alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 216.104-70 Research and development.

Follow the procedures at PGI 216.104-70 for selecting the appropriate research and development contract type, and see 235.006(b) for additional approval requirements.

[71 FR 39007, July 11, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 65307, Nov. 27, 2019]
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 999 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 

Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Atlantic, and Straits of Florida 

planning areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2017 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, 

Mr. BOOKER, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. 

CARDIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. 

SANDERS, Ms. HASSAN, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning 

areas. 

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


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 999 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Ocean And Safe 

3 Tourism Anti-Drilling Act’’ or the ‘‘COAST Anti-Drilling 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER6 TAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

7 SHELF. 

8 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

9 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 

11 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

12 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

13 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

14 other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue a 

15 lease or any other authorization for the exploration, devel16 opment, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other 

17 mineral in— 

18 ‘‘(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; 

19 ‘‘(2) the South Atlantic planning area; 

20 ‘‘(3) the North Atlantic planning area; or 

21 ‘‘(4) the Straits of Florida planning area.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21



                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



     The Partnership is a partner of Sherry Lane Associates, a general
partnership which holds title to the Sherry Lane Place Office Building in
Dallas, Texas.  The Partnership is a partner of Copley Place Associates, a
limited partnership which holds title to Copley Place in Boston,
Massachusetts.  The developer of the property is a partner in the joint
venture.  The developer of the property is a partner in the joint venture.
The Partnership is a 20% shareholder in Carlyle Managers, Inc. and 20%
shareholder in Carlyle Investors, Inc.  Reference is made to the Notes for
a description of the terms of such joint venture partnerships.  The
Partnership's interest in the joint ventures and the results of its
operations are included in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the
Partnership filed with this annual report.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                      BRUSH WELLMAN INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           THIRD QUARTER ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                        --------------------------    --------------------------
                                          OCT. 2,       SEPT. 26,       OCT. 2,       SEPT. 26,
                                           1998           1997           1998           1997
                                        -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic:
  Average shares outstanding..........   16,197,162     16,238,666     16,295,836     16,191,303
                                        ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
  Net Income..........................  $    98,000    $ 3,989,000    $(6,824,000)   $17,968,000
  Per share amount....................  $      0.01    $      0.25    $     (0.42)   $      1.11
                                        ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Diluted:
  Average shares outstanding..........   16,197,162     16,238,666     16,295,836     16,191,303
  Dilutive stock options based on the
     treasury stock method using
     average market price.............       55,481        290,693             --        195,068
                                        -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
          TOTALS......................   16,252,643     16,529,359     16,295,836     16,386,371
                                        ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
  Net Income..........................  $    98,000    $ 3,989,000    $(6,824,000)   $17,968,000
  Per share amount....................  $      0.01    $      0.24    $     (0.42)   $      1.10
                                        ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
 
                                       17
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas H. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of EXCO Resources, Inc.
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K on Form 10-K/A of EXCO Resources, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 19, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas H. Miller  
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Douglas H. Miller      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Brown *et al. v.*Horne *et al.*

April 17, 1913.

Quo warranto. Before Judge J. B. Park. Baldwin superior court. December *2, 1912.*

*Allen & Pottle*and *Sibley & Sibley,*for plaintiffs.

*Hines & Vinson,*for defendants.

ElSH, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss is without merit.

2. This ease upon its facts is controlled by the decision, this day rendered, in *Brown*v. *Hawkins,*ante, 697 (77 S. E. 1123) ; and the judgment refusing the writ of quo warranto is therefore reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Theodore H. Frank’s Notice of Appeal

Case No: 11-cv-07972 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO PADILLA, 

CECILIA LINARES, AGUSTINA BLANCO, 

ABEL GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS,

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly 

Situated,

 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and REXALL 

SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida corporation; 

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation

 Defendants.

THEODORE H. FRANK,

 Objector.

Case No. 11-CV-07972

CLASS ACTION

Hon. James B. Zagel

THEODORE H. FRANK’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that objecting class member Theodore H. Frank appeals to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the Court’s Memorandum Opinion 

and Order (Docket No. 143), filed January 3, 2014, and from its Final Judgment (Docket No. 144), 

filed January 22, 2014, and all opinions and orders that merge therein.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 145 Filed: 01/29/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2893
Theodore H. Frank’s Notice of Appeal

Case No: 11-cv-07972 2

Dated: January 29, 2014 /s/ Melissa A. Holyoak

Melissa A. Holyoak, (DC Bar No. 487759)

Center for Class Action Fairness

1718 M Street NW, No. 236

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (573) 823-5377

Email: melissaholyoak@gmail.com

Attorney for Theodore H. Frank

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 145 Filed: 01/29/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2894
Theodore H. Frank’s Notice of Appeal

Case No: 11-cv-07972 3

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies she electronically filed the foregoing Notice via the ECF system 

for the Northern District of Illinois, thus effecting service on all attorneys registered for electronic 

filing. She also caused for the foregoing to be mailed by First Class postage to the following 

recipients:

Pamela M Easton

250 St. Catherine St. 

Florissant, MO 63031 

Peggy Thomas

2109 N.W. 12th Avenue 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311

Simone Thomas

2109 N.W. 12th Avenue 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311

Dated: January 29, 2014

/s/ Melissa A. Holyoak

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 145 Filed: 01/29/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2895
#### Kenneth V. Leibert, Respondent, v. Roger T. Clapp et al., Appellants.

— In an action by a minority stockholder of a corporation to compel the directors to take proceeding’s to dissolve the corporation, and for incidental relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 28, 1963, which denied their motion, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. In our opinion, the factual allegations of the amended complaint are insufficient to establish a cause of action. They fail to show that the capital of the corporation was impaired by the majority of the corporation looting the assets and thereby enriching themselves at the expense of the minority, or that the existence *630of the corporation is being continued for the sole purpose of benefiting those in control, at the expense of the other stockholders *(Gross*v. *Price,*284 App. Div. 964; *Aliotta*v. *Samperisi,*2 A D 2d 901). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
22.1310 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( a ) ( 1 ) Insert the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, in solicitations and contracts if the expected value is $150,000 or more, except when— ( i ) Work is performed outside the United States by employees recruited outside the United States; or
( ii ) The Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor, has waived, in accordance with 22.1305(a), or the head of the agency has waived, in accordance with 22.1305(b), all of the terms of the clause.
( 2 ) If the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor, or the head of the agency waives one or more (but not all) of the terms of the clause, use the basic clause with its Alternate I.
( b ) Insert the clause at 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, in solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans.
( c ) Insert the provision at 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements, in solicitations when it is anticipated the contract award will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and the contract is not for acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.
[66 FR 53488, Oct. 22, 2001, as amended at 71 FR 57368, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 60252, Sept. 29, 2010; 79 FR 43578, July 25, 2014; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 86 FR 61028, Nov. 4, 2021]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Ventas Realty, Limited Partnership

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−03107

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

ALC CVMA, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 21, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to parties'

stipulation to dismiss, it is hereby ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice, but

without attorneys' fees or costs to any of the parties. Any pending motions or schedules

are stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cjg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 53 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1431
1

Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Pascone CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TYLER CHARLES PASCONE,

Defendant and Appellant. C080437

(Super. Ct. No. CM043007)

In the early morning hours of May 8, 2015, Marie T. was awoken by an intruder

opening dresser drawers in her bedroom. She alerted her husband, who chased the

intruder out of the residence. After officer’s recovered a backpack from the neighbor’s

driveway containing identifying items belonging to defendant, Marie T. identified

defendant as the intruder. Defendant ’s shoe print also matched the shoe print found

outside Marie T.’s residence. There was 0 .18 grams of cocaine on defendant’s person at

the time he was arrested.2

Defendant ple d no contest to first degree residential burglary

. The violent felony

allegation of there being a person present during the burglary, and an additional count for

possession of a controlled substance

, were dismissed with a Harvey 1 waiver. Defendant

also entered into a Johnson 2 waiver, waiving custody cred its up to the day of his change

of plea.

Sen tencing took place on September 24, 2015. The trial court sentenced defendant

to the upper term of six years, imposed various fines and fees, and credited defendant

with 56 days of presentence custody credit.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code,

§ 1237.5.)

Appointed counsel for defendant Tyler Charles Pascone filed an opening brief that

sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 3 ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d

436 .) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to

defendant, we affirm the judgment.

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

2 People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 183.

3 Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we

received no communication from defendant.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/

Hull, Acting P. J.

/s/

Murray, J.
#### Frank Martin et al., Appellants, v. Clarence Traver, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, County Court, Saratoga County. Plaintiffs sue defendant, who is a builder, for breach of contract for the construction of a dwelling, alleging the work was done carelessly; not in a workmanlike manner, and not finished. The answer pleads a general denial and affirmatively alleges that “ the plaintiffs ” had “ signed a release stating that the contract * * * had been completed satisfactorily according to the terms of the contract”. Defendant has had summary judgment and plaintiffs appeal. The instrument on which defendant bases his affirmative defense of release is not a general release or, indeed, a release of any kind. It is a “ certificate”, merely, stating that the contract “has been completed satisfactorily, according to the terms of said contract and that said dwelling is ready and fit for occupancy”. This is a piece of evidence, perhaps admissible on a trial toward establishing an accord and satisfaction; but it cannot possibly be read as a release executed for a due consideration discharging defendant from liability. Even as evidence of an accord and satisfaction, it is left by the proof in support of defendant’s motion entirely in a vacuum, since the affidavit of the defendant does not show that at the time the paper was signed any dispute existed about due performance of the contract which the instrument was intended to resolve. Nor does defendant’s affidavit suggest that the work on the dwelling was in fact done well, or done at all. Moreover, the instrument is signed by only one of the two plaintiffs. It may well be true that the husband who Signed it was authorized to do this by his wife as her agent and she may be estopped under some circumstances from denying his authority (of. *572
      *Farr*v. *Newman,*18 A D 2d 54), but the record before us is entirely barren of facts which would sustain either authority or estoppel. Judgment reversed and motion denied, with costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ,, concur. [35 Misc 2d 878.]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
January 23,
2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                          

|                     |  |                                                                                  
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 8, 2004 |  |                                                                                  
|                     |  | /s/ ALLAN L. BRIDGFORD
Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)
69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–665 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2009 

JULY 10, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. REYES, from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 5959] 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 3(m) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new spending or 

credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase or decrease in 

tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. 

Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation would address several 

general and outcome-related performance goals and objectives. The 

general goals and objectives of this legislation are to provide the 

necessary resources and authorities to enhance the national security of the United States, to support and assist the armed forces 

of the United States, and to facilitate and oversee the execution of 

the foreign policy of the United States. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
2 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement, the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee reports that the bill contains no 

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING