alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 1172

Claimant awarded $250.00.)

#### Joyce-Watkins Company, a Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 26, 1927.*

Franchise tax — Claimant is entitled to a refund of the franchise tax overpaid which is in excess of the amount legally due the State.

Fisher, Boyden, Kales *&*Bell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim to recover $250.00, franchise fee paid in excess of the legal fee due, through error in computation, on *430increased capital stock for the year beginning July 1, 1926. The declaration states that the snm lawfully due and payable by said corporation on July 1, 1926, as franchise tax, computed at the rate of five cents on each $100.00, of the old capital stock of $1,000,000.00, as provided in Section 105 of the General Corporation Act, was $500.00; that on said date said claimant paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, the sum of $750.00, being the amount called for by the statement for franchise tax then due and payable, which sum was in excess of the amount legally due.

A statement of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, rendered at the request .of Louis L. Emmerson, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, consents to the award of $250.00.

We accordingly award claimant the amount of their claim, or $250.00.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.925 [Reserved]
#### B. Frederic De Vries, Appellant, v. Adeline De Vries, Respondent.

Judgment and order modified on the law by striking out the provision for counsel fees and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur. (The judgment grants defendant a separation, with custody of an infant child, counsel fees and alimony. The order grants a motion to punish plaintiff for contempt of court for failure to comply with the terms of the decree.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, MeCurn and Larkin, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                        NOVACARE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, INC.
                           Subsidiaries of the Company


Employee Benefits Management, Inc.
Employers' Risk Management, Inc.
NCES Finance, Inc.
NCES Holdings, Inc.
NCES Licensing, Inc.
NovaCare Administrative Employee Services of New York, Inc.
NovaCare Administrative Employee Services, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services Club Staff, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services Easy Staff, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services Northeast, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services of America, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services of Boston, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services of Florida, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services of New York, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services of Orlando, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services Resource One, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services TPI, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services West, Inc.
NovaCare Employee Services, Inc.
Paralign Staffing Technologies, Inc.
Professional Employer Systems, Inc.
Professional Insurance Planners of Florida, Inc.
Rx One, Inc.
Staffing Technologies, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

t0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148523

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Pl aintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148523

COA: 306188

Wayne CC: 11

- 002412

- FC

ROYALE LAMPTON IRVIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.615 How will proceedings relating to my application for fees and expenses be conducted?

Proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the provisions in subpart B of this part.
Exhibit 99.2





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 Annual Report of ARAMARK Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L.
Frederick Sutherland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    L. FREDERICK
SUTHERLANDL. Frederick Sutherland
§ 45.58 When will the hearing record close? ( a ) The hearing record will close when the ALJ closes the hearing, unless he or she directs otherwise.
( b ) Evidence may not be added after the hearing record is closed, but the transcript may be corrected under § 45.56(b).
#### § 123.506 How much can you borrow under the Military Reservist EIDL Program?

You can borrow an amount equal to the substantial economic injury you have suffered or are likely to suffer until normal operations resume as a result of the absence of one or more essential employees called to active service, up to a maximum of $2 million.

[73 FR 54675, Sept. 23, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 24110, Apr. 19, 2023]
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates
(TRUCs), Series 2001-2 Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the
trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank
Trust National Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.




                                By: /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                Name:   Timothy Kelley Millet
                                Title:  Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                        Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                Date:   March 23, 2004



                                       6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22204-CIV-WILLIAMS

EARLENE BARKSDALE-STARKES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARNIVAL CORPORATIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Torres’ Report & 

Recommendation. (DE 29). The Report recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (DE 31). 

Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections (DE 32) and Plaintiff filed a reply (DE 

33). After a careful review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report (DE 29) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (DE 14) Counts I, III, IV, and V is DENIED.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II is GRANTED. 

3. To the extent Plaintiff is able to adequately replead Count II, Plaintiff may file an 

amended complaint on or before December 17, 2020. If Plaintiff has not filed any 

amended complaint by December 17, 2020, Defendants shall submit an answer to 

the Complaint filed on May 27, 2020 by January 7, 2021. 

Case 1:20-cv-22204-KMW Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of 

December, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22204-KMW Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
fzmd-ex1021_6.htm




			
	
 
	
 
	
Exhibit 10.21




 

CPM MEDICAL CONSULTANTS, LLC

 

AMENDMENT TO THE STOCKING AND SUBDISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

 

This amendment to the stocking and subdistribution agreement ("Amendment"), dated as of January 1st, 2020 ("Effective Date"), is entered into by and between CPM Medical Consultants, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company having its principal place of business at 1565 N. Central Expressway, Suite 200, Richardson, TX 75080 ("Distributor"), and MedUSA Group, LLC, a Texas series limited liability company having its principal place of business at Dominion Plaza 17304 Preston Rd, ste 800 Dallas, Tx 75252 ("Subdistributor", and together with Distributor, the "Parties," and each, a "Party").

 

Whereas, both Parties agree to amend the agreement to allow the Distributor to bill all revenues for the Subdistributor and pay the Subdistributor a rate of 45% of the total sales of the case.

Compensation will be made on all collected sales by the 15th of the following month.

 

 

 

 

Now therefore, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is amended as follows:

 


	
 
	
1.
	
The amendment to the Agreement is amended to change the billing and commission rate





	
 
	
2.
	
Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect as written.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Witness Whereof, both parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date.

 


					
	
CPM Medical Consultants, LLC
	
MedUSA Group, LLC

	
/s/ Christopher C. Reeg
	
/s/ Mark W. Brooks

	
Name: Christopher C. Reeg
	
Name: Mark W. Brooks

	
Title: COO
	
Title: Manager

	
Date: February 24, 2020
	
Date: February 24, 2020
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5132 

To correct the boundary of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park 

in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2022 

Mr. HEINRICH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To correct the boundary of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in the State of New Mexico, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Pueblo Pintado Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHACO CULTURE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

7 BOUNDARY CORRECTION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Chaco Cul9 ture National Historical Park in the State of New Mexico 

10 is revised to reflect the boundary identified as ‘‘Adjusted 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5132 IS

1 Boundary’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Chaco Culture National 

2 Historical Park Proposed Boundary Correction’’, num3 bered 310/126,526B, and dated November 19, 2018 (re4 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘map’’). 

5 (b) TRANSFERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDIC6 TION.—Subject to the consent of the Navajo Nation— 

7 (1) administrative jurisdiction over the surface 

8 estate of the land removed from the Chaco Culture 

9 National Historical Park under subsection (a), as 

10 depicted on the map, is transferred from the Na11 tional Park Service to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

12 to be held in trust by the United States for the ben13 efit of the Navajo Nation; and 

14 (2) administrative jurisdiction over the surface 

15 estate of the land added to the Chaco Culture Na16 tional Historical Park under subsection (a), as de17 picted on the map, is transferred from the Bureau 

18 of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Manage19 ment to the National Park Service. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Jay H. Towne et al., Respondents, v. Donald C. Stukey et al., Defendants, and R. C. McCarty, Appellant.

The evidence presented a jury question on the issue of liability. The jury was free to find that appellant’s operator was negligent in that, at the time of the first collision between plaintiffs’ car and the Stukey trailer, he had ample time and space in which to avoid running into the rear of plaintiffs’ ear; or if he did not have ample time and space, he was not far enough behind plaintiffs to be in a position to avoid the accident; and, therefore, appellant’s operator was not operating his truck in such a manner as not to endanger plaintiffs’ life and property. The theory of emergency, which is the basis of appellant’s argument, was not charged by the court in connection with appellant, and he took no exception to the charge, nor did he make any requests. Nor may the judgment be reversed because of the admission of Dr. Papa’s testimony that, if there is no union as the result of a bone-grafting operation which must be performed, the leg of plaintiff husband may have to be amputated. The objection to Dr. Papa’s testimony was made by counsel for another defendant and not by this appellant. Moreover, the same testimony by Dr. Child was not objected to by anyone and, therefore, the testimony of Dr. Papa was not prejudicial. Carswell, Acting *690P. J., Johnston, Adel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The appellant was an unwilling actor in an unforeseen tragedy, which was not precipitated by any act of his. There was no pause in the chain of events which culminated in the final impact between plaintiffs’ ear and his truck. His driver was faced with an emergency. It is true that the appellant’s counsel did not request the court to charge the jury on the law in regard to emergency, but the circumstances were such that the court could not properly charge the jury on the law basically involved in this case without doing so. The fact that the court so charged as to another defendant, but not as to appellant, magnified the prejudice to him.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 435

**Question 435:** The rule requires that "the assigned deep-dose equivalent... must be for the part of the body receiving the highest exposure. [The dose] may be assessed from surveys or other radiation measurements for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the occupational dose limits, if the individual monitoring device was not in the region of highest potential exposure." In the event of a hot particle exposure to a portion of the whole body, it is unlikely that the associated deep dose equivalent (DDE) resulting from the hot particle gamma radiation would be appropriately measured by an individual monitoring device due to the localized nature of the exposure. Is it required that the DDE associated with a hot particle exposure be assessed and added to the monitored DDE for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the occupational dose limits?

**Answer:** Yes. Although, for a hot particle on the skin, the deep dose equivalent is generally a small fraction of the shallow dose equivalent, it does need to be assessed.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1201)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 183

**Question 183:** If an individual receives an intake of Class Y material in September and, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1204 (d), the licensee waits 7 months to record the dose (March), what year should the dose be recorded?

**Answer:** The committed effective dose equivalent should be recorded in the year the intake was received. If the dose exceeded the limits, then it is considered an overexposure at the time when the intake occurred, and should be reported immediately. 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1204)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, November 08, 2017
### [§188. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §11801(a)(13), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–520]

Section, added Pub. L. 92–178, title III, §303(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 521; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 95–30, title IV, §402(a)(1)–(3), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 155, related to amortization of certain expenditures for child care facilities.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

For provisions that nothing in repeal by Pub. L. 101–508 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Nov. 5, 1990, for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 11821(b) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 45K of this title.
### §872. Criers, bailiffs, and messengers

The Court of International Trade may appoint such criers as it may require for said court, which criers shall also perform the duties of bailiffs and messengers and such other duties as the court directs and shall be subject to removal by the court.

(Added Pub. L. 86–243, §1, Sept. 9, 1959, 73 Stat. 474, §873; amended Pub. L. 96–417, title V, §501(19), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1742; renumbered §872, Pub. L. 99–466, §3(b)(2), Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1191.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 872, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §78, 63 Stat. 101; Sept. 9, 1959, Pub. L. 86–243, §1, 73 Stat. 474; Oct. 10, 1980, Pub. L. 96–417, title V, §501(18), 94 Stat. 1742, related to a marshal and deputy marshals, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–466, §§3(b)(1), 4, Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1191, effective 60 days after Oct. 14, 1986.

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–466 renumbered section 873 of this title as this section.

1980—Pub. L. 96–417 redesignated the Customs Court as the Court of International Trade.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

Enactment of section by Pub. L. 86–243 not to deprive Customs Court officers or employees of any rights, privileges, or civil service status, see section 4 of Pub. L. 86–243, set out as a note under section 871 of this title.
§ 128.405 When may a contracting officer award a sole source contract to a VOSBs or SDVOSB? For VA procurements, a contracting officer may award a sole source contract to a VOSB or SDVOSB as set forth in the VAAR. A contracting officer may award a sole source contract to an SDVOSB for non-VA procurements only when the contracting officer determines that: ( a ) None of the provisions of § 128.403 or § 128.404 apply;
( b ) The anticipated award price of the contract, including options, will not exceed: ( 1 ) $7,000,000 for a contract assigned a manufacturing NAICS code; or
( 2 ) $4,000,000 for all other contracts;
( c ) A SDVOSB is a responsible contractor able to perform the contract; and
( d ) Contract award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
### §1364. Direct actions against insurers of members of diplomatic missions and their families

(a) The district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any civil action commenced by any person against an insurer who by contract has insured an individual, who is, or was at the time of the tortious act or omission, a member of a mission (within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254a(3))) or a member of the family of such a member of a mission, or an individual described in section 19 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946, against liability for personal injury, death, or damage to property.

(b) Any direct action brought against an insurer under subsection (a) shall be tried without a jury, but shall not be subject to the defense that the insured is immune from suit, that the insured is an indispensable party, or in the absence of fraud or collusion, that the insured has violated a term of the contract, unless the contract was cancelled before the claim arose.

(Added Pub. L. 95–393, §7(a), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 809; amended Pub. L. 97–241, title II, §203(b)(4), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 291; Pub. L. 100–204, title I, §138(a), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1347.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Two other sections 1364 were renumbered sections 1365 and 1366 of this title.

#### Amendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–204 inserted ", or was at the time of the tortious act or omission," after "who is".

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–241 substituted "within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254a(3))" for "as defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–204, title I, §138(b), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1347, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to the first tortious act or omission occurring after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 22, 1987]."

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–241 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 204 of Pub. L. 97–241, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4301 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

#### Effective Date

Section effective at end of ninety-day period beginning on Sept. 30, 1978, see section 9 of Pub. L. 95–393, set out as a note under section 254a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.