alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,479]


Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, NJ; 
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated October 5, 2010, by an Illinois State 
workforce official requested administrative reconsideration of the 
negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former 
workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New 
Jersey (subject firm). The determination was issued on August 27, 2010. 
The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56144). The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the supply of packaging and distribution 
services related to giftware products.
    The negative determination was based on the findings that the 
subject firm did not, during the period under investigation, shift to a 
foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive 
with the services performed by the workers or acquire these services 
from a foreign country; that the workers' separation, or threat of 
separation, was not related to any increase in imports of like or 
directly competitive services; and that the workers did not produce an 
article or supply a service that was directly used in the production of 
an article or the supply of service by a firm that employed a worker 
group that is eligible to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned 
article or service.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the 
petition was filed on behalf of a worker who worked within a separate 
department at a separate location and that the services performed by 
the aforementioned department and location have shifted to a foreign 
country.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

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

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-27385 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 9, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO ESCUDERO-JIMINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-4220

(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00462-CW-2)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal. 

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. See Fed. R. App. P. 27.3(A)(9). The appeal is 

DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. A certified copy of this order

shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-4220 Document: 01018380388 Date Filed: 03/09/2010 Page: 1
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 10, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARATHON OIL COMPANY, 

 Petitioner,

v.

J. C. HILL; ALICE HILL, 

 Respondents. 

 

No. 10-702

(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-00037-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before TACHA, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on a Petition for Permission to Appeal, filed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (f) by petitioner Marathon Oil Company. Petitioner

seeks permission to appeal from the district court’s order of June 9, 2010 

granting class certification. Respondents have filed an answer in opposition to

the petition. 

Upon consideration of the petition, the answer, and the file as a whole, the 

Appellate Case: 10-702 Document: 01018475154 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Page: 1 
2

petition for permission to appeal is denied. See Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F. 3d 

1259 (10th Cir. 2009). 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-702 Document: 01018475154 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Page: 2
Exhibit 99.2


Roger Desmarchelier                   Our ref  SGB00A-CustAgreedUpon991-R1008-
Executive Manager Securitisation
St. George Bank Limited               Contact  John Wellons 94559219
Level 11
55 Market Street
Sydney NSW  2000



4 August 2000


Dear Sir

Report of factual findings, of agreed-upon procedures performed on the
Securitised Loans

St. George Custodial Pty Ltd required an audit to be performed in
accordance with the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 1999 Custodian Agreement
(`Custodian Agreement').

Our engagement was undertaken in accordance with the basic principles and
general guidance set out in Australian Auditing Standard AUS 904
"Engagements to Perform Agreed-upon Procedures".


Procedures

In accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule 1 of the Custodian
Agreement (as specified in Appendix I), an audit of the custodial role with
respect to the Relevant Documents for Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 1999 was
performed. The following procedures were undertaken to perform the audit:

(a)     Through management inquiry and observation ensured adequate controls
        and procedures are in place to:

        (i)     segregate relevant documents from other mortgage title
                documents held by the Custodian; and

        (ii)    safeguard the relevant documents from being be removed or
                tampered with except with appropriate authorisation.

(b)     Through discussions with management ensured there is an appropriate
        security packet tracking system to identify:

        (i)     the relevant documents as separate and distinct  from other
                mortgage title documents held by the custodian; and

        (ii)    identify the location of the relevant documents at any time.

(c)     A random sample of 10 security packets was selected.  For each
        security pack in the sample we cited the following relevant
        documents:

        (i)     Mortgage Deed;

        (ii)    Certificate of Title; and

        (iii)   Loan application signed by the borrower, or loan contract
                signed by the borrower for loans originated on or after
                November 1996.

(d)     For each security pack in the sample we traced the pack's actual
        storage location to the location information contained on the system.

<PAGE>


Findings

No exceptions were noted for the procedures performed above.


Statement

Based on the results of the procedures performed in accordance with steps
(a) through (d), we grade the custodial performance of St. George Custodial
Pty Ltd as "Good."


Disclaimer

The foregoing procedures do not constitute an audit in accordance with
Australian Auditing Standards or a review made in accordance with Australian
Auditing Standard AUS 902 "Review of Financial Reports."

This letter is solely for the information of the addressee in connection
with the role of St. George Custodial Pty Ltd as custodian for Crusade
Global Trust No 1 of 1999. It is not to be used, circulated, quoted or
otherwise referred to, in whole or in part for any other purpose without
our written consent.



Yours faithfully



/s/  J. Teer

J. Teer
Partner
#### Leonard ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUDDOCK, Corr. Counselor, at Queensboro Correctional Facility, Tucker, Sr. Corr. Counselor, and Mitchell, Dr., Physician at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees,

Docket No. 02-248.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Leonard Alvarez, Patchogue, NY, pro se.

Melanie L. Oxhorn, Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: GRAAFEILAND, MCLAUGHLIN and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the District Court dated August 22, 2002 dismissing his claims invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In his complaint, plaintiff sought monetary damages for alleged violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) by defendant prison employees. Plaintiff alleged that defendants committed these violations by terminating him from a work-release program, transferring him from a minimum-security facility to a medium-security facility, and denying his request for cardiac physical therapy.

In a Memorandum and Order dated November 21, 2000, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), with the exception of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Mitchell, which the District Court denied without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, in order that the Court may have the benefit of affidavits establishing plaintiffs medical condition.

The District Court found that plaintiff failed to assert that he had a disability that “substantially limits one or more of the major life activities” for the purposes of the ADA. *See Alvarez v. Ruddock,*No. CV-99-5452 (ERK), at 4-6 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2000) (applying 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)). The Court further held under the Fourteenth Amendment that plaintiff had no right to challenge his transfer between prisons, and that he received adequate due process in conjunction with his removal from work release. *See id.*at 9-11. For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.

*145After further discovery, on August 20, 2002, the District Court issued a second Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Mitchell on plaintiffs § 1983 claim under the Eighth Amendment, holding that the submitted affidavits established that “plaintiffs need for therapy was not sufficiently serious to support a 1983 cause of action.” *Alvarez v. Ruddock,*No. CV-99-5452 (ERK), at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2002). For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that summary judgment should be granted in favor of defendant Mitchell.

We have considered all of the plaintiffs arguments. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 10.41
 (LINKBIT LOGO)
    
    Linkbit, Inc.
3180 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 200
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Ph.: 1.408.969.9940,
Fax:1.408.273.6009
www.linkbit.com
 LINKBIT INC. LIMITED LICENSE AGREEMENT
 LIMITED LICENSED MATERIALS LICENSE AGREEMENT 14th day of December, 2007
 RECITALS
 WHEREAS
  WHEREAS
   NOW THEREFORE
 AGREEMENT
 1. DEFINITIONS
 Delivery Date
 Intellectual Property Rights
 Licensee Products
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Party
 Licensed Materials
 Technology
 2. LICENSE TO USE
 2.1 Terms and Conditions of Grant of License
 (a) License Grant . Subject to the obligation to make complete payment of the fees due
hereunder,
 (b) Limitations on Sublicensing .
 (c) Limitations of License Grant .
 (d) Linkbit Property
 (e) Licensee Property.
 2.2 Delivery.
 - 2 -




---



##### 



2.3 Acceptance.
 3. PAYMENT & FEES
  4. LICENSE IN PERPETUITY
  5. WARRANTIES
 5.1 Power and Authority .
 5.2 Proprietary Rights
 (a)
 (b)
 5.3 Disclaimer of Other Warranties.
 6. INDEMNIFICATION
  - 3 -




---



##### 



7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
 7.1 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
 7.2 Reliance on Disclaimer, Liability Limitations. and
 8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND EFFECTS OF TERMINATION
 8.1 Confidential Information.
 (a) Non-Disclosure Obligations.
 (b) Exceptions. not
 - 4 -




---



##### 



8.2 Return of Confidential Information
 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
 9.1 Relationship of Parties.
 9.2 Severability.
 9.3 Headings.
 9.4 No Waiver of Rights.
 9.5 Drafting.
 9.6 Export Law Assurances
 9.7 Force Majeure but
 9.8 Amendment.
 9.9 Assignment.
 - 5 -




---



##### 



9.10 Notices.
 9.11 Entire Agreement.
 9.12 Priority in Case of Conflict.
 9.13 Governing Law and Jurisdiction.
 9.14 Attorneys Fees.
 9.15 Knowing Consent and Authority to Consent.
  Sonicwall, Inc.
    
    
    
    Linkbit Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Matt Medeiros
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael SukharName:
    
    Matt Medeiros
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Michael SukharTitle:
    
    President and CEO
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    PresidentDate:
    
    December 14, 2007
    
    
    
    Date:
    
    December 14, 2007
 End of Linkbit Limited Licensed Materials License Agreement
 Rev. 11/27/07
    
    PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIALRev. 12/11/07
  - 6 -




---



##### 



Exhibit A:
 Licensed Materials
  Hardware:
    Software (Firmware, DSP, Driver):
   Licensed Materials  Detail:
  - 7 -
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2026

To improve consumer awareness of motor vehicle safety. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2004

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To improve consumer awareness of motor vehicle safety.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Vehicle 

5 Safety Awareness Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION DIS7 CLOSURE ACT. 

8 (a) SAFETY LABELING REQUIREMENT.—Section 3 of 

9 the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 

10 1232) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(g) if a safety rating for such automobile has been 

12 assigned and formally published by the National Highway 
2

•S 2026 IS 

1 Safety Administration under the New Car Assessment 

2 Program for at least 60 days prior to the delivery or intro3 duction date of the automobile, the safety rating assigned 

4 to such automobile, displayed in text or graphics that— 

5 ‘‘(1) include, as applicable— 

6 ‘‘(A) a graphic depiction of the number of 

7 stars that corresponds to such safety rating dis8 played in a bright color clearly differentiated 

9 from stars indicating the unattained safety rat10 ing; 

11 ‘‘(B) a statement that the automobile has 

12 been assigned a safety rating of zero stars in 

13 text of similar size and in the same location as 

14 the stars would otherwise have been depicted; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(C) a statement explaining that multiple 

17 safety ratings have been assigned and listing 

18 such ratings; 

19 ‘‘(2) cover at least 8 percent of the total area 

20 of the label; and 

21 ‘‘(3) contain a heading titled ‘Government Safe22 ty Information’ and a disclaimer including the fol23 lowing text: ‘Star ratings can be compared between 

24 vehicles of similar size and weight. For more infor-
3

•S 2026 IS 

1 mation on safety and testing, please visit http://

2 www.nhtsa.dot.gov’; and 

3 ‘‘(h) if no safety rating has been assigned to such 

4 automobile by the National Highway Safety Administra5 tion under the New Car Assessment Program, a statement 

6 to that effect.’’. 

7 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than January 1, 2006, 

8 the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations 

9 to implement the labeling requirements added pursuant to 

10 subsection (a). 

11 (c) CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

12 Section 3 of such Act is further amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

14 the semicolon; and 

15 (2) in subsection (f)— 

16 (A) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of para17 graph (3); and 

18 (B) by striking the period at the end and 

19 inserting a semicolon. 

20 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 subsection (a) and subsection (c) shall take effect on Jan22 uary 1, 2006.

Æ
# GEMINI-TITAN (GT)-V – INSERTION (PRIME CREW) – CAPE

S65-28750 (21 Aug. 1965) --- Astronauts L. Gordon Cooper Jr. (left) and Charles Conrad Jr. are seen in the Gemini-5 spacecraft in the white room at Pad 19 just after insertion.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s65-28750/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenAugust 21, 1965ProducerJSCImage CreditNASASize1920x1288pxPIA Numbers65-28750The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 05, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27653]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES AND TIMES: Thursday, November 11, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.; and 
Friday, November 12, at 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: Thursday, November 11 at 10:30 a.m.--Closed; Friday, November 
12 at 8:30 a.m.--Open; and at 11:30 a.m.--Closed

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Thursday, November 11 at 10:30 a.m. (Closed)

1. Strategic Issues
2. Financial Matters
3. Pricing
4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues
5. Governors' Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items and 
Board Governance

Friday, November 12 at 8:30 a.m. (Open)

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings
2. Remarks of the Chairman of the Board
3. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO
4. Committee Reports
5. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2010 10K, Financial Statements, and 
Postal Service Annual Report
6. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2011 Integrated Financial Plan
7. Consideration of Final Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriation Request
8. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2010 Comprehensive Statement and Annual 
Performance Plan
9. Quarterly Report on Service Performance
10. Tentative Agenda for the December 6-7, 2010, meeting in Washington, 
DC
11. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors

Friday, November 12 at 11:30 a.m. (Closed--if needed)

1. Continuation of Thursday's closed session agenda

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27653 Filed 10-28-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131099 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SAM M. ELLEHAF, a/k/a HUSSEIN M. Stephen J. Markman, ELLEHAF, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131099 

 COA: 257222 
 Wayne CC: 03-321421-DC

FAYE HASSAN TARRAF,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1887 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1887

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation 
 on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in 
                            group practices.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE 30-PATIENT LIMIT FOR GROUP PRACTICES.

    Section 303(g)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. 
823(g)(2)(B)) is amended by striking clause (iv).

            Passed the Senate June 7, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1887

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation 
 on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in 
                            group practices.
```