alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 10.16 Adoption of a final rule.

All timely comments are considered in taking final action on a proposed rule. Each preamble to a final rule will contain a short analysis and evaluation of the relevant significant issues set forth in the comments submitted, and a clear concise statement of the basis and purpose of the rule.
#### § 1509.610 Controlled substance.

*Controlled substance* means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812), and as further defined by regulation at 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2496 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3,6,9-Trioxaundecanedioic 

acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005 

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3,6,9- 

Trioxaundecanedioic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ON 3,6,9-TRIOXAUNDECANEDIOIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.09 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2496 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s Rulemakin g Documen t

TiUe : P/^C^Jo*^^ ^ -f * ^ ^ ^^C^-di^Sfii^-^'\*'^ ^ \/^ i c- ^ AjL^ > ^ RIN : -2^/ 0 r - A'^^S " '''''* ^ Wit h respec t t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E,0.12866 : Th e requirement s of sectio n 6(a)(3)(E ) of

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee n me t i n accordanc e wit

h th e followin g [initial appropriat e line] :

—Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewedb y th e Offic e of hiformatio n an d Regulator y Affair s (OIRA) . _^^ ^ No substantiv e change s were mad e t o th e document(s ) afte r i t wa s submitte dt o OIRA . ^^^ ^ Th e require dinformatio n i s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s of th e Small Busines s Regulator y Enforcement

Fairnes s Ac t fo r th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee n me t i n accordanc e wit

h th e followin g [initial appropriate line] :

___^ ^ Thi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule . ^__ ^ Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e under

( § 804) . ^ Th e document

ha s bee n submitte dt o C-5 0 fo r transmissio n t o Congres s andGAO . Signatur e Nam e Title/Offic e Date
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, each of the undersigned
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our respective
knowledge and belief, that:

         (1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lason, Inc. for the
                  quarter ended September 30, 2002, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-Q of Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2002,
                  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
                  condition and results of operations of Lason, Inc.

The foregoing Certification is subject to and qualified by the disclosure in
Part I, Item 2 which provides that while the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements of registrant included in this quarterly report have been
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for interim
financial information, they are not in conformity with the instructions for Form
10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X, as registrant has not presented
comparable information for the three month period ending September 30, 2001, and
the nine month periods ending September 30, 2001 and 2002, and accordingly, do
not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted
accounting principles for complete interim condensed financial statements.
Reference is made to "Part I, Item 2: Management's Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Fresh Start Reporting and
Factors that Affect Comparability of Financial Information" for a more complete
discussion.



November 19, 2002                /s/ Ronald D. Risher
                                 -----------------------
                                     Ronald D. Risher
                                 Chief Executive Officer


November 19, 2002                /s/ Douglas S. Kearney
                                 -----------------------
                                 Douglas S. Kearney
                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### Trygve G. Pedersen, Appellant, v. Board of Education of the Central School District No. 2 et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of his fall from a scaffold when it was struck by a falling vertical air duct, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered January 8, 1959, after a jury trial, which dismisses his complaint as against all the defendants. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Peter J. Dugan, Appellant, v Thomas Cerniglia et al., Constituting the Board of Education of the City of Poughkeepsie, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel respondents to pay accrued vacation moneys to petitioner, the appeals are (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered June 7, 1976, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the petition and (2) as limited by petitioner’s brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 14, 1976, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The judgment was superseded by the order made on reargument. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for the holding of a fact-finding hearing on the issue of the validity of section 18.2 of the board’s policy handbook. By this proceeding petitioner seeks to compel respondents to pay him the sum of $7,174.12, representing accrued vacation moneys, and reasonable attorney fees. Petitioner should at least be afforded an opportunity to explore at a fact-finding hearing the contradictions evidenced in the parties’ affidavits. The issue of what the board intended by its adoption of *838the policy handbook for the 1974-1975 school year is not so clearly defined as to warrant the granting of summary relief. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Julius E. Braun, an Attorney, Respondent.

Third Department,

July 12, 1960.

*Per Curiam.*

Bespondent was admitted to the Bar in the Third Department in January, 1950. He was an executor of a will and attorney for the estate of Christina Dziamba of Troy, New York. A son and beneficiary of decedent complains to this court that respondent withdrew $1,215.35 from the estate bank account and refused after several requests to account for it. Bespondent ignored letters of inquiry from the Clerk of this court referring to the complaint. When jurisdiction was obtained he appeared and explained to the court he had taken the proceeds of the account and put it in a cashbox in his home.

Bespondent filed an answer and the proceeding was heard before the court. There is essentially no dispute on the facts. The conversion of the executor’s account to cash and the refusal to account to the client for it until long after charges had been made constitute unprofessional conduct.

Bespondent is censured.

Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Beynolds, JJ.

Order signed.
§ 9a.6 Marking. ( a ) The provisions of 22 CFR 9.15 through 9.19 shall govern the marking of information or material classified under the provisions of these regulations, except that the following stamp shall be used as appropriate: (Top Secret, Secret or Confidential) Classified by: ______________________________ Under Executive Order 11932 Exempt from General Declassification Schedule of E.O. 11652 Exemption Category section 5B (2), (3), or (4); or E.O. 11932 Automatically Declassified on ______________ (effective date or event if any)
Exemption category “E.O. 11932” shall be used for information and material obtained by the United States on e understanding that it be kept in confidence and classified under E.O. 11932.
( b ) If the information or material does not qualify for exemption from the General Declassification Schedule, ordinary stamps and marking may be used.
#### WOODWARD v. SKINNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 23, 1905.)

Depositions—Obal Cross-Examination—Orders.

An order allowing a commission and permitting an oral cross-examination of the witnesses without the reasons therefor being stated by affidavit and incorporated in the record is erroneous, as special circumstances must be shown where the privilege of oral examination or cross-examination is sought.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by James O. Woodward, administrator of the goods, etc., of Robert Gordon Hardie, deceased, against William Skinner. From an order of the City Court, granted at Special Term, allowing the oral cross-examination of witnesses on commission, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.

William P. S. Melvin, for appellant.

William L. Flagg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The record discloses no ground supporting the decision of the court below in allowing oral cross-examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by commission. The papers do not show what the proposed witnesses are expected to testify to, or even about. Even the nature of the action is not shown. ' The only ground anywhere assigned for the court’s action is in the opinion, which states that the plaintiff appeared and requested leave to orally cross-examine. It is altogether probable that the learned justice had good reasons for his de*260cisión, and those reasons were apparently stated by the plaintiff on the hearing; but they should have been made in the form of an affidavit, and incorporated in the record. Special circumstances should be shown where the privilege of oral examination or cross-examination is sought. Laidley v. Rogers (Sup.) *22*N. Y. Supp. 458; Frounfelker v. D. L. & W. Ry., 81 App. Div. 67, 80 N. Y. Supp. 701.

The order should be modified by striking out all provisions for oral examination or cross-examination, and substituting therefor provisions for written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000040818-JUN-201308:28 AM
222 A.2d 193.

#### Anthony A. Giannini *vs.*Board of Elections *et al.*

AUGUST 24, 1966.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for certiorari brought to review a decision of the board of elections rejecting the petitioner’s declaration of candidacy for the office of senator for the fifth senatorial district. The petitioner’s motion for special assignment for oral argument was denied. However, permission was granted all interested parties to file a memorandum of law with the court by August 22, 1966. The cause was considered on said memoranda and a copy *286of the decision of the respondent board submitted by the parties.

It appears that the board rejected petitioner’s declaration on the ground that he was not a person eligible to ■file such a declaration within the purview of the pertinent provisions of G. L. 1956, §17-14-2. That section, as amended, reads: “No person shall be eligible to file a declaration of candidacy, or be eligible to be a candidate or be eligible to be voted for or to' be nominated or elected in a party primary, unless such person shall, at the time of filing such declaration, be a qualified voter eligible to vote at the primary of said political party.”

The board found petitioner ineligible and rejected his declaration for candidacy on its conclusion that he “was not a qualified voter in the City of Providence on June 27, 1966, the date that he filed his declaration and thus does not comply with the provisions of Chapter 17-14-2, and therefore is ineligible to' be a candidate to be voted for in the Democratic primary to be held on September 13, 1966.”

We are aware of the need for an expeditious disposition of this petition because of the time clement involved in the preparation of ballots for the Democratic primary. Therefore, we will not extend this opinion by discussing the arguments advanced by the parties. It is our opinion that the statute is not susceptible of any reasonable construction that would in the circumstances sustain the validity of the board’s action. We are therefore constrained to hold that the board acted illegally in rejecting the petitioner’s declaration of candidacy.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the decision of the board of elections rejecting the petitioner’s declaration off candidacy is 'quashed, and the board of elections is directed to accept for filing the petitioner’s declaration of candidacy.

*287
      *McGee, Gifford & Giannini, William G. Gilroy, Thomas F. Farrelly,*for petitioner.

*John P. Bourcier,*for respondents.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.42 Reexport of USAID-financed commodities.

Unless specifically authorized by USAID, commodities imported into a cooperating country under USAID-financing may not be exported in the same or substantially in the same form from the cooperating country. In the event of any unauthorized reexport, the borrower/grantee shall pay promptly to USAID, upon demand, the entire amount reimbursed or such lesser or greater amount as USAID may deem appropriate under the circumstances of the particular transaction. Such an amount shall in no event, however, exceed the greater of either the amount reimbursed or the amount realized from the reexport.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4150 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

the areas included in Indian Peninsula Unit FL–92 and Cape San 

Blas Unit P–30 in Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2012 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System the areas included in Indian Peninsula 

Unit FL–92 and Cape San Blas Unit P–30 in Florida. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM OF AREAS 

5 COMPRISING INDIAN PENINSULA UNIT FL–92 

6 AND CAPE SAN BLAS UNIT P–30, FLORIDA. 

7 The areas comprising John H. Chafee Coastal Bar8 rier Resources System Indian Peninsula Unit FL–92 and 

9 Cape San Blas Unit P–30 in Florida immediately before 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4150 IH

1 the enactment of this Act are not part of such system, 

2 and maps relating to such units are hereby removed from 

3 the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 

4 Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |   |   |   |                                                           |
|--------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| May 17, 2010 |   | By:    |   | /s/      John Paulsen                                          |
|         |   |   |   | John      Paulsen                                              |
|         |   |   |   | Chief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |

| May 17, 2010 |   | By:    |   | /s/      John Paulsen                                                |
|--------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |   |   |   | John      Paulsen                                                    |
|         |   |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal      Financial Officer) |
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76977-76978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing; Office of 
Research and Development

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA.

ACTION: Notice of government owned invention available for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for 
licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration 
under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of 
results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents 
are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. 
companies and may also be available for licensing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, 
Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20420;

[[Page 76978]]

fax: (202) 254-0260; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36545954184659424245765e47185b535218405718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf9f4f9b5ebf4efefe8dbf3eab5f6feffb5edfab5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. Any request for 
information should include the Number and Title for the relevant 
invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the 
Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, 
DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is: 
U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/591,207 ``Securing 
Implantable Neuromuscular Electrodes with Mesh''.

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-28040 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas H. Cook, Respondent, v Sabatino Trucking, Inc., et al., Appellants, and National Molasses Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed October 24, 1975. Claimant, a truck driver, suffered on-the-job injuries to his back in 1963, 1967 and on two separate occasions in 1970. On each of these occasions he was employed by a different employer. Subsequent to the fourth accident on September 21, 1970, a claim for compensation was filed. Appellants, the employer and carrier at the time of claimant’s injury on January 6, 1970, object to the award of compensation insofar as it apportions liability 50% to them and 50% to the employer and carrier at the time of the September 21, 1970 accident. Claimant’s right to compensation is not disputed. The record amply supports the conclusion that the incidents in 1963 and 1967 resulted in no extended lost time or disability and that claimant had recovered from them. On the basis of the testimony of Dr. Quinn, who performed surgery subsequent to the fourth incident, the board could properly find that only the two 1970 incidents contributed to claimant’s disability, and there is further medical evidence from which the board was entitled to conclude that each of these incidents contributed to the disability in equal proportions. The decision is therefore supported by substantial evidence and the findings of the board are sufficient to permit adequate judicial review. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, JJ., concur.