alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21239]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 20

[MB Docket No 11-43; Report No. 3081]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Rick Chessen, on behalf of 
NCTA-The Internet & Television Association.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before October 
18, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before October 
30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle Elder, Media Bureau, at (202) 
418-2365 or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd1e4f1f8b3d8f1f9f8efdddbdedeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf83b6a3aae18aa3abaabd8f898c8ce1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3081, released September 21, 2017. The full text 
of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC 
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant 
to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the 
Commission.
    Subject: Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, FCC 17-88, 
published at 82 FR 37345, August 10, 2017, in MB Docket No. 11-43. This 
document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 
CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21239 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each of the undersigned directors and officers of TEAM Mucho, Inc. (the
"Corporation") whose signature appears below hereby appoints S. Cash Nickerson
or Jay R. Strauss, or either of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact to sign, in
his or her name and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and to
cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Corporation's
Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report") for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2001, and likewise to sign and file any amendments, including
post-effective amendments, to the Annual Report, hereby granting unto such
attorneys and each of them full power and authority to do and perform in the
name and on behalf of the undersigned, and in any and all such capacities, every
act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully
as the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to such
attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying
all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of
Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 28, 2002.



         SIGNATURE                       TITLE

  /s/ S. Cash Nickerson          Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
-----------------------------
  S. Cash Nickerson



  /s/ Jose Blanco                Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director
-----------------------------
  Jose Blanco



  /s/ Jay R. Strauss             Chief Legal Officer, Vice President, Secretary
-----------------------------    and Director
  Jay R. Strauss



  /s/ Andrew Johnson             Chief Accounting Officer
-----------------------------
  Andrew Johnson



  /s/ Kevin T. Costello          Director
-----------------------------
  Kevin T. Costello



  /s/ Crystal Faulkner           Director
-----------------------------
  Crystal Faulkner



  /s/ Daniel J. Jessee           Director
-----------------------------
  Daniel J. Jessee



  /s/ William W. Johnston        Director
-----------------------------
  William W. Johnston



  /s/ Joseph R. Mancuso          Director
-----------------------------
  Joseph R. Mancuso



  /s/ Robert G. Mccreary, III    Director
-----------------------------
  Robert G. McCreary, III



  /s/ James D. Robbins           Director
-----------------------------
  James D. Robbins



  /s/ Michael H. Thomas          Director
-----------------------------
  Michael H. Thomas
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40195

Summary Calendar 

__________________

CECIL LEE RUSSELL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. KEITH PRICE, Warden; LANGSTON 

C. JOHNSON, Sergeant; UP; TDCJ-ID,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:95-CV-162

- - - - - - - - - -

July 19, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cecil Lee Russell (Texas prisoner #472051) appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights suit for the failure to pay a prior

district court sanction. We have reviewed the record and

Russell's contentions, and we find no abuse of discretion. 

Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990). The

dismissal is AFFIRMED.

We caution Russell that any frivolous appeals filed by him

or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Russell is further cautioned to review any 
No. 96-40195

-2-

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court.

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS

#### Larry J. Vaillancourt v. Bruce Paton and Richard W. Giles

June 18, 1986

Case No. (Law) 10565-WS

By JUDGE J. WARREN STEPHENS

On this day came the parties by counsel on pleas to the statute of limitations filed on behalf of the defendants.

The record reflects that the motion for judgment was filed with the clerk on January 10, 1986, at 7:39 p.m. and that the hours when the office of the clerk is ordinarily open for business are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and plaintiff’s counsel did not suggest that the office of the clerk was not open for normal business that day because of inclement weather or other condition requiring early closing of said office.

The court concludes (1) that the cause of action accrued on January 10, 1984, (2) that provisions of Section 8.01-243 of the Code and § 1-13.3 of the Code require that the action be commenced on January 10, 1986, (3) that relying on the decision in *Brumley*v. *Grimstead,*170 Va. 340 (1938), said action must be filed during normal business hours, and (4) that filing of the motion for judgment on January 10, 1986, at 7:39 p.m. was not timely.

Accordingly, the pleas to the statute of limitations are sustained and the action of the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice to the plaintiff, to all of which actions of the court the plaintiff excepted.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3038 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3038

   To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
    Homeland Security to approve applications submitted by airport 
operators for participation in the security screening opt-out program, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2011

 Mr. Marchant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
    Homeland Security to approve applications submitted by airport 
operators for participation in the security screening opt-out program, 
                        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. SECURITY SCREENING OPT-OUT PROGRAM.

    Section 44920(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``may approve'' and inserting ``shall approve''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
BioSource International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement (No.
333-91838)  on Form S-8 of  BioSource  International,  Inc. of our report  dated
February 18, 2002, with respect to the consolidated  balance sheets of BioSource
International,  Inc. and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related  consolidated   statements  of  operations,   stockholders'  equity  and
comprehensive  income  (loss)  and  cash  flows  for  each of the  years  in the
three-year  period ended December 31, 2001 and the related  financial  statement
schedule,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2001 annual  report on Form
10-K of BioSource International, Inc.




Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2002
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of Registrant



|                                       |  |                 |   |  |                                      
|-------------------------------------- |  | --------------- | - |  | -------------------------------------
|                                       |  | PercentageOwned |   |  | Jurisdiction or Stateof Incorporation
|Subsidiaries                           |  |                 |   |  |                                      
|                                       |  |                
|Union Financial Statutory Trust I      |  | 100             | % |  | Connecticut                          
|                                       |  |                
|Provident Community Bank               |  | 100             | % |  | United States                        
|                                       |  |                
|Provident Financial Services, Inc. (1) |  | 100             | % |  | South Carolina                       

---

|(1) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Provident Community Bank.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,388)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,321
<PP&E>                                          36,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,061)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,304
<BONDS>                                        114,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           43,437
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         6,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   (115,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,063
<SALES>                                         11,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,355
<CGS>                                            9,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,763)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,763)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Joinder Agreement, dated as of April 6, 2018, by Signature Bank


 Exhibit 10.3 

EXECUTION COPY 
 JOINDER
AGREEMENT 
 JOINDER AGREEMENT dated as of April 6, 2018 by Signature Bank (the “Assuming Lender”) in
favor of Goldman Sachs Middle Market Lending Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), and SunTrust Bank, as administrative agent under the Credit Agreement referred to below (in such capacity, together with its successors in
such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”). 
 The Borrower, the Lenders from time to time party thereto
and the Administrative Agent are parties to a Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of September 11, 2017 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”).

 Pursuant to Section 2.08(e) of the Credit Agreement, the Assuming Lender hereby agrees to (and
does hereby) become a “Lender” under and for all purposes of the Credit Agreement with a Multicurrency Commitment equal to $50,000,000. Without limiting the foregoing, the Assuming Lender hereby agrees to be bound by and comply with all of
the terms and provisions of the Credit Agreement applicable to it as a “Lender” thereunder. 
 Sections 9.06, 9.09
and 9.10 of the Credit Agreement apply to this Joinder Agreement mutatis mutandis. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Assuming Lender has caused this Joinder Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written. 






 SIGNATURE BANK, 
 as
Assuming Lender 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jason A. Birnbaum



			
	 Name: Jason A. Birnbaum

	
Title: Group Director – Senior Vice President








 Accepted and agreed: 
  

			
	 GOLDMAN SACHS MIDDLE MARKET

	 LENDING CORP.,

	 as Borrower



			
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jonathan Lamm

	 Name: Jonathan Lamm

	 Title: Authorized Signatory









			
	 SUNTRUST BANK,

	 as Administrative Agent and an Issuing Bank

 



			
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Doug Kennedy

	 Name: Doug Kennedy

	 Title: Director









			
	 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

	 as an Issuing Bank

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robin Noret

	 Name: Robin Noret

	 Title: Vice President
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Shereen P. Jones, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and InvestmentOfficer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boykin LodgingCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 5, 2004     By: /s/ Shereen P. Jones Shereen P. Jones Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Investment Officer
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Compuware Corporation; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Joseph R. Angileri  |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| Joseph R. Angileri      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| July 29, 2013           |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent McCollum, Appellant.

[863 NYS2d 699]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered July 19, 2006, convicting him of rape in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s right to a review of his contentions on appeal was forfeited by his plea of guilty *(see People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1, 5-6 [1985]; *People v Silent,*37 AD3d 625 [2007]). Further, a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal precludes review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of the plea *(see People v Perez,*51 AD3d 1043 [2008]; *People v Dixon,*41 AD3d 861 [2007]). Here, the defendant does not claim that the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel affected the voluntariness of his plea. Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### George W. Chirkinian v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. and Lauren Early

January 12, 1987

Case No. LH-1018-4

By JUDGE MELVIN R. HUGHES, JR.

This case [was] tried to a jury for two days on September 16 and 17, 1986. After the jury returned its verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $100,000.00 the Court took defendants' post trial motions under advisement and provided for a briefing schedule.

A jury verdict ought not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without credible evidence to support it, § 8.01-430, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. In considering such questions, the Court should not attempt to substitute its judgment for that of the jury's. It is the jury's function to reconcile discrepancies and conflicts in the evidence when it is subject to logical interpretation. *Raisovich v.*Giddings, 214 Va. 485 (1974).

The case revolves around what the jury found to be a defamatory statement concerning plaintiff, a chiropractor, made by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's claims adjuster in a conversation she had with plaintiff's patient.

Of the issues presented, the one on damages is dispositive.

The jury's verdict as to liability is based on sufficient evidence on proper instructions.

Plaintiff testified he was angered and upset for a month or so and he was ashamed and embarrassed, but *297it was difficult for him to tell how the statement affected him. There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered physical manifestations or required or sought medical treatment resulting from distress, humiliation or embarrassment. The evidence was that plaintiff suffered no loss of business, and that since the incident his business has grown and his professional standing has enhanced. What effect the statement had on Collins and his three relatives, the only persons who heard about it, was passing, certainly as to Collins as he continued his medical contacts with plaintiff well after the statement

The amount of the award is vastly disproportionate to the loss sustained and is therefore excessive as a nutter of law, *The Gazette*v. Harris, 229 Va. 1, 47-48 (1985). It appears the jury either misconceived or misconstrued the facts or the law in the case such that defendant is entitled to have the plaintiff put on terms to accept a remittitur or face a new trial on the issue of damages, Section 8.01-383.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, *Edmiston v. Kupsenel,*205 Va. 198, 202 (1964), *Rawle*v. *McIlhenny,*163 Va. 735, 744 (1934).

Accordingly, I have this day entered an order requiring plaintiff to remit $65,000 of the verdict award which he may accept under protest or else submit to a new trial on the single issue of damages. Counsel for the plaintiff shall advise the Court of plaintiff's position within ten days of January 13, 1987.