: (1) an annual base salary of $850,000; (2) a short-term target bonus of 80 percent of base salary which will increase to 100 percent
of base salary effective May 1, 2005; and (3) a total of 95,500 shares available under the long-term performance program and stock option grants totaling 149,000 shares. As President and Chief Executive Officer of Agilent, Mr. Sullivan is required
to attain an investment level in Agilent’s stock equal to five times annual salary, including direct ownership of at least 20,000 shares of Agilent stock. This stock ownership level must be attained five years from election to his position. Mr.
Sullivan’s employment is at-will.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Constantine, as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Respondent, v One 1980 Datsun et al., Defendants, and Steven L. Cook, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this forfeiture proceeding pursuant to Public Health Law § 3388, respondent Steven L. Cook, the owner of the seized 1980 Datsun bearing New York license plate No. 43017-GW, contends that this proceeding is criminal in nature and violates the Due Process Clauses and the proscriptions against double jeopardy contained in the New York State and United States Constitutions. The provisions of Public Health Law § 3388 both expressly and impliedly indicate that the New York State Legislature’s intent was to establish a civil penalty. Indeed, the Legislature specifically provided that proceedings instituted under this section were to conform as much as possible to the civil procedure for attachment *(see,*Public Health Law § 3388 [4]). Because the Legislature has expressed its intent to establish a civil penalty, this statute may be deemed criminal in nature only upon the clearest proof that the scheme is so punitive as to negate that intent *(see generally, United States v Ward,*448 US 242, 248-249). Here, although the forfeiture has obvious punitive aspects, the important remedial purposes of the statute establish its civil *867nature. These remedial purposes include stripping the drug trade of its instrumentalities, diminishing the probability of drug trafficking by increasing the costs and risks associated with it, and helping to finance and provide vehicles to support government efforts to combat drug trafficking. Given these broad remedial purposes, proof has not been presented to establish that this section is criminal in nature and, therefore, we conclude that this forfeiture statute is, as intended by the Legislature, civil in nature *(see generally, United States v Santoro,*866 F2d 1538, 1543-1544; *United States v D.K.G. Appaloosas,*829 F2d 532, *cert denied sub nom. One 1984 Lincoln Mark VII Two-Door v United States,*485 US 976; *United States v $2,500 in United States Currency,*689 F2d 10, *cert denied sub nom. Aponte v United States,*465 US 1099).

Because the forfeiture proceeding contained in Public Health Law § 3388 is civil in nature, the constitutional provisions regarding double jeopardy and proof beyond a reasonable doubt do not apply *(see generally, United States v One Assortment of 89 Firearms,*465 US 354; *United States v Santoro, supra; United States v D.K.G. Appaloosas, supra; United States v $250,000 in United States Currency,*808 F2d 895).

Respondent further contends that the court erred in failing to dismiss the petition because it was not commenced within 10 days of his demand for return of the vehicle. Since this forfeiture proceeding was commenced prior to and continued after respondent’s demand for return of the vehicle, it was timely *(see,*Public Health Law § 3388 [4]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Siracuse, J.—forfeiture.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
* 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

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30791

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR T. MITCHELL

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:04-CR-4-D-M1

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur T. Mitchell appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a

felon, arguing that it violates the Sixth Amendment rule

announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). After

briefing, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), extending to the Sentencing Guidelines the

Court’s Sixth Amendment holding in Blakely and rendering the

Guidelines advisory only. Mitchell’s Blakely objection in the

district court preserved the issue for appeal, and we review for
No. 04-30791

-2-

harmless error, which requires a showing beyond a reasonable

doubt that the district court would have imposed the same

sentence if it had been operating under an advisory guidelines

system. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th

Cir. 2005). 

Our review of the record convinces us that the error in this

case cannot be considered harmless. Although the district court

sentenced Mitchell to the maximum sentence authorized by the

then-mandatory guidelines range, that fact is insufficient,

standing alone, to satisfy the Government’s burden. See United

States v. Woods, F.3d , No. 04-11058, 2006 WL 163475 (5th

Cir. Jan. 24, 2005). The district court’s comments about the

defendant’s criminal history and the impact of his offense shed

no additional light on what the court would have done if the

Guidelines had been advisory; they may simply reflect why the

court believed the sentence was appropriate within the mandatory

guidelines framework. 

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.