alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4807. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 102–335, §7, formerly §8, Aug. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 862; renumbered §7 and amended Pub. L. 105–362, title IX, §901(a)(2), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3289, provided that if the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Interior concluded that quantities of taxol sufficient to satisfy medicinal demands were available from sources other than the Pacific yew, they were to jointly notify Congress, at which time the requirements of this chapter would expire. Such a conclusion was transmitted to Congress by the Secretaries in a letter dated Jan. 26, 1998.

A prior section 7 of Pub. L. 102–335 was classified to section 4806 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–362.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 21, 2011.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

                    1.                     *Mehrdad Elie,*                     Redwood City, California; to acquire voting securities of HarVest BanCorp, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of HarVest Bank of Maryland, Rockville, Maryland.                

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

                    1.                     *Russell James Gesell,*                     individually and as co-trustee of The Charles R. Gesell Irrevocable Trust, and The Peter J. Gesell Irrevocable Trust, all in Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Russell James Gesell, Rene J. Gesell, The Charles R. Gesell Irrevocable Trust and The Peter J. Gesell Irrevocable Trust as part of The Gesell Family Group; to retain voting shares of Cherokee Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain control of BankCherokee, both in Saint Paul, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3, 2011.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2011-70 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1342
GABRIEL MINTZ, a minor, by his parents and next friends; EMILY MINTZ; DANIEL MINTZ, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and NORMAN CORREA, a minor, by his parents and next friends; FRANCISCO CORREA; LUCY CORREA, Plaintiffs, versus PAUL VANCE, (Officially as) Superintendent; MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA94-1738-DKC) Argued: December 4, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 ARGUED: Michael Jeffrey Eig, BOGIN & EIG, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. David Charles Hjortsberg, REESE & CARNEY, L.L.P., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Judith S. Bresler, REESE & CARNEY, L.L.P., Columbia, Maryland; Zvi Greismann, Senior Attorney, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Gabriel Mintz and his parents, Daniel and Emily Mintz, appeal an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants, a county school board and its superintendent, in the Mintzes' suit to recover attorney's fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. We have considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum opinion. Correa v. Vance , No. DKC 94-1738 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 1996).

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>                        EXHIBIT 10.20

                             LETTER AGREEMENT


August 25, 1999

Health-Chem Corporation
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022

To the Board of Directors:

I hereby (i) waive the right to receive my first year's retirement pension
distribution from
Health-Chem Corporation ("Health-Chem") in the amount of $300,000 and
payable on January
1, 2000, and (ii) agree to transfer 317,406 shares of common stock of
Health-Chem, to
Health-Chem, in exchange for Health-Chem's cancellation of the outstanding debt
owed by
me to Health-Chem in the approximate amount of $249,000.

Very truly yours,



Marvin M. Speiser


This will confirm that such debt of Marvin M. Speiser to the Company (principal
and interest)
is hereby conceled.

Dated: August 25, 1999

Health-Chem Corporation


By:
Name:         Bruce M. Schloss
Title:        Vice President
[Fitzgerald Sanders Letterhead]

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the inclusion in this registration  statement on Form 10-SB of our
report,  which includes an explanatory  paragraph  which discusses the Company's
ability to continue as a going  concern,  dated December 21, 1999, on our audits
of the financial  statements of Commercial  Concepts for the year ended February
28, 1999.

Fitzgerald Sanders, LLC

/s/ Fitzgerald Sanders

Salt Lake City, Utah
January 11, 2000
§ 661.53 What standards should be used for bridge design? ( a ) *New and replacement.* New and replacement structures must meet the current geometric, construction, and structural standards required for the types and volumes of projected traffic on the facility over its design life consistent with 25 CFR part 170, subpart D, appendix B.
( b ) *Rehabilitation.* Bridges to be rehabilitated, at a minimum, should conform to the standards referenced in 25 CFR part 170, subpart D, appendix B.
302 P.2d 734

#### R. M. TIGNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OWL DRUG COMPANY, Inc., Maurice A. Smith and Eleanor B. Smith, Defendants-Appellees, Davis Bros., Inc. and Fox Vliet Drug Company, Proposed Intervenors-Appellants.

No. 6128.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. *17,*1956.

Jack L. Love, Roswell, for appellants.

Atwood & Malone, Roswell, for R. M. Tigner.

*471COMPTON, Chief Justice.

The single question is whether an abuse of discretion appears in the action of the trial court in denying the petition of appellants to intervene in a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a stock of merchandise in the custody of a receiver appointed by the court incident to foreclosure.

The facts of this case differ in no material respect from those present in the case of Tom Fields, Ltd. v. Tigner, 61 N.M. 382, 301 P.2d 322, decided by us September 6, *1956.*Indeed, each represents in effect an effort to 'intervene in the same suit or proceeding pending at the time,' in' the District Court of Chaves County. The same considerations that moved us to affirm in Fields v. Tigner, supra, apply with, equal force here.

The claimed difference in the cases is that Tigner, the owner of a qualifying share of -the stock of Owl Drug Company, Inc., in which he had no interest, was guilty of extrinsic ' fraud in failing to defend the action commenced by him on behalf of the corporation, and the case of Kerr v. Southwest Fluorite Co., 35 N.M. 232, 294 P. 324, is cited in support thereof. This claim must be rejected, the cases obviously are dissimilar. In the- Kerr case, supra, nondisclosure - that. the plaintiffs were also directors of the defendant corporation,- a-fact-not known to the court, was the basis of extrinsic- fraud; whereas, the status of Tigner was testified to by him and was known to the court when the judgment was entered.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the. motion to intervene. Accordingly, the judgment'will be affirmed and it is so ordered.

LUJAN, SADLER and KIKER, JJ., concur.

McGHEE, -J., not- participating.
§ 710.709 Determination of fair market value. ( a ) Fair market value may be determined either on a best value basis, highest net present value of the payments to be received over the life of the agreement, or highest bid received, as may be specified by the highway agency in the request for proposals or other relevant solicitation. If best value is used, the highway agency should identify, in the relevant solicitation, the criteria to be used as well as the weight afforded to the criteria.
( b ) In order to be considered fair market value, the terms of the concession agreement must be both legally binding and enforceable.
( c ) Any concession agreement awarded pursuant to a competitive process with more than one bidder shall be deemed to be fair market value. Any concession agreement awarded pursuant to a competitive process with only one bidder shall be presumed to be fair market value. Such presumption may be overcome only if the highway agency determines the proposal to not be fair market value based on the highway agency's estimates. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to require a highway agency to accept any proposal, even if the proposal is deemed fair market value. For purposes of this subsection, a competitive process shall afford all interested proposers an equal opportunity to submit a proposal for the concession agreement and shall comply with applicable State and local law.
( d ) If a concession agreement is not awarded pursuant to a competitive process, the highway agency must receive fair market value, as determined by the highway agency in accordance with State law, so long as an independent third party assessment is conducted and made publicly available.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart is intended to waive the requirements of part 172, part 635, and part 636 whenever any Federal-aid (including TIFIA assistance) is to be used for a project under the concession agreement.
### §509. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–869, §4, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1157

Section, act June 11, 1906, ch. 3074, §5, 34 Stat. 234, related to future settlements on lands within reserves and rights of former bona fide settlers.
#### Charles Serota and Others, Copartners, Doing Business as Serota Brothers, Respondents, v. Adolph Kiendl, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order-appealed from entered April 17, 1913, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Appeal from order dated April 2,1913, dismissed. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. concurred.
### §470w–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §303, as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3002, related to donations and bequests of money, personal property and less than fee interests in historic property. See section 307107 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                         Exhibit 10(h)
               GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay Equitable Life
Insurance Company of Iowa, an Iowa corporation, the sum of $50
million ($50,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 8.179% per
annum from the date hereof, December 30, 1999 until paid.  In any
event, this note will mature on December 29, 2029.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate
to payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as
well as debts owed to all other classes of debtors, other than
surplus note holders, of Golden American Life Insurance Company in
the event of (a) the institution of bankruptcy, reorganization,
insolvency or liquidation proceedings by or against Golden American
Life Insurance Company, or (b) the appointment of a Trustee, receiver
or other Conservator for a substantial part of Golden American Life
Insurance Company properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of
the final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.

                              GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                              By:  /s/ David L. Jacobson
                                   ---------------------------------
                                   David L. Jacobson, Senior Vice
                                   President and Assistant Secretary

Attest by:

/s/ Marilyn Talman
-----------------------
Marilyn Talman
Vice President and Assistant Secretary


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03505

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Ali Mohammed Mohsen

Appellate case number: 01-13-00074-CR

Trial court case number: 82002010101B

Trial court: 230th Judicial District Court of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court on October 7, 2013. In the 

abatement order, we directed the trial court to execute an amended certification of appellant’s 

right to appeal indicating whether or not appellant has the right to appeal and make any other 

findings and recommendations the trial court deemed appropriate. The district clerk has filed a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing an amended certification of appellant’s right to appeal.

The court reporter has filed a reporter’s record indicating that appellant wished to dismiss his 

appeal. Appellant now has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we REINSTATE 

this case on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 14, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 82768 / February 23, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-17672

In the Matter of

Derik J. Todd, Madison Capital Energy 

Income Fund GP LLC, Big Horn 

Minerals LLC, Madison Capital 

Investments LLC, and Madison 

Royalty Management LLC

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

EXTENSION ORDER

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until 

June 29, 2018 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On November 10, 2016, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative 

and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, 

Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 203(e), 203(f) and 203(k) of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”)1

against Derik J. Todd (“Todd”), Madison Capital Energy Income Fund II GP LLC (“Fund II 

GP”), Big Horn Minerals LLC (“Big Horn”), Madison Capital Investments LLC (“MCI”), and 

Madison Royalty Management (“MRM”) (collectively, the “Respondents”). In the Order, the 

Commission found that Todd and Fund II GP willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities 

Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

 

1

Securities Act Rel. No. 10250 (Nov. 10, 2017).
2

(“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”); and MCI, Big Horn and MRM willfully 

aided and abetted and caused Todd’s and Fund II GP’s violations of Section 17(a) of the 

Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 

206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The Order required the Respondents to pay $205,673 

in disgorgement and $21,581 in prejudgment interest; and Todd to pay a $50,000 civil penalty 

to the Commission, pursuant to a payment plan detailed therein. The Commission also created 

a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, so 

the penalty, along with the disgorgement and prejudgment interest, can be distributed to 

investors harmed by the Respondent’s conduct described in the Order.

In its request for an extension of time, the Division states that it needs time to solicit 

and evaluate fund administrator proposals, develop the distribution methodology, and develop 

the plan of distribution. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Division’s 

request for an extension of time until June 29, 2018 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution 

is granted.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary
III 

★(Star Print)

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 419 

Permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during the 

holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2019 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and 

housewares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF CLOTHING, TOYS, FOOD, AND 

3 HOUSEWARES DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON 

4 FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SENATE 

5 BUILDINGS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of the rules or regulations of the Senate— 

8 (1) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or em9 ployee of the Senate may collect from another Sen10 ator, officer of the Senate, or employee of the Senate 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 419 ATS1S 

1 within a Senate building or other office secured for 

2 a Senator nonmonetary donations of clothing, toys, 

3 food, and housewares for charitable purposes related 

4 to serving persons in need or members of the Armed 

5 Forces and the families of those members during the 

6 holiday season, if the charitable purposes do not oth7 erwise violate any rule or regulation of the Senate 

8 or Federal law; and 

9 (2) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or em10 ployee of the Senate may work with a nonprofit or11 ganization with respect to the delivery of donations 

12 described under paragraph (1). 

13 (b) EXPIRATION.—The authority provided by this 

14 resolution shall expire at the end of the first session of 

15 the 116th Congress. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### §4505. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–513, title VI, §610, formerly §606, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2072; renumbered §610, Pub. L. 102–574, §2(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4593.)
(54 South. 934.)

No. 18,742.

#### STATE ex rel. HODGES v. JOYCE, Registrar of Voters, et al.

(April 10, 1911.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Elections (§ 73*) — Qualifications of Voters — “Actual Bona Fide Resident.”

A person who left the state of Louisiana in October, 1910, and moved to the state of Arkansas, where he secured employment and has ever since lived and worked, and intends there to remain for an indefinite time, is not an “actual bona fide resident” of this state, in the sense of article 197 of the Constitution.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. §§ 69, 70; Dec. Dig. § 73.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, p. 168; vol. 8, p. 7565.]

Appeal from Tenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Concordia; John S. Boatner, Judge.

Proceedings by rule by the State, on relation of A. J. Hodges, against John J. Joyce, Registrar of Voters, and another, to have the name of the other defendant erased from the registration roll. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals.

Reversed.

Calhoun & Calhoun, for appellant. John S. Boatner, Jr., for appellee Farr.

LAND, J.

This is a proceeding by rule to have erased from the registration roll the name of the defendant F. A. Farr, on the ground that he is not a bona fide resident of the village of Ferriday, but has been for more than six months a bona fide resident of the state of Arkansas. A curator ad hoc was appointed to represent the defendant, who later appeared by counsel and answered, denying all the allegations of the relator’s petition, except that he had been registered as a voter.

Defendant lived in Ferriday and worked in the railroad shops until early in October, 1910, when he voluntarily gave up his position and went to Arkansas, where later he secured work in the railroad shops of the same system at MeGehee. He there rented *439a furnished house, in which he and his wife have resided ever since. Defendant left his furniture in Ferriday, in 'the same house which he had occupied while there residing, in care of his mother-in-law and family, and has paid a small part of the rent. Defendant admits that he actually resides in the state of Arkansas, and may continue to do so for an indefinite time. Defendant’s residence in Arkansas is of the same kind and character as was his residence in Ferriday. As a matter of fact the defendant actually resides out of the state, and his residence in Ferriday is a mere matter of intendment. Under article 197 of the Constitution, a voter must be an actual bona fide resident of the precinct in which he offers to register, and cannot *actually*reside in two places at the same time.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment below be reversed, and it is now ordered that the name of F. A. Farr be erased on the registration roll, as prayed for by the relator.