alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §62. Export trade and antitrust legislation

Nothing contained in the Sherman Act [15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] shall be construed as declaring to be illegal an association entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade and actually engaged solely in such export trade, or an agreement made or act done in the course of export trade by such association, provided such association, agreement, or act is not in restraint of trade within the United States, and is not in restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor of such association: Provided, That such association does not, either in the United States or elsewhere, enter into any agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or do any act which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition within the United States or otherwise restrains trade therein.

(Apr. 10, 1918, ch. 50, §2, 40 Stat. 517.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Sherman Act [15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.]" substituted in text for "Act entitled 'An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety" on authority of the enacting clause of that Act set out as a Short Title note under section 1 of this title.
### §5528. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–329, title I, §105(q), Jan. 6, 2017, 130 Stat. 2984

Section, Pub. L. 102–194, title II, §208, Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 110–69, title III, §3002(c)(6), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 587, related to findings and annual reports for fostering United States competitiveness in high-performance computing and related activities.
#### Emily Wipper, Appellant, v Hobart and William Smith College et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[823 NYS2d 721]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (James R. Harvey, A.J.), entered June 28, 2005. The order denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
# C_2013063EN.01001503.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Hermine Sax v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-538/11) (1)

1

2013/C 63/27

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12996-12997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5376]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Cyber Review of Phase II Centers for Chemical Innovation 
(CCI), 2011 Awardees by NSF Division of Chemistry (CHE), 
<greek-i>1191.
    Dates and Times:

March 31, 2011; 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
April 1, 2011; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
April 2, 2011; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Beckman Conference Center, 100 Academy Way, Irvine, CA 
92617.
    Type of Meeting: Part-open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Robert Kuczkowski, Program Director, 
Chemistry Centers Program, Division of Chemistry, Room 1055, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone (703) 292-4454.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning Phase II progress.
    Agenda:

Thursday, March 31, 2011

8 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Closed--Panel Briefing and Discussion.
9:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m. Open--Presentation: Center for Molecular 
Interfacing.
11:30 a.m.-12:15 a.m. Open--Post presentations.

[[Page 12997]]

12:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Closed--Panel/Lunch and Discussion.
1:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Open--Panel wrap-up presentation and Q&A.
2:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Closed--Panel Discussion.

Friday, April 1, 2011

8 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Closed--Panel Discussion.
8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open--Presentation: Center for Green Materials 
Chemistry.
10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Open--Post Presentation.
11:30 a.m.-12:45 p.m. Closed--Panel/Lunch and Discussion.
1 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Open--Panel wrap-up presentation and Q&A.
2:15 p.m.-5 p.m. Closed--Panel Discussion.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

8 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Closed--Panel Briefing and Discussion.
8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open--Presentation: Center for Chemistry of The 
Universe.
10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Open--Poster Presentations.
11:30 a.m.-12:45 p.m. Closed--Panel/Lunch and Discussion.
1 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Open--Panel wrap-up presentation and Q&A.
2:15 p.m.-5 p.m. Closed--Panel Discussion.

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.


    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-5376 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 31.bI, Marc Teal, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit 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)) 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) 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 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover 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 (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (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:    July 16, 2007 /s/ Marc N. Teal   Marc N. Teal   Principal Financial Officer
# C_2013225EN.01004101.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/41

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend

(Case C-413/11) (1)

1

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight - Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)

2013/C 225/69

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Thomas Amend

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(a) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Limits of the jurisdiction of the Court — Scope of the interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others, extending, by analogy, the right to compensation to delay to a flight

Sturgeon and Others

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The interpretation given by the Court to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to the effect that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time initially scheduled, even though, first, Article 6 of that regulation, relating to delay, provides only for the application of measures of assistance and of care and, secondly, reference is made to Article 7 of that regulation, relating to the right to compensation, only in situations of denied boarding and flight cancellation, has no bearing on the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 9.

1

---
### A 94 volume 122 | number 4 | April 2014 • 

### Environmental Health Perspectives All EHP content is accessible to individuals with disabilities. A fully accessible (Section 508–compliant) HTML version of this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.122-A94

.



### Erratum: Erratum for Johnson et al. [Environ Health Perspect 113:A18 (2005)] In the erratum [Environ Health Perspect 113:A18 (2005)] for the article by Johnson et al. [ Threshold of Trichloroethylene Contamination in Maternal Drinking Waters Affecting Fetal Heart Development in the Rat. Environ Health Perspect 111:289–292 (2003); doi:10.1289/ehp.5125], the exposure start dates in Table 1 were incorrect for the 2.5‐ppb and 250‐ppb trichloro

‐ ethylene (TCE) groups and their concurrent controls. Although the exact dates can no longer be confirmed, the start dates for t hese three groups occurred in 1994, not 1995. The authors apologize for the error. The authors also wish to clarify that all TCE drinking

- water exposures lasted throughout gestation, and all of the animal exposure experiments were run with concurrent controls. Rats were ordered based on a 40‐animal maximum capacity and were divided among t he groups. All groups studied—both exposure groups and concurrent controls—were randomly assigned. Previously published articles regarding these TCE studies are as follows:

Dawson BV, Johnson PD, Goldberg SJ, Ulreich JB. 1993. Cardiac teratogenesis of halogenated hydrocarbon

- contaminated drinking water. J Am Coll Cardiol 21(6):1466–1472. Johnson PD, Dawson BV, Goldberg SJ. 1998. Cardiac teratogenicity of trichloroethylene metabolites. J Am Coll Cardiol 32(2):540– 545. Jo hnson P D, D awson B V, G oldberg S J. 1 998. A

r eview: t richloro e thylene m etabolites: p otential c ardiac t eratogens. E nv iron H e alth P erspect 1 06(suppl 4):9 9 5 –999

. Johnson PD, Dawson BV, Goldberg SJ, Mays MZ. 2004. Trichloroethylene: Johnson et al.’s response [Letter]. Environ Health Perspe ct 112:A608–A609.
#### § 156.6 Acceptance for filing or rejection of application.

Applications will be docketed when received and the applicant so advised. Any application which does not conform to the requirements of §§ 156.1 through 156.5 will be rejected by the Secretary. All but one copy of a rejected application will be returned. An application which relates to an operation concerning which a prior application has been filed and rejected, shall be docketed as a new application. Such new application shall state the docket number of the prior rejected application.
#### RICE, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 25, 1939.

M. E. Strange and Beverly P. White for movant.

Hubert Meredith, Attorney General, and J. M. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
Get points for eating 

your colors!

•

Choose fruits and veggies 

at meals and snacks.

•

They’ll help you be 

your best at school 

and at play.

Take Your Game to the Next Level

Explore a world of possibilities in the garden and on your plate. U.S. Department of Agriculture • Food and Nutrition Service 

April 2013 • FNS-454-D • USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
#### FLOYD M. SKINNER, Plaintiff v. KATHERINE B. AGUON, et al., Defendant

Civil No. 1599-75

Superior Court of Guam

February 18, 1976

*305RAKER, *Judge*

DECISION

In the instant case the plaintiff has sued the Government of Guam, certain persons holding official positions in the Government of Guam, the Civil Service Commission of the Government of Guam, and the Territorial Board of Education, Government of Guam. The actions which are complained of arose from defendants’ performance of their administrative responsibilities. There can be no dispute but that these actions were of a discretionary if not of a quasi-judicial nature.

With respect to personal liability for these actions, although there is authority to the contrary, we adhere to the principle that government employees cannot be held liable for official actions of a discretionary nature even if performed in a malicious or fraudulent manner. See *Hardy v. Vial,*311 P.2d 494, 496 (Cal. 1957); *Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District,*359 P.2d 465, 467 (Cal. 1961). *Contra, Prosser on Torts,*Fourth Ed., p. 989.

With respect to construing this action as one for damages for breach of contract against the Government of Guam, it is found also deficient inasmuch as it is in essence conceded that there has been no compliance with the Government Claims Act, Gov’t Code Sections 6500.00, etc. This act makes it a prerequisite for initiating an action for damages for breach of contract against the government that the claim be first filed with the Attorney General. Plaintiff in his memorandum of law has advanced several reasons to establish that:

a. Compliance by plaintiff with the Government Claims Act was required, or

b. If required, compliance should be excused.

None of such reasons is persuasive or has substance.

For the above reasons, the motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted.

Submit order.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2009-0582 

RESPONSE OF COLGAN AIR, INC. 

AND PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP. TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER 

AND REQUEST FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION 

Respondent Colgan Air, Inc. and Pinnacle Airlines Corp. (collectively "Pinnacle") hereby 

respond to the AprilS, 2013, "Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge to Show Cause Why 

Default Should Not be Entered for Failure to Comply with Orders," and the response state as 

follows: 

Pinnacle is currently in discussions with the FAA's Regional Counsel regarding a 

negotiated resolution of this matter, and these discussions are nearing completion. In order that 

these discussions may continue, and that a negotiated resolution of this matter may be 

successfully concluded, Pinnacle respectfully requests a 30-day extension of the return date on 

the Court's show cause order. 
WHEREFORE, Colgan Air, Inc. and Pinnacle Airlines Corp., by counsel, respectfully 

request that the Administrative Law Judge grant their request for a 30-day extension. 

Dated: April 30, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

By: H~ 4 ·YilW~~d;.::J)'tL Mark A. Dornbroff 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

1676 International Drive 

Penthouse 

McLean, Virginia 221 02 

Tel: (703) 336-8700 

Fax: (703) 336-8750 

Counsel for Respondent 

Colgan Air, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of April, 2013, copies of the foregoing Response of 

Colgan Air, Inc. were sent via personal courier to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

and via facsimile and UPS overnight delivery to: 

Christian L. Lewerenz 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, New York 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 

FAX: 718-995-5699
Exhibit
32.1
 
 EAGLE
BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARY
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Larry A. Dreyer,
Chief Executive Officer, and Peter J. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Larry A. Dreyer
    
    
    /s/ Peter J. JohnsonLarry A. DreyerPresident/CEO
      May 12, 2005
    
    
    Peter J. JohnsonSr. VP/CFOMay 12,
      2005
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 682 

To restore the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order 

and its net neutrality protections. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. 

WYDEN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. BROWN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, Ms. 

CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. HIRONO, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. KAINE, Mr. KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. 

MANCHIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. MURRAY, 

Mr. PETERS, Mr. REED, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. 

SMITH, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. UDALL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, 

Mr. WARNER, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To restore the Federal Communications Commission’s Open 

Internet Order and its net neutrality protections. 

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 ‘‘Save the Internet Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 682 IS

1 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF OPEN INTERNET ORDER. 

2 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

3 (1) the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal 

4 Communications Commission; and 

5 (2) the term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given the 

6 term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code. 

7 (b) REPEAL OF RULE.—The Declaratory Ruling, Re8 port and Order, and Order in the matter of restoring 

9 internet freedom that was adopted by the Commission on 

10 December 14, 2017 (FCC 17–166), shall have no force 

11 or effect. 

12 (c) PROHIBITION ON REISSUED RULE OR NEW

13 RULE.—The Commission may not reissue the Declaratory 

14 Ruling, Report and Order, and Order described in sub15 section (b) in substantially the same form, or issue a new 

16 rule that is substantially the same as that Declaratory 

17 Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, unless the reissued 

18 or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted 

19 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

20 (d) RESTORATION OF REPEALED AND AMENDED

21 REGULATIONS.—The following are restored as in effect on 

22 January 19, 2017: 

23 (1) The Report and Order on Remand, Declara24 tory Ruling, and Order in the matter of protecting 

25 and promoting the open internet that was adopted 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 682 IS

1 by the Commission on February 26, 2015 (FCC 15– 

2 24). 

3 (2) Part 8 of title 47, Code of Federal Regula4 tions. 

5 (3) Any other rule of the Commission that was 

6 amended or repealed by the Declaratory Ruling, Re7 port and Order, and Order described in subsection 

8 (b). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 367.16 Long-term debt: Premium, discount and expense, and gain or loss on reacquisition. ( a ) A separate premium, discount and expense account must be maintained for each class and series of long-term debt (including receivers' certificates) issued or assumed by the service company. The premium must be recorded in account 225, Unamortized premium on long-term debt (§ 367.2250), the discount must be recorded in account 226, Unamortized discount on long-term debt—Debit (§ 367.2260), and the expense of issuance must be recorded in account 181, Unamortized debt expense (§ 367.1810). The premium, discount and expense must be amortized over the life of the respective issues under a plan that will distribute the amounts equitably over the life of the securities. The amortization must be on a monthly basis, and the amounts relating to discounts and expenses must be charged to account 428, Amortization of debt discount and expense (§ 367.4280). The amounts relating to premiums must be credited to account 429, Amortization of premium on debt—Credit (§ 367.4290).
( b ) When long-term debt is reacquired the difference between the amount paid upon reacquisition of any long-term debt and the face value, adjusted for unamortized discount, expenses or premium, as the case may be, applicable to the debt redeemed must be recognized currently in income and recorded in account 421, Miscellaneous income or loss (§ 367.4210), or account 426.5, Other deductions (§ 367.4265).