alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3796c–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796c–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10286 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §4363a. Pollution control technologies demonstrations

(1) The Administrator shall continue to be responsible for conducting and shall continue to conduct full-scale demonstrations of energy-related pollution control technologies as necessary in his judgment to fulfill the provisions of the Clean Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.], and other pertinent pollution control statutes.

(2) Energy-related environmental protection projects authorized to be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency under this Act shall not be transferred administratively to the Department of Energy or reduced through budget amendment. No action shall be taken through administrative or budgetary means to diminish the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate such projects.

(Pub. L. 96–229, §2(d), Apr. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 327.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Clean Air Act, referred to in par. (1), is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 85 (§7401 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, referred to in par. (1), is act June 30, 1948, ch. 758, as amended generally by Pub. L. 92–500, §2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (§1251 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1251 of Title 33 and Tables.

This Act, referred to in par. (2), is Pub. L. 96–229, Apr. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 325, known as the Environmental, Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1980, which enacted sections 4363, 4363a, 4369a, and 4370 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1980, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior authorization act:

1979—Pub. L. 95–477, §2(d), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1508.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

DEC 2 D }~~n 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Mr. James R. Moseley 

Chair 

Farm, Ranch and Rural 

Communities Committee 

7418 East Countyline Road South 

Clarks Hill, Indiana 47930 

Dear Mr. Moseley: 

Thank you and the members of the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee for 

your thoughtful consideration of the important issues discussed in the advice letters and white 

papers recently submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

I have asked my Agricultural Counselor, Lawrence Elworth, to discuss the specific issues 

that the Committee has raised with the appropriate offices within the Agency, including our 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and our Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances . The Agency has already engaged with the National Association of State 

Directors of Agriculture to participate in regular communications with that organization's 

membership . Discussions are also underway to enhance interaction and communications with 

the wider agricultural community. 

Thank you again for your time and efforts in service to the Agency. I look forward to 

continued work with the Committee to address the challenges and opportunities that confront us 

today regarding agriculture and the environment. 

SincerelA 

cc : Lawrence Elworth 

Rafael DeLeon 

Mark Joyce 

Alicia Kaiser 

Internet Address (URL) e http ://www.epa .gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
### §1925. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 520, §5, 64 Stat. 398, which required the Department of Justice to submit an annual report furnishing a list of the names of all those upon whom the President has conferred either the Young American Medal for Bravery or the Young American Medal for Service, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, item 6 on page 117 of House Document No. 103–7.
#### KEOUGH v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Street Railways—Injuries to Pedestrians—Contributory Negligence.

One who started to cross a street In the middle of a block, and, although it was daylight, and there was nothing to obstruct her vision, attempted to cross in front of a street car, which she had seen before leaving the curb, but had not again looked for, and was struck and injured before she had cleared the track, was guilty of contributory negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Street Railroads, §§ 207, 208.]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Rose Keough against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant.

Edward Russell, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

It is necessary to read no more than the plaintiff's own testimony to reach the conclusion that she was guilty of contributory negligence. She desired to cross Amsterdam avenue at a point betweenNinetieth and Ninety-First streets, not at an intersection of the avenue "with a street. Before she left the curb she saw defendant’s car somewhere between Ninety-First and Ninety-Second streets running very rapidly. She had about 26 feet to go before reaching the track on which the car was running. Under these circumstances, in daylight, with nothing to obstruct her vision, she started across the avenue, and never looked again for the car. She attempted to cross in front of it, and was struck before she had succeeded in clearing the track. It has been held in a multitude of cases that a plaintiff under such circumstances is guilty of contributory negligence, and particularly is this so where the attempt to cross a street is in the middle of a block. Lynch v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 604, 85 N. Y. Supp. 180.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.1 Definitions. For the purpose of this part the following terms shall have the meaning here given: ( a ) *International educational and cultural exchange program of the Department of State.* A program to promote mutual understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries and to strengthen cooperative international relations in connection with which payments are made direct by the Department of State, as well as similar programs carried out by other Government departments and agencies and by private organizations with funds appropriated or allocated to the Department of State when the regulations in this part apply under the provisions of § 515.2 (a) and (b).
( b ) *Program and Agency.* For convenience, the international educational and cultural exchange program of the Department of State will hereinafter be referred to as the “program,” and the Department of State will hereinafter be referred to as the “Agency.”
( c ) *Participant.* Any person taking part in the program for purposes listed in § 515.3 through § 515.8 including both citizens of the United States and citizens and nationals of the other countries with which the program is conducted.
( d ) *Transportation.* All necessary travel on railways, airplanes, steamships, buses, streetcars, taxicabs, and other usual means of conveyance.
( e ) *Excess baggage.* Baggage in excess of the weight or size carried free by public carriers on first class service.
( f ) *Per diem allowance.* Per diem in lieu of subsistence includes all charges for meals and lodging; fees and tips; telegrams and telephone calls reserving hotel accommodations; laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing; transportation between places of lodging or business and places where meals are taken.
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas W. Reddoch, Chairman and
Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 12, 2004



/s/ Thomas W. ReddochThomas W. Reddoch, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 12, 2004



/s/ Sharon L. DraperSharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certificate is being furnished
solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

_________________________________________ Clerk January 25, 2013

d0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

144603(69)

ANDREW LUCIO,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 144603

COA: 299786

Wayne CC: 09

- 003014

- NI

GREAT LAKES CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

a/k/a AAA,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Cou rt, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September

19, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             884,904
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      832,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         29,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,547,479
<PP&E>                                             304,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                     134,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,480,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              316,768
<BONDS>                                            334,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        160,000
<COMMON>                                         8,697,105
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,480,481
<SALES>                                             82,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    82,490
<CGS>                                              154,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      628,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15,561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (546,161)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (561,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (561,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
#### § 91.2 Furnishing samples to collectors of customs or appraising officers.

Upon the receipt of a request therefor from a collector of customs or appraising officer of the Government of the United States, a consular officer shall procure and forward samples of merchandise being imported or offered for importation into the United States from his particular district.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6107

DON RHEW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 05-6189

DON RHEW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-04-340-1)

Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Rhew, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Don Rhew seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). 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). 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Rhew has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals. 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
#### Anna McCormick et al., Respondents, v. West Tremont Estates, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on June 20, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their bill of particulars is unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. The accident upon which the action is predicated occurred on September 13, 1952. The case came on for trial in January, 1958, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. This court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial on July 1, 1958 *(McCormick*v. *West Tremont Estates,*6 A D 2d 105). We then said (p. 107): *“*There was neither evidence as to any defect in the construction or maintenance of the box nor was there proof of any actual or constructive notice of any defect. To establish defendants’ liability it was incumbent on plaintiffs to prove some defect in the box or in its maintenance which caused its toppling over.” It was not until almost two years later that plaintiffs moved to amend their bill of particulars so as to allege that between 1946 and 1952 two tenants had complained to the defendant’s superintendent about the condition of the box upon which the plaintiff, Anna McCormick, claimed she had fallen. The granting of that motion was improvident for a number of reasons. In the first place, plaintiffs were guilty of inexcusable and prejudicial laches in seeking to add new matter in the action, eight years after the occurrence of the accident and two years since the reversal. The passage of between 8 and 14 years, since the alleged complaints were made to the defendant’s superintendent, clearly makes proper investigation extremely difficult, if not impossible. Secondly, as to the two instances in which the tenants are supposed to have notified the superintendant, one is too remote in time while the other is too indefinite in substance. Finally, there is no necessity for the proposed amendment. Under the present bill of particulars, plaintiffs may attempt to prove the existence of a defect by these witnesses. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 3a.3 Authority to approve or disapprove proposed foreign government employment.

The Director, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, is authorized to approve or disapprove any request by an applicant for approval under this part to accept civil employment (and compensation therefor) from a foreign government. The Director may delegate this authority within the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, Department of State.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.

ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, the Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) and Pearl Senior Care, Inc. (“PSC”) are
parties to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 16, 2005 (the “Agreement”, which term
shall include all amendments thereto), pursuant to which a subsidiary of PSC will be merged into
the Company (the “Transaction”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company maintains an Annual Incentive Plan (“AIP”) pursuant to which annual
bonuses are paid in accordance with performance metrics determined by the Board of Directors of the
Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Board previously scheduled the bonus payments for 2005 under the AIP to occur at
the earlier of the date of closing of the Transaction or January 31, 2006; and



     WHEREAS, because the closing date of the Transaction has been extended, the Board has
re-scheduled the bonus payments for 2005 under the AIP to occur on any day after February 15, 2006,
through February 28, 2006, which timeframe is consistent with the Company’s customary schedule for
paying bonuses under the AIP; and



     WHEREAS, the Board has authorized the appropriate officers of the Company to adopt an
amendment to the AIP to effectuate the Board’s rescheduling of the 2005 bonus payments under the
AIP.



     NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Section 7.4 (which was added to the AIP as part of
Amendment Number 1, effective January 1, 2005) is amended, effective January 30, 2006, as follows:



     1. Subsection (b) is amended to provide in its entirety as follows: “The annual Award amounts,
as determined in accordance with the preceding Section 7.4(a), shall be paid on any day after
February 15, 2006, and on or before February 28, 2006.”



     2. Subsection (c) shall be amended to provide in its entirety as follows: “The AIP Award of a
Participant who was not employed as an Employee on December 31, 2005, shall receive his or her
bonus in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.2 of the Plan, which provides that (i) a
Participant whose employment terminated during 2005 on account of his or her retirement,
disability, or death shall be eligible to receive an AIP Award for 2005 and (ii) a Participant
whose employment terminated during 2005 for any reason other than his or her retirement,
disability, or death (whether because the Participant’s employment with the Company terminated
voluntarily (other than a retirement), involuntarily (with or without Cause), or otherwise during
2005) shall not be eligible to receive payment of an AIP Award for such Plan Year unless the
Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, determines otherwise.”



     3. Subsection
(h)(3) is amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
“‘Target Date’
means December 31, 2005.”



 









 





     4. Except as specifically amended herein, the Plan (including Amendment Number 1) remains in
full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Lawrence Deans
 	 
	 	 	Lawrence Deans 	 
	 	 	SVP - Human Resources 	 
	 




-2-