alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §35. Placer claims; entry and proceedings for patent under provisions applicable to vein or lode claims; conforming entry to legal subdivisions and surveys; limitation of claims; homestead entry of segregated agricultural land

Claims usually called "placers," including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands. And where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the 10th day of May 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral land in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead purposes.

(R.S. §§2329, 2331; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §4, 26 Stat. 1097.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2329 derived from act July 9, 1870, ch. 235, §12, 16 Stat. 217.

R.S. §2331 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, §10, 17 Stat. 94.

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

#### Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of Title 43, Public Lands.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 01-009 January 31, 2001

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE WORKING GROUP,

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, ON FEBRUARY 21 - 22

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has

scheduled a meeting of its working group on February 21 -22 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B1 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, beginning at 8:30 a.m. on both days.

The ACNW working group will review issues concerning waste package and rock chemistry in

documents designed to support the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation

Report and the pre-licensing issue resolution process. For additional information or schedule changes,

contact Dr. Andrew Campbell, at 301-415-6897.

ACRW meeting notices, transcripts and letters are available on the internet,

at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW/ .

###
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

                        CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY AGREEMENT

$10,000                                                         January 10, 2001

This Agreement by and between, PARACELSIAN, INC., a Delaware corporation with an
address at 222 Langmuir Laboratories, Cornell Technology Park, Ithaca, NY 14850
(hereinafter called "Company") and Floyd Hasselriis with an address at 52
Seasongood Road, Forest Hills, New York 11375 (hereinafter called "Note
Holder").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Note Holder is willing to lend Company the aggregate sum of Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as evidenced by this Convertible Promissory Agreement
(hereinafter called "Note").

In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the
parties hereby agree, represent and warrant as follows:

     A.   The Company authorizes the issuance of this Note in the aggregate
          principal amount of $10,000 to be dated January 10, 2001, to mature on
          January 9, 2002 and to bear interest on the unpaid principal thereof
          at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until maturity.

     B.   The Note Holder at any time up to and including the maturity date but
          not thereafter may convert the Note into as many shares of Restricted
          Common Stock of the Company as the principal and accrued interest of
          the Note so converted in a multiple of $.40 per share, and upon
          surrender of this Agreement representing the Note to the Company at
          its principal office.

     C.   No fractional share of Common Stock shall be issued upon conversion of
          the Note. Upon conversion of the Note, any remaining accrued and
          unpaid interest and principal shall be paid to the Note Holder by the
          Company.

     D.   In case the Company shall at any time divide its outstanding shares of
          Common Stock into a greater number of shares, the conversion price in
          effect immediately prior to such subdivision should be proportionately
          reduced, and, conversely, in the case of outstanding shares of Common
          Stock of the Company shall be combined into a smaller number of
          shares, the actual conversion price in effect immediately prior to
          such combination shall be proportionately increased.

     E.   This Agreement may not be modified, amended or terminated except by
          written agreement executed by all the parties hereto.

<Page>

IN WITNESS THEREOF, this Note has been duly executed on the day and year first
above written.

PARACELSIAN, INC.


By:     /s/ T. Colin Campbell
    -------------------------------------
        T. Colin Campbell
        President & CEO


[Corporate Seal]


Attest:


/s/ Gary G. Chabot              Secretary
--------------------------------

                                      - 2 -
07/18/2012 16:20 FAX 2024835142 FAA -+ OMS 141001/002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

# RECEIVED DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION 

## JUl 13 

# 2012 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMTNTSTRA

# TtoMIARING DOCKET
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, (ACTING), ) DOCKDTNO. 

# :;J.D/d- {)1)'}8._
_ ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ) (Unassigned) ADMINISTRATION, ) Complainant,
vs. SCHUMAN AVIATION, I.TD., ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA Case No. 2012WP130002 ) Respondent. ) )

REOUEST FOR A HEARING SCHUMAN AVIATION, LTD., Respondent above-named, by his undersigned. counsel, herehy requests a hearing in the Administrator's Final Notice ofProposed Civii Penalty (Case No. 2012WPI30002) dated June 27, 2012, assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $11,000.00. Respondent prays that the Administrator's Assessment ofCivil Penalty be reversed. DATE: Honolulu, Hawaii, 

## Jt/Lf

# s- 20/2-**------~,~-rJ-----------**

CHRISTOPHER D. FERRARA Attorney for Respondent07/19/2012 18:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA -t OMS**~** 002/002



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jhereby certify thata copy ofthe foregoing was duly served upon the following 

### by mailing (postage prepaid) a copy ofsame to their addresses noted below on July 

### 5"' , 2012:
DON BOBERTZ, ESQ. (1 copy) 

### Deputy Regional 

### Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 

### Western Pacific Region 

### P.O. Box 92007-2007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION (original+ 2 copies) 

### 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC

- 430 Wilbur Wright Building 

### Room2W1000 DATE: Honolulu, Hawaii, July

## _r_. 2012.

# c~~---- Attomey for Respondent
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-22 March 14, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD WORKSHOP IN PHILADELPHIA ON ITS NEW

REACTOR INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a workshop March 21-23 in Philadelphia, Pa.,

to discuss its revised reactor oversight program with industry representatives.

The workshop, which is being offered in preparation for the program’s nationwide

implementation in early April at all 103 operating commercial power reactors in the United States, will

take place at the Holiday Inn, 400 Arch Street. It will run from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 21 and

from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 22 and 23. Registration will be held from 8 to 10 a.m. on March 21.

There is no pre-registration.

Since last June, 13 reactors at nine sites throughout the U.S. have participated in a pilot

oversight program. (In Region I, which encompasses the Northeastern U.S., the James A. FitzPatrick

nuclear power plant in Scriba, N.Y., and the Hope Creek and Salem plants in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.,

have been taking part.) NRC staff members have been assessing and modifying the program before its

nationwide expansion.

At the workshop, NRC staff members will give industry representatives at the non-pilot plants

in Region I an opportunity to become familiar with the new program. It will also be open to members

of the public.

The workshop will feature presentations from NRC regional and headquarters staff, with the

first day focusing on a program overview and performance indicators, which are measurements of a

plant’s performance. The second day will focus on the baseline inspection program, supplemental

inspections and the significance determination process, which will be used by the agency to gauge the

safety importance of events and issues. The final day will focus again on the significance

determination process. Day three presenters also will discuss enforcement and the assessment process

under the new program.

The revised reactor oversight process takes into account improvements in the nuclear industry

and the agency’s need to effectively regulate the industry with existing resources and staff. Under the

new program, the NRC will apply more objective and timely criteria in assessing a plant’s
performance, while focusing agency resources on areas that have the greatest impact on safe plant

operation.

Information about the revised reactor oversight process and the pilot program is available on

the Internet at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html

#
From: McCabe, Janet 

Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:25 PM

To: Green, Gregory; Wood, Gil

Cc: Koerber, Mike; Page, Steve; Powers, Tom

Subject: For the docket on woodstoves

I wanted to pass along, for your information and for purposes of the docket, that Janice Nolen of ALA 

called me this evening to make two points/requests for the woodstoves rule. First was that we stick 

with the 1.3 gr.hr standard for wood and pellet stoves, and second was that we use the same approach 

to testing for all devices and not use the averaging approach. Her reason for both points is to ensure 

that the rule provides as much protection as possible.
#### § 143.22 Formal entry may be required.

CBP may require a formal consumption or appraisement entry for any merchandise if deemed necessary for import admissibility enforcement purposes; revenue protection; or the efficient conduct of customs business. Individual shipments for the same consignee, when such shipments are valued at $2,500 or less, may be consolidated on one such entry.

[CBP Dec. 12-19, 77 FR 72720, Dec. 6, 2012, as amended by CBP
Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93020, Dec. 20, 2016]
Exhibit 99.2

**CERTIFICATION**

          I, William J. Michaelcheck, Chief Executive Officer of LASER Mortgage Management, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, as of the date hereof, as follows:

          1.     The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

          2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 31, 2003

|   | /s/  William J. Michaelcheck    |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                           |   |
|   | **William J. Michaelcheck**               |   |
|   | **Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and** |   |
|   | **Director**                              |   |
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1354

To amend section 19 of title 3, United States Code, to include the Secretary 

of Homeland Security on the list of presidential successors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2003

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend section 19 of title 3, United States Code, to 

include the Secretary of Homeland Security on the list 

of presidential successors.

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 ‘‘Presidential Vacancy 

5 Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 1354 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDING THE LIST OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCES2 SORS. 

3 Section 19(d)(1) of title 3, United States Code, is 

4 amended by inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’ 

5 after ‘‘Attorney General,’’.

Æ
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”), the Interactive Advertising Bureau (“IAB”) 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: Interactive Advertising Bureau, New York, NY.  The nature and scope of IAB's standards development activities are: to develop, promulgate and publish voluntary consensus standards for the Internet Advertising industry, using procedures that incorporate the attributes of openness, balance of interests, due process, and appeals process, and consensus.  The IAB sets out to organize the industry to set standards and guidelines that make Interactive an easier medium for agencies and marketers to buy and capture value from advertising. 

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23519  Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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 Quarterly  Report of Shoe Carnival,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending  August 3, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, W. Kerry Jackson,
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/ W. Kerry Jackson
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer
September 17, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7176

JEFFREY D. WHITAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES EDGAR DEMPS, Attorney & Counsel at law, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-819) Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey D. Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Jeffrey D. Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for failure to exhaust state remedies. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. See Whitaker v. Demps , No. CA03-819 (E.D. Va. filed July 7, 2003 & entered July 9, 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 172.3 Filing a petition. ( a ) *Where filed.* A petition for relief must be filed by the bond principal with the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures office whose address is given in the notice.
( b ) *When filed.* Petitions for relief must be filed within 60 days from the date of mailing to the bond principal the notice of claim for liquidated damages or penalty secured by a bond.
( c ) *Extensions.* The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is empowered to grant extensions of time to file petitions when the circumstances so warrant.
( d ) *Number of copies.* The petition must be filed in duplicate unless filed electronically.
( e ) *Exception for certain cases.* If a penalty or claim for liquidated damages is assessed and fewer than 180 days remain from the date of penalty or liquidated damages notice before the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may specify in the notice a reasonable period of time, but not less than 7 working days, for the filing of a petition for relief. If a petition is not filed within the time specified, the matter will be transmitted promptly to the appropriate Office of the Chief Counsel for referral to the Department of Justice.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.7

                     Schedule of Indemnification Agreements

1.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of July 1, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and David A. Perdue.

2.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Bradley I. Dietz.

3.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Bruce A. Karsh.

4.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Jeffrey J. Keenan.

5.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Ralph W. LaRovere.

6.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Kenneth Liang.

7.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Mariusz J. Mazurek.

8.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and James P. Seery, Jr.

9.   Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Michael R. Harmon.

10.  Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and A. Allen Oakley.

11.  Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Scott E. Shimizu.

12.  Indemnification Agreement dated as of May 24, 2002 entered into between
     Pillowtex Corporation and Anthony T. Williams.
###### Editorial Note on Part 174

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 174.16 Limitation on protests after reliquidation.

A protest shall not be filed against the reliquidation decision of the port director or Center director made before January 19, 2017, or the reliquidation decision of the Center director made on or after January 19, 2017, upon any question not involved in the reliquidation.

[CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016]
#### Sophie Rossum, Respondent, v. Robert S. Saphir et al., Appellants.

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed and judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs to the defendants in this Court and in the Appellate Term. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
Case 9:20-mc-81409-RKA   Document 1-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020   Page 1 of 3

Case 9:20-mc-81409-RKA   Document 1-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020   Page 2 of 3

Case 9:20-mc-81409-RKA   Document 1-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020   Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 181
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 181.23 Effect of noncompliance; failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment. ( a ) *Effect of noncompliance.* If the importer fails to comply with any requirement under this part, including submission of a Certificate of Origin under § 181.22(b) or submission of a corrected Certificate under § 181.22(c), the Center director may deny preferential tariff treatment to the imported good.
( b ) *Failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment.* Where the requirements for preferential tariff treatment set forth elsewhere in this part are met, the Center director nevertheless may deny preferential tariff treatment to an originating good if the good is shipped through or transshipped in a country other than the United States, Canada or Mexico and the importer of the good does not provide, at the request of the Center director, copies of the customs control documents that indicate to the satisfaction of the Center director that the good remained under customs control while in such other country.