alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2 y
; é
a
>
%G comn?

February 27, 2012
By First Class Mail

George Thurman, Principal Chief
Sac and Fox Nation

920883 S. Hwy. 99, Bldg. A
Stroud, OK 74079

Re: Sac and Fox Nation gaming ordinance
Dear Principal Chief Thurman:

This letter responds to your request for the National Indian Gaming Commission to
review and approve amendments enacted by Resolution SF-11-194. I hereby disapprove
the amended ordinance because it does not comply with NIGC regulations that
implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

Specifically, NIGC regulations require ordinance submissions to include updated Privacy
Act and False Statement notices as well as updated eligibility determinations to grant
gaming licenses. 25 C.F.R. §§ 522.2, 556.2, 556.3, 558.2. The Tribe’s existing ordinance
does not include the updated Privacy Act and False Statement notices or the updated
eligibility determination for granting gaming licenses, and the submitted ordinance
amendments do not comply with these regulations. Any new submission must satisfy the
requirements set forth in IGRA and NIGC regulations.

I note that the submitted amendments propose to change the Ordinance’s definition of
“Indian lands” to include “all lands acquired pursuant to the Constitution and Charters of
the Sax and Fox Nation lying within the boundaries described in the Sac and Fox
Allotment Act...” and also to include five specific parcels. Because my disapproval is
limited to the non-compliance of the submission with NIGC regulations as set forth
above, I do not reach the issue here of whether the amended Indian lands definition
complies with IGRA and NIGC regulations or whether the five specific parcels are Indian
lands eligible for gaming under IGRA. If the Sac and Fox Nation submits gaming
ordinance amendments that cure the deficiencies described above and amend the
Ordinance’s definition of Indian lands, the Office of General Counsel will coordinate
with the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor on whether the Indian lands
definition is permissible under IGRA and whether such lands are eligible for gaming
under IGRA.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.Gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


The Nation may appeal this disapproval under 25 C.F.R. § 524.1 within 30 days after
service of this letter by filing a written appeal with the NIGC. Such an appeal shall state
succinctly why the Nation believes the Chairman’s determination to be erroneous and
shall include supporting documentation, if any. 25 C.F.R. § 524.1. Please note that failure
to file an appeal within the 30-day period shall result in a waiver of the opportunity for an
appeal. /d.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Staff Attorney Dawn Sturdevant
Baum at 202-632-7003.

Sincerely,

SMienl

Tracie Stevens
Chairwoman
#### Mohamed POONJA, Trustee, petitioner, v. Jack TRAMIEL.

No. 10-914.

May 31, 2011.

Case below, *In re JTS Corp.,*617 F.3d 1102.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Document

Exhibit 10.6

SIXTH AMENDMENT
TO SECOND AMENDED & RESTATED CONSUMER FINANCING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Effective Date: March 11, 2022
WHEREAS, APX Group, Inc. (“Vivint” or “Company”) and Citizens Bank, N.A. (“Citizens” or “Supplier”, and together with Vivint, the “Parties”) entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Consumer Financing Services Agreement dated as of May 31, 2017 (as amended, the “Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, for valid and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1.Change of Reference Dates. Each of the five references to “February 15, 2022” in Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following new reference: “March 15, 2022 (or, if such 15th day of the month is not feasible due to cycle time, then on the next Business Day)”. 
 
2.Except as explicitly set forth in this Sixth Amendment, the Agreement is not amended or modified hereby. Section references used herein are to sections of the Agreement. Defined terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their names to be signed hereto by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above. 
									
	APX GROUP, INC.		CITIZENS BANK, N.A.

			
	/s/ Dale R. Gerard		/s/ Andrew Rostami

			
	Name: Dale R. Gerard		Name: Andrew Rostami

			
	Title:     CFO
		Title: President, Citizens Pay
97-640.

#### State ex rel. Lemasters v. Soulisby.

In Mandamus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Today, October 18th, I addressed Professor Paul DeBole’s talented

and insightful class of American Government students at Lasell

University. I was grateful for the chance to share my

experiences including the unique statutory responsibilities as

Chairman and the important policy objectives in the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act’s mission. Professor DeBole’s discussion

on Indian gaming was particularly timely, given it was 34 years

ago this week when the IGRA became law.

Our discussion covered a wide range of topics related to Indian

gaming and the federal-tribal relationship. In addition to

discussing Indian gaming’s regulatory framework, we discussed a

regulator’s role and the appropriate limits of his or her

responsibilities given the weight of statutory direction. A

healthy relationship with industry necessitates regulators carry

out goals and policies as law makers have articulated.

Class dialogue touched on emerging issues from a gaming

regulator’s perspective, like attention to critical event

response - growing in importance given long-standing statutory

expectations. We also discussed the central role a gaming

facility can play in a community, and how preparedness provides

a path forward to mitigate both an operation’s risk and to

protect industry-wide reputation.

I was impressed with the class’s attention to what makes parts

of Indian Country unique such as tribal relationships with

colonial governments and how each tribe’s history means a “one

size fits all” public policy solution will not always be the

best approach to achieve a fair federal Indian policy.

For the next generation of regulatory policy makers, higher

education opportunities are a valuable tool for advancing public

objectives in important industries like Indian gaming. I saw

that today in the students’ desires to prepare, to seek out

diverse professional experiences, and to maintain their core

values.

Thank you again Professor DeBole and your American Government

students at Lasell University.

###
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (09-053)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

June 16, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 483-4871; (281) 483-6936  [Facsimile]. 

*NASA Case No. MSC-24184-2:*                         Ultrawideband Asynchronous Tracking System and Method;                     

*NASA Case No. MSC-24466-1:*                         Battery System and Method for Sensing and Balancing the Charge State of Battery Cells;                     

*NASA Case No. MSC-23997-2:*                         Magnetic Capture Docking Mechanism;                     

*NASA Case No. MSC-24149-1:*                         Method and Apparatus for an Inflatable Shell.                     

Dated: June 10, 2009. 

Richard W. Sherman, 

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E9-14053 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael D. Dale, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ATS Medical, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors; a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          Date: May 7, 2008         /s/ Michael D. Dale       Name: Michael D. Dale  Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Council of the City of New York, Respondent, v Department of Homeless Services of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 6, 2013;

decided June 11, 2013

Motion to intervene denied.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on
pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,142,996
<SECURITIES>                                11,334,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                  329,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,121
<INVENTORY>                                    138,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,681,452
<PP&E>                                       6,337,781
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,052,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,427,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,302,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,333,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,427,970
<SALES>                                        735,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               735,625
<CGS>                                          482,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  482,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               642,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (488,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (793,688)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            305,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   305,105
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10

</TABLE>
#### Kimberly Mitchell Converse, Plaintiff, v Dole Food Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Leonard’s Express, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted March 25, 2013;

decided May 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### David L. GUTKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3259.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 25, 2006.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, *7for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30377

BAHRAM ZAMANIAN, Medical Doctor;

BAHRAM ZAMANIAN, M.D., 

 A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs–Appellants,

versus

JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 2,

 Jefferson Parish, State of Louisiana, 

 Doing Business as East Jefferson General Hospital,

Defendant−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:17-CV-1087

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

 

* 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

January 14, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30377 Document: 00514794518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
No. 18-30377

2

Bahram Zamanian sued the defendant hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

claiming violation of his federal and state due process rights and breach of contract when the hospital suspended his admitting privileges for an incident 

regarding a particular cardiology patient. The district court, under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed the due process claims for failure to 

state a claim. Zamanian then appealed only the state and federal due process 

claims.

The district court carefully explained its reasoning in a comprehensive 

order filed August 14, 2017. Among other things, the court pointed out that 

“[p]laintiff’s suspension was reviewed by two separate committees, a panel of 

physicians over a three-day hearing, and the hospital’s Board of Directors. He 

conducted discovery, presented and cross-examined witnesses, submitted affidavits, and gave his statement on the incident through writing and before the 

different committees/panels.” 

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant parts of

the record and have heard oral argument. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially on the basis of the district court’s analysis.

 Case: 18-30377 Document: 00514794518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 10
- 00142
- CV
RONALD LEE FINN , Appellant
v.
THE CITY OF WACO AND /OR WACO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL D ISTRICT , Appellee s

From the 170th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009
- 976
- 4

MEMORANDUM O PINION
A notice of appeal by Ronald Lee Finn was filed on April 12, 2010. Finn has not filed a docketing statement. Twice, the Clerk of this Court notified Finn by letter of the need to file a docketing statement. With the second notification, the Cle rk warned Finn that if the docketing statement was not filed within 21 days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed without further notification. More than 21 days have passed and Finn has not filed a docketing statement. Accordingly , this appeal is dismissed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(c).Finn v. City of Waco Page 2

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX
. R. A PP
. P ., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 5; 10 TH T EX
. A PP
. (W ACO ) L OC

. R. 5; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005); and § 51.208 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Under the circumstances, we use Rule 2 to suspend thi s requirement and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid fees in this proceeding. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2. Further, the write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed by the person against whom th ey are assessed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 28, 2010 [CV06]
#### American Transit Insurance Company, Appellant, v Pablo Leon et al., Defendants, and Stand-Up MRI of Bensonhurst, P.C., Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 875]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered March 26, 2013, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that plaintiff insurance company has no obligation to pay defendant Stand-Up MRI’s claims.

*442Plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting competent evidence that it mailed the notices scheduling the injured defendant’s independent medical examinations (IMEs) and that he failed to appear for the examinations *(see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas,*111 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2013]; *American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano,*108 AD3d 449, 449 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendant provider’s contention that plaintiff failed to prove the mailing of IME notices to the assignor’s attorney, absent competent proof in the record establishing that the assignor was represented by counsel with regard to the subject no-fault claim, is unavailing *(see Center for Orthopedic Surgery, LLP v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*31 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50473[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]).

Attendance at a medical examination is a condition of coverage. Accordingly, there is no requirement that the claim denial be timely made *(see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas,*111 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2013]; *Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC,*82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 705 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.