alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42880 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Notices 

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

David Motl, 

Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19316 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Public Availability of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 

Service Contract Inventory Report and 

FY 2016 Service Contract Proposed 

Analysis 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice of public availability of 

the FY 2015 Service Contract 

Inventories. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

743 of Division C of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2010, Department 

of Veterans Affairs is publishing this 

notice to advise the public of the 

availability of the FY 2015 Service 

Contract Inventory Analysis Report and 

FY 2016 proposed analysis. The FY 

2015 analysis report discusses the 

methodology, analysis, and special 

interest functions studied from the FY 

2015 inventory, as well actions, planned 

and taken, to address any identified 

weaknesses or challenges. The 

inventory information is organized by 

function to show how contracted 

resources are distributed throughout the 

agency. The report and inventory were 

developed in accordance with guidance 

issued on November 5, 2010, and 

updated on December 19, 2011, by the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP). OFPP’s guidance is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

procurement-service-contractinventories. The Department of Veterans 

Affairs has posted the report, inventory, 

and a summary of the inventory on the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Office 

of Procurement Policy Web site at the 

following link: www.va.gov/oal/ 

business/pps/scaInventory.asp. This 

information is also publicly available at 

www.acquisition.gov/service-contractinventory, where the government-wide 

inventory can be filtered to display the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

inventory data. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions regarding the service contract 

inventory should be directed to Dr. 

Sheila Darrell, Director of Procurement 

Policy and Warrant Management 

Service, in the Office of Acquisition and 

Logistics (OA&L) Policy Division 

(003A2A) at (202) 632–5261 or 

Sheila.Darrell@VA.gov. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina 

S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on June 15, 

2017, for publication. 

Dated: June 15, 2017. 

Jeffrey Martin, 

Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation 

Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19228 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certificate of
Principal Executive Officer pursuant to section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Shelby W. Bonnie, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of CNET Networks, certify 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
               15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: May 3, 2005/s/Shelby W. Bonnie
Shelby W. Bonnie Chairman
of the Board and     Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and will be retained
by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A.(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Andrea Guerra, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),that:

 

1.             The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:                                    | /s/ ANDREA  GUERRA       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                                   | Andrea Guerra            |
|   |                                   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                                   |                     |
|   |                                   |                     |
|   | Dated:  April 29,  2010 |

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
SCWC-30239

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

JANE DOE,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs.

JOHN DOE, 

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30239; FC-D NO. 06-1-337K)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Jane Doe’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on October 17, 2011, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 22, 2011.

Michael S. Zola for

petitioner/plaintiff/appellant/

cross-appellee on the

application

William C. Darrah and Peter Van

Name Esser for respondent/

defendant-appellee/crossappellant on the response

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-30239

22-NOV-2011

09:46 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LENNE LARUE, III,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 515 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 26th day of October, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
#### Robb M. HARKSEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. T. PEASE, Mailroom Officer; D.A. Braxton; S. Shortridge, Operations Officer; R.A. Young, Regional Director; L. Huffman, Regional Director; S. Mullins, Treatment Program Supervisor; S. Bunch, Mailroom Officer; J. Armentrout, Assistant Warden Operations; G. Deel; T. Hale, Corrections Officer; T. Woods, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6015.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2008.

Decided: June 27, 2008.

Robb M. Harksen, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) *293motion. Harksen asserted, *inter alia,*that he was denied free or gift publications in violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prison regulation banning receipt of free or gift publications was constitutional. However, the case on which the district court relied to reach that conclusion was reversed on appeal. *See Zimmerman v. Simmons,*260 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D.Kan.2003) (applying four-part test in *Turner v. Safley,*482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), and concluding that regulation banning receipt of gift publications was constitutional), *rev’d sub nom. Jacklovich v. Simmons,*392 F.3d 420, 428-32 (10th Cir.2004) (finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding behavior management and security rationales proffered by defendants in support of policy denying access to publications and to remaining *Turner*factors); *see also Prison Legal News v. Lehman,*397 F.3d 692, 698-701 (9th Cir.2005) (applying *Turner*and holding that ban on nonsubscription bulk mail and catalogs requested by inmate was unconstitutional). Although we express no view on the merits, we conclude that it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s summary dismissal of Harksen’s First Amendment claims regarding receipt of free or gift publications. On remand the district court should consider the state’s justification for its regulation and resolve any factual issues relevant to the merits of Harksen’s claims.

With regard to Harksen’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm those claims for the reasons stated by the district court. *Harksen v. Braxton,*No. 7:04-cv-00243 (W.D.Va. Nov. 9, 2004; Dec. 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.*
#### Alex Feinman vs. New Bedford Division of the District Court Department & others.1

May 15, 2006.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

*Practice, Civil,*Relief in the nature of certiorari.

Superintendence of inferior courts.

*1017*Alex Feinman,*pro se.

1

Three judges of that court, the clerk-magis te, the first assistant clerk, two assistant *1017clerks, and two assistant district attorneys.

The petitioner appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his “Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and to Invoke the General Superintendence of the Court.” See G. L. c. 249, § 4; G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In the county court, the petitioner claimed that, in connection with criminal trespass and credit card fraud charges brought against him in the New Bedford District Court, certain judges and other court employees, police officers, prosecutors, and others conspired to deprive him of fair treatment in the court, resulting in (among other things) an unlawful conviction of trespassing. He requested reversal of his conviction or a new trial in another jurisdiction, and that the New Bedford District Court be “investigate[d]” and “re-organize[d].”2

With regard to the petitioner’s challenge to his trespassing conviction, he could have pursued such a challenge through a direct appeal, and so review pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, or G. L. c. 211, § 3, was unwarranted. See *Diggs*v. *Commonwealth,*439 Mass. 1006, 1006-1007 (2003), and cases cited (relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be sought as substitute for normal appellate review); *Picciotto*v. *Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court,*437 Mass. 1019, 1020 (2002) (“certiorari does not provide an additional or alternative avenue of appellate review”). As for his declarations that corruption has infected the workings of the New Bedford District Court, requiring that the court be “investigated” and “reorganzied,” the relief sought by the petitioner is not supported by the record. See *Callahan*v. *Eastern Bank & Trust Co.,*437 Mass. 1020, 1021 (2002) (where petitioner failed to substantiate claims of conspiracy, fraud, and bad faith, relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, properly denied); *Pandey*v. *Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t,*412 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992) (where court found nothing in record to support claim of judicial bias, relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, properly denied). Accordingly, the single justice neither abused her discretion nor otherwise erred.

*Judgment affirmed.*

2

We do not consider other issues that the petitioner raises for the first time in his brief on appeal. See *Milton*v. *Boston, 427*Mass. 1016, 1017 (1998), and cases cited.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4848



# 
A NTHONY J EROMET RAPP ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-119-F) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kimberly A. Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Anthony Jerome Trapp appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-fourmonths’ imprisonment. Trapp’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds forappeal. Trapp was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.Trapp claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a twenty-four month sentence because it exceeded the recommended sentencing range of six to twelve months set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 7B1.4(a) (2000). Wereview the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Based on our review of the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Trapp to the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. The sentencingranges contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines are "nonbinding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." Davis , 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States v. Holmes , F.3d ___, 2002 WL 441198, *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2002). As required by Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served 2 U NITED S TATES v. T RAPPon the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3 U NITED S TATES v. T RAPP
#### EVERETT v. HAULENBEEK et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

September 24, 1896.)

Costs — Who Liable for.

Where a defendant by contesting tbe complainant’s claim makes a master’s services necessary, and sucb defendant is defeated, be must pay tbe fees of tbe master.

*13This was a motion by William *W.*Everett, complainant, to compel the payment of master’s fees by John W. Haulenbeelc, defendant. The accounting in this case was contested only by the defendant Haulenbeek. The master found in favor of the complainant. At the time of the rendition of the master’s report, there was due him for fees $325, which he apportioned, $175 to complainant, and $150 to defendant. Complainant refused to pay the balance due, on the ground that ihe charges should he paid by the defeated party. Defendant stated no reason for his failure to pay the same, except lack of funds.

Thomas Cooper Byrnes, John Hunter, Jr., and Walter D. Edmonds, for the motion.

Samuel G. Adams, opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The master’s fees are hereby taxed at $500. Since he has been paid $175, it only remains for the court to indicate who shall pay the balance of his compensation, $325. The defendant II., by contesting complainant’s claim, made it necessary to call upon the master to render these services; and, since he is the defeated party, he should pay them. An older directing such payment will be made. Any question as to defendant’s pecuniary condi tion may be considered upon any future motion to enforce such order. They are not properly raised upon this motion.
Exhibit 10.17





FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE


TEXAS
EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC


2005
PHANTOM UNIT PLAN




WHEREAS, Texas Eastern
Products Pipeline Company, LLC (“TEPPCO”) maintains the Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC 2005 Phantom Unit Plan (the “Plan”); and




WHEREAS,the Plan has been in
operational compliance with Section 409A and the applicable regulatory guidance
thereunder; and




WHEREAS, TEPPCO has determined
that the Plan should be amended to be in documentary compliance with Section
409A and the applicable regulatory guidance thereunder; and




WHEREAS, the transition rules
of Section 409A provide that TEPPCO has the right to amend the Plan until
December 31, 2008 in order to remain in compliance with Section 409A;
and




WHEREAS, Article VIII of the
Plan grants the Board the right to amend the Plan from time to
time.




NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective January 1,
2009:




1.           Article
V of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety by revising Section 5.1 and
deleting Sections 5.2 and 5.3 to read as follows:




“ARTICLE V. UNIT DISTRIBUTION
EQUIVALENT PAYMENTS





5.1  Quarterly Unit
Distribution Equivalent Payments.  Each time quarterly cash
distributions are paid to Unit owners and no later than 60 days after such
quarterly cash distributions are made, TEPPCO shall pay to each Grantee, if
Grantee is then an Employee, in cash, an amount equal to the product of the
number of Phantom Units then credited to the Grantee’s Account and the amount of
the cash distribution paid per Unit by the Partnership.  A Grantee
shall have no legally binding right to receive any payment pursuant to this
Section 5.1 until the date on which the applicable quarterly cash distributions
to Unit holders are paid to Unit holders.”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF,TEPPCO has
executed this Amendment in its corporate name and its corporate seal to be
hereunto fixed the 15th day of
December, 2008.












TEXAS
      EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC/s/
      Jerry E.
      ThompsonJerry E.
      ThompsonTPPL CEO
      & President
#### In re Jeffrey PROSSER, Debtor. Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P.; Greenlight Capital, L.P.; Greenlight Capital Offshore, Ltd., Appellants.

No. 08-3894.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 1, 2009.

Opinion filed: July 23, 2010.

Robert F. Craig, Esq., Omaha, NE, Alex M. Moskowitz, Esq., A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq., A.J. Weiss & Associates, St. Thomas, VI, for Debtor.

Richard H. Dollison, Esq., Stryker, Duensing, Casner *&*Dollison, St. Thomas, VI, Gregg M. Galardi, Esq., Angela M. Pappas, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher *&*Flom, Wilmington, DE, for Appellants.

Before: McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge, FUENTES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge.

Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P., Greenlight Capital, L.P., and Greenlight Capital Offshore, Ltd. (collectively “Green-light”) appeal an order of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying Greenlight’s objection to a proof of claim filed by Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (“BPPR”).1

Inasmuch as the district court recited the factual background to this dispute in its Memorandum Opinion, we find it unnecessary to repeat that background here. *See In re Prosser,*2008 WL 3979476 (D.Vi. Aug.22, 2008). The gist of Greenlight’s argument here is that, pursuant to V.I. CODE ANN. Title 9, § 39(c),2 stock in the Virgin Islands Community Bank (“VICB”) owned by Jeffrey Prosser, the debtor and a director of the VICB, was non-transfer-rable and therefore could not be held as collateral for BPPR’s loan to Prosser. We disagree. As the district court noted, Section 39(c) speaks only to the qualification and regulation of bank directors. *Id.*at *102*3. Thus, the district court correctly held that “[n]othing in that section prevents the shareholder from using the stock as collateral to secure a loan.” *Id.*at *2.

Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration.

1

. “An order allowing or disallowing a claim is a final, appealable order." *Orsini Santos v. Mender,*349 B.R. 762, 768 (1st Cir.BAP2006) (citing *In re Perry,*391 F.3d 282, 285 (1st Cir.2004)).

2

. V.I. CODE ANN. Title 9, § 39(c) provides: "At least one-third of the total number of directors shall be bona fide residents of the United States Virgin Islands, and all shall be at least 21 years of age, and shall hold shares of the bank, subscribed in their name, of a par value of not less than $1,000 which shares shall be deposited in the bank while the said directors discharge their offices.”