alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

§ 400.12 Eligible applicants. ( a ) *In general.* Subject to the other provisions of this section, public or private corporations may apply for grants of authority to establish zones. The Board shall give preference to public corporations.
( b ) *Public corporations and private non-profit corporations.* The eligibility of public corporations and private non-profit corporations to apply for a grant of authority shall be supported by enabling legislation of the legislature of the state in which the zone is to be located, indicating that the corporation, individually or as part of a class, is authorized to so apply. Any application must not be inconsistent with the charter or organizational papers of the applying entity.
( c ) *Private for-profit corporations.* The eligibility of private for-profit corporations to apply for a grant of authority shall be supported by a special act of the state legislature naming the applicant corporation and by evidence indicating that the corporation is chartered for the purpose of establishing a zone.
( d ) *Applicants for subzones (except pursuant to § 400.24(c) )* — ( 1 ) *Eligibility.* The following entities are eligible to apply to establish a subzone: ( i ) The grantee of the closest zone in the same state;
( ii ) The grantee of another zone in the same state, which is a public corporation (or a non-public corporation if no such other public corporation exists), if the Board, or the Executive Secretary, finds that such sponsorship better serves the public interest; or
( iii ) A state agency specifically authorized to submit such an application by an act of the state legislature.
( 2 ) *Notification of closest grantee.* If an application is submitted under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section, the Executive Secretary shall: ( i ) Notify, in writing, the grantee specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, which may, within 30 days, object to such sponsorship, in writing, with supporting information as to why the public interest would be better served by its acting as sponsor;
( ii ) Review such objections prior to docketing the application to determine whether the proposed sponsorship is in the public interest, taking into account: ( A ) The objecting zone's structure and operation;
( B ) The views of state and local public agencies; and
( C ) The views of the proposed subzone operator;
( iii ) Notify the applicant and objecting zone in writing of the Executive Secretary's determination;
( iv ) If the Executive Secretary determines that the proposed sponsorship is in the public interest, docket the application (see § 400.63 regarding appeals of decisions of the Executive Secretary).
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Timothy Fairbanks, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NationsHealth, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 10, 2006     By: /s/ Timothy Fairbanks Timothy Fairbanks    Chief Financial Officer
(November 14, 1951.)

#### Katharine G. Clifford, as Administratrix of the Estate of John J. Clifford, Deceased, Respondent, v. Wilmore Realty Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ. [See *post,*p. 757.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70283-70284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 18, 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''), Semiconductor Test 
Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., Portland, OR; 
Hilevel Technology, Inc., Irvine, CA; Micro Component Technology, St. 
Paul, MN; Reid Ashman Manufacturing, St. George, UT; Salland 
Engineering International BV, Zwolle, THE NETHERLANDS; and Toshiba 
Corporation Semiconductor Company, Tokyo, JAPAN have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 20, 
2004. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 70284]]

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 
51329).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26614 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Anne O’Sullivan, Respondent, v. Kod-Rose Holding Corp., Appellant.

Present— Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
### §14163a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14163a was editorially reclassified as section 60302 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### In the Matter of Stoney Harrison, Petitioner, v S. Brooks, as Correction Officer, et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 818]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of the Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. As petitioner has received all the relief to *1088which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot (see *Matter of Jenkins v Goord,*24 AD3d 923, 924 [2005]). Petitioner’s request in his reply brief for costs and lost wages is denied.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
### §12133. Enforcement

The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, §203, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 337.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 18 months after July 26, 1990, see section 205(a) of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as a note under section 12131 of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                       Ex. 10.32

        ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER FOR PARTICIPATION OF CALL OPTION AGREEMENT

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA CO., LTD., (registered address: Room A65, 28 Floor, No.369,
Jiangsu Road, Changning District, Shanghai) (hereinafter the "PARTICIPANT
SHAREHOLDER"), and HEFEI FUKESI ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD. (registered address:
Room B2401, Gujin Baihua Building, 156 Shouchun Rd., Hefei) (hereinafter the
"NEW TARGET COMPANY"), as independent party, hereby agree to participate in the
Call Option Agreement among FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD.,
SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD. and other relevant parties
(hereinafter, "CALL OPTION AGREEMENT") dated March 28 2005. The Participant
Shareholder hereby grant Focus Media Technology with an irrevocable equity Call
Option (hereinafter "CALL OPTION") in respect to 10% of the equity share of New
Target Company held by this company. Once this Acknowledgement Letter is
executed by this company, the New Target Company and the newly increase equity
share begin to be the "Target Company" and "Option Equity" defined under the
Call Option Agreement (hereinafter the "CALL OPTION AGREEMENT") entered into
between this company, Focus Media Technology and other relevant parties dated
March 28 2005; and this company immediately make the same representations and
warranties in respect to the New Target Company and relevant equity Call Option
as this company made under the Call Option Agreement in respect to the defined
Target Company and Call Option and undertake the same obligations therein.

<PAGE>

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA CO., LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


HEFEI FUKESI ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) CO.,
LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


                                        2
#### LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS/BLUE MOUNTAINS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee, Boise Building Solutions Manufacturing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 05-35960.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2006.

Submission Vacated Sept. 27, 2006.

Resubmitted Sept. 11, 2007.

Stephanie M. Parent, Esq., Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Lane McFadden, Esq., Brian C. Toth, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, Karin J. Immergut, Esq., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Scott W. Horngren, Esq., Julie A. Weis, Esq., Haglund Kirtley Kelley Horngren & Jones, LLP, Portland, OR, for DefendantIntervenors-Appellees.

Before: BRUNETTI, TASHIMA, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

In light of the Government’s response that the Butte and Booth Fire Salvage Timber Sales contracts have been can-celled and that logging operations in the relevant areas have ceased permanently, it appears that the need for a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of the B *&*B Project has been rendered moot. We therefore vacate the injunction pending appeal. We also vacate the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remand the case to district court to determine whether, in fact, the need for a preliminary injunction is moot. If the issue is not moot, the district court is to determine whether, under *Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Brong,*492 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2007), and *Lands Council v. McNair,*494 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.2007), Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.

*385The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 170.1 Demonstration of purposes (section 17(b)(1) of the Act).

A futures association must demonstrate that it will be able to carry out the purposes of section 17 of the Act. Since a basic purpose of a futures association is to regulate the practices of its members, an association should demonstrate that it will require its members to adhere to regulatory requirements governing their business practices at least as stringent as those imposed by the Commission. For example, the association should be prepared to establish and maintain in accordance with § 1.52 of this chapter, a financial compliance program for those members of the association who are futures commission merchants.
#### Photographic Importing *&*Distributing Corporation et al. v. Elgeet Optical Co., Inc., et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Breitel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 223.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.71 Fiduciary relationships.

A member should avoid service as a fiduciary if it would interfere or seem to interfere with the proper performance of his duties, or if the interests of those represented require investments in enterprises which are involved in questions to be determined by him. Such relationships would include trustees, executors, corporate directors, and the like.
§ 230.157 Small entities under the Securities Act for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Six of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), and unless otherwise defined for purposes of a particular rulemaking proceeding, the term *small business* or *small organization* shall: ( a ) When used with reference to an issuer, other than an investment company, for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, mean an issuer whose total assets on the last day of its most recent fiscal year were $5 million or less and that is engaged or proposing to engage in small business financing. An issuer is considered to be engaged or proposing to engage in small business financing under this section if it is conducting or proposes to conduct an offering of securities which does not exceed the dollar limitation prescribed by section 3(b)(1) of the Securities Act.
( b ) When used with reference to an investment company that is an issuer for purposes of the Act, have the meaning ascribed to those terms by § 270.0-10 of this chapter.
[47 FR 5221, Feb. 4, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 25362, July 14, 1986; 63 FR 35514, June 30, 1998; 80 FR 21894, Apr. 20, 2015]
### §12724. Authorization

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $2,086,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and $2,173,612,000 for fiscal year 1994, of which—

(1) not more than $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, shall be for community housing partnership activities authorized under section 12773 of this title; and

(2) not more than $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and $22,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, shall be for activities in support of State and local housing strategies authorized under part C.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §205, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4096; Pub. L. 102–550, title II, §201, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3751; Pub. L. 103–120, §5, Oct. 27, 1993, 107 Stat. 1148.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–120 substituted "$25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994" for "$14,000,000 for fiscal year 1994" in par. (1) and "$22,000,000 for fiscal year 1994" for "$11,000,000 for fiscal year 1994" in par. (2).

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and $2,086,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, of which—

"(1) not more than $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, shall be for community housing partnership activities authorized under section 12773 of this title; and

"(2) not more than $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, shall be for activities in support of State and local housing strategies authorized under part C of this subchapter."
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Samuel Roy Jackson

Appellate case number: 01-18-00881-CR

Trial court case number: 913043

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 10, 2018

Relator, Samuel Roy Jackson, has filed a motion for rehearing. It is ordered that 

the motion is denied.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Terry Jennings______

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.

Date: ___December 20, 2018____
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,579-01

IN RE ROLANDO RAMIREZ, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 2016-DCR-01853-C IN THE 197TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM CAMERON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

Cameron County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Cameron County, shall forward Relator’s habeas

application to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in Cameron County,

or forward a copy of an order designating issues together with correspondence documenting the date

the State received Relator’s habeas application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and

(d); TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply

with this order within thirty days from the date of this order.
2

Filed: March 16, 2022

Do not publish
### §14135c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14135c was editorially reclassified as section 40704 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


SUMMARY
SHEET:  DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


 


 


1.           Each
director shall receive an annual cash retainer of $25,000.


 


2.           Each
director shall receive $1,000 cash for each meeting of the board of directors
or board of directors’ committee that such director attends.


 


3.           The
Audit Committee Chairman shall receive an additional annual cash retainer of
$5,000.


 


4.           The
Compensation Committee Chairman, the Nominating Committee Chairman, the
Corporate Governance Committee Chairman and the chairman of any other committee
or special committee established by the board of directors shall receive an
additional annual cash retainer of $3,000.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6556

DAVID MATTHEW MCKINNEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY RAY, Warden of Red Onion State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00266-REP)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Matthew McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

David Matthew McKinney seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKinney has

not made the requisite showing. 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