alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1602. Findings and declaration of purpose

The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests of justice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 94–583, §4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 94–583, §8, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2898, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and section 1330 of this title, amending sections 1332, 1391, and 1441 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1 of this title] shall take effect ninety days after the date of its enactment [Oct. 21, 1976]."

#### Short Title

For short title of Pub. L. 94–583 as the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976", see section 1 of Pub. L. 94–583, set out as a Short Title of 1976 Amendments note under section 1 of this title.

#### Separability

Pub. L. 94–583, §7, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2898, provided that: "If any provision of this Act [enacting this chapter and section 1330 of this title, amending sections 1332, 1391, and 1441 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1 of this title] or the application thereof to any foreign state is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable."
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), NAHB Research Center, Inc. (“NAHB”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD. The nature and scope of NAHB's standards development activities are: To develop and publish consensus standards—including products, construction materials and systems, technology, and methodologies that facilitate commerce—in response to needs for performance and prescriptive standards for use in single-family and multi-family housing.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23523  Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Arthur Guy, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. M. Reid & Company and Joseph A. Reid, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., and Scott, J., dissented as to M. Reid & Company.
1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3003

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. David Brian Bern, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 2004 Filed: May 4, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
David Bern appeals the district court’s 1 judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (mixture) and to manufacture 5 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B), and 846. In a brief filed pursuant to Anders-2- v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bern challenges the admission of a gun into evidence at trial and the imposition of a role enhancement for sentencing purposes. Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s admission of the gun found by law enforcement officials in a vehicle parked in front of Bern’s home. SeeUnited States v. Johnson , 28 F.3d 1487, 1498 (8th Cir. 1994) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1098 (1995). Bern’s objection centered around the government’s inability to identify the registered owner of the gun, a fact to which the parties stipulated. Like the district court, we see no relationship between Bern’s objection and the gun’s admissibility, and we find no violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Turning to Bern’s sentence, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in adjusting Bern’s offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines upward 3 levels for his role as a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving 5 or more participants. See U.S.S.G § 3B1.1(b); United States v. Zimmer , 299 F.3d 710, 723-24 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review; manager or supervisor need only have managed or supervised one other participant of criminal conspiracy), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1146 (2003). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23471]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
obtain copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of 
Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#483c3a292c2d29262924313b213b082e252b662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2753554643424649464b5e544e5467414a4409404851">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the 
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 
days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 011849-002.
    Title: HSDG/Maersk Sealand Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Hamburg Sudamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft 
K.G., and A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S .
    Filing Party: Marc J. Fink, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, 
NW., Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment reduces the number of TEUs which Maersk 
Sealand may charter from HSDG; eliminates restrictive language 
regarding Rio Haina from Article 5.4 and adds December 31, 2004 as the 
expiration date of the agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
    Dated: October 15, 2004.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-23471 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**MENU**
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgments

Introduction
Essay

Brief History

Gila River

Granada

Heart Mountain

Jerome

Manzanar

Minidoka

Poston

Rohwer

Topaz

Tule Lake

Isolation Centers

Add'l Facilities

Assembly Centers

DoJ and US Army Facilities

Prisons

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
### §152. Care and use of Smithsonian Library

The Smithsonian Institution shall have the use of the library referred to in section 151 of this title in like manner as before its removal. All the books, maps, and charts of the Smithsonian Library shall be properly cared for and preserved in like manner as are those of the Congressional Library; from which the Smithsonian Library shall not be removed except on reimbursement by the Smithsonian Institution to the Treasury of the United States of expenses incurred in binding and in taking care of the same, or upon such terms and conditions as shall be mutually agreed upon by Congress and the Regents of the Institution.

(R.S. §100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §100 derived from act Apr. 5, 1866, ch. 25, §2, 14 Stat. 13.
ex455





 
EXHIBIT 4.55






	


Extension of Debenture Maturity Date


 


	

TO


 

	

Intellipharmaceutics
International Inc. (the “Company”)


 


	

RE:


 

	

Debenture
dated May 1, 2019, with an original face amount of US$500,000
issued by the Company to Dr. Isa Odidi and Dr. Amina Odidi (the
“Debenture”) and
the Maturity Date (as defined in the Debenture) of such
Debenture


 







 

 


The
undersigned hereby agree that the Maturity Date of the Debenture
(currently September 1, 2020) is extended to November 30,
2020.

 


DATED
as of September 1, 2020.

 




 


	
/s/ Isa
Odidi


	
 /s/ Amina
Odidi



	
Isa Odidi


	
 Amina Odidi
#### § 351.1 Purpose.

This part sets out Federal agency roles and assigns tasks regarding Federal assistance to State and local governments in their radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities. Assignments in this part are applicable to radiological accidents at fixed nuclear facilities and transportation accidents involving radioactive materials.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles Gassenheimer, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(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/ Charles GassenheimerCharles
      GassenheimerChief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal
      Executive Officer and Duly Authorized Officer)





November
4, 2010





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ener1, Inc. and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
### §117c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117c was editorially reclassified as section 6632 of this title.
EXHIBIT B 

(Copyright Infringement) 

Case 9:20-cv-80983-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:20-cv-80983-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 9, 2004, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 26, 2004, (69 FR 22566), Penick, Corporation, 158 
Mount Olivet Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07114, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine (9041)...............................................         II
Codeine (9050)...............................................         II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)........................................         II
Oxycodone (9143).............................................         II
Hydromorphone (9150).........................................         II
Diphenoxylate (9170).........................................         II
Ecgonine (9180)..............................................         II
Hydrocodone (9193)...........................................         II
Morphine (9300)..............................................         II
Thebaine (9333)..............................................         II
Oxymorphone (9652)...........................................         II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances and 
non-controlled substance flavor extracts.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: September 28, 2004.
William J. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-23060 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Skeele Coal Company, Respondent, *v.*Charles T. Baker, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 5th day of May, 1914, denying a motion for a commission to take the depositions of witnesses without the State.

Per Curiam:

We think the defendant was entitled to a commission for the purpose of taking the evidence of the witnesses. The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for a commission on written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories granted; the question of the stay of trial to be left to the trial judge. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for commission on written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories granted, the question of the stay of trial to be left to the trial judge. Order to be settled on notice.
EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of DelawareVanguard Health Holding Company I, LLC
Vanguard Holding Company I, Inc.
Vanguard Health Holding Company II, LLC
Vanguard Holding Company II, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Corporation
VHS of Phoenix, Inc.
VHS Outpatient Clinics, Inc.
VHS of Arrowhead, Inc.
VHS of South Phoenix, Inc.
The VHS Arizona Imaging Centers Limited Partnership
VHS Imaging Centers, Inc.
VHS of Anaheim, Inc.
VHS of Orange County, Inc.
VHS Holding Company, Inc.
VHS of Huntington Beach, Inc.
The Anaheim VHS Limited Partnership
The Huntington Beach VHS Limited Partnership
VHS of Illinois, Inc.
VHS Genesis Labs, Inc.
MacNeal Medical Records, Inc.
Vanguard Health Management, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 1, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 2, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 3, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 4, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 5, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 6, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 7, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 8, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 9, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 10, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 11, Inc.
VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 12, Inc.
VHS Phoenix Health Plan, Inc.
Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc.
Hospital Development Company Number 1, Inc.
Hospital Development Company Number 2, Inc.
Magnolia Surgery Center Limited Partnership
VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P.
VHS Acquisition Company Number 1, LLC
VHS Acquisition Company Number 2, LLC
VHS Acquisition Partnership Number 1, L.P.
VHS Acquisition Partnership Number 2, L.P.
West Valley Surgery Center, LLC
VHS San Antonio Imaging Partners, L.P.
VHS San Antonio Surgery Center, L.P.
West Anaheim MSO, LLC
Paradise Valley Surgery Center, LLC Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of CaliforniaNorth Anaheim Surgicenter, Ltd. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the District of ColumbiaHealthcare Compliance, L.L.C. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of IllinoisMacNeal Health Providers, Inc.
MacNeal Management Services, Inc.
Midwest Claims Processing, Inc.
Primary Care Physicians Center, LLC
Pros Temporary Staffing, Inc.
Watermark Physician Services, Inc.
The 6300 West Roosevelt Limited Partnership Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of New JerseyVHS of Rancocas, Inc. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaV-II Acquisition Co., Inc. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of TennesseeVanguard Health Financial Company, Inc. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the State of ArizonaAbrazo Advantage Health Plan, Inc. Subsidiaries Incorporated or Organized in the County of BermudaVolunteer Insurance Ltd.
[No. 7019.

Decided January 24, 1908.]

#### Charles J. McOwen, *Appellant,*v. Seattle Electric Company, Respondent.1

New Trial — Excessive Verdict — Remission. Upon'a verdict for $25,544 for damages for personal injuries, it is not error to grant a new trial unless the plaintiff would remit all sums in excess of $6,544, where the verdict was excessive unless a substantial reduction was remitted, regardless of whether $6,544 was too large or too small.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Yakey, J., entered July 23, 1907, granting to de1 fendant a new trial, after a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $25,544 damages for personal injuries sustained in a street car collision.

Affirmed.

*363*Casey*& *Casey (Graves, Palmer & Murphy,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 518.

Per Curiam.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision between two street cars operated by the defendant company. The amount of the damage to which the plaintiff was entitled was the only issue in the case. The jury returned a verdict in his favor in the sum of $25,544, but on motion of the defendant the court granted a new trial unless the plaintiff would remit from the verdict all sums in excess of $6,544. The plaintiff refused to remit, and a new trial was ordered. From, this order the plaintiff has appealed.

Taking the view of the testimony most favorable to the appellant, both as to the extent of his injuries and as to the impairment of his earning capacity, we are convinced that the verdict of the jury was excessive, and that the court was amply justified in granting a new trial unless a substantial remission from the verdict was made. In view of a retrial of the case, we deem it improper to determine at this time whether the verdict as reduced by the trial court was too large or too small, and refrain from expressing any opinion on that question; but, finding no e ror in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forests' Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday November 3, at 6 p.m. at the Supervisors Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

November 3, 2004.

# ADDRESSES:

Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Barbara Edgmon, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 293-6211, or e-mail                         *bedgmon@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda topics include status of approved projects, prepare for the re-application process, and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.

Dated: October 6, 2004.

Bob Castaneda,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04-23020 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M