alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 143 

Supporting fair and equitable grading treatment for exports of United States 

wheat products to Canada. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Mr. TESTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting fair and equitable grading treatment for exports 

of United States wheat products to Canada. 

Whereas Canada is the second largest goods trading partner 

of the United States, with $575,000,000,000 in goods 

traded between the 2 countries in 2015, as the United 

States exported $280,000,000,000 in goods to Canada 

and imported $295,000,000,000 in goods from Canada in 

that year; 

Whereas the efficient and equitable flow of agricultural goods 

across the border is a critical component of the trade relationship between the United States and Canada; 

Whereas wheat is the third most widely produced field crop 

in the United States, and approximately 1⁄2 of the wheat 

produced in the United States is exported; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 143 IS 

Whereas Canadian law requires wheat imported from the 

United States to be segregated from wheat produced in 

Canada and automatically designated as feed quality, the 

lowest possible designation, regardless of the actual quality or the variety of the wheat product; 

Whereas United States Federal law allows wheat imported 

from Canada to be graded under the same system as domestically grown wheat; 

Whereas that unfair devaluation practice puts United States 

agricultural producers at a distinct disadvantage when 

attempting to access Canadian wheat markets; 

Whereas the treatment by Canada of United States wheat 

products is likely a violation of trade agreements and is 

to the detriment of United States agricultural producers; 

and 

Whereas the strong economic ties between the United States 

and Canada are extremely important and well-served 

when a level playing field exists across all industries: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) wheat grading practices in Canada should— 

3 (A) grade wheat produced in Canada in 

4 the same manner as wheat produced in the 

5 United States; and 

6 (B) be fair to agricultural producers in the 

7 United States; and 

8 (2) the President should— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 143 IS 

1 (A) examine whether the wheat grading 

2 laws of Canada adhere to trade agreements; 

3 and 

4 (B) insist on full access for United States 

5 exporters of wheat to the Canadian market. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2016440EN.01000101.xml

| 26.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 440/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8191 — ArcelorMittal/CLN/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 440/01)

On 22 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8191. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8191. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### 252.212-7000--252.212-7001 [Reserved]
#### Marni Jo Tannenbaum, Respondent, v Mark Tannenbaum, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 239]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated December 16, 2005, as denied those branches of his motion which were to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated June 3, 2005, in effect, to enforce the parties’ stipulation of settlement, to direct that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees, and to appoint a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated June 3, 2005, because no order or judgment entered upon the stipulation of settlement (hereinafter the stipulation) existed at the time the defendant’s motion was interposed *(see*Judiciary Law § 753; Domestic Relations Law § 245; *Rienzi v Rienzi,*23 AD3d 447 [2005]; *Raphael v Raphael,*20 AD3d 463 [2005]; *Ottomanelli v Ottomanelli,*17 AD3d 647 [2005]).

The issues in the action having been settled by the stipulation dated June 3, 2005, which remains controlling, there was no basis for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff *(see*CPLR 1201).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
250.102-1-70 Delegations. ( a ) *Military departments.* The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force will specify delegations and levels of authority for actions under the Act and the Executive Order in departmental supplements or agency acquisition guidance.
( b ) *Defense agencies.* Subject to the restrictions on delegations of authority in 250.102-1(b) and FAR 50.102-1, the directors of the defense agencies may exercise and redelegate the authority contained in the Act and the Executive Order. The agency supplements or agency acquisition guidance shall specify the delegations and levels of authority. ( 1 ) Requests to obligate the Government in excess of $75,000 must be submitted to the USD(A&S) for approval.
( 2 ) Requests for indemnification against unusually hazardous or nuclear risks must be submitted to the USD(A&S) for approval before using the indemnification clause at FAR 52.250-1, Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804.
( c ) *Approvals.* The Secretary of the military department or the agency director must approve any delegations in writing.
[73 FR 46815, Aug. 12, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 45074, Aug. 2, 2010; 80 FR 36905, June 26, 2015; 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020; 88 FR 73238, Oct. 25, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Weaver, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction and order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie County Court convicting defendant Weaver of the crime of grand larceny, first degree. The order denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit
10(a)





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Mercury Select Growth Fund:


We consent to the reference to us in Pre-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
No. 333-32242 under the caption "GENERAL
INFORMATION — Independent Auditors" appearing in
the Statement of Additional Information,
which is a part of such Registration Statement.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Princeton,
New Jersey

April 26, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 MAXTOR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES 2004-2005 FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES: Maxtor Disc Drives Pty. Limited
    
    AustraliaMaxtor Global Ltd.
    
    BermudaMaxtor Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaMaxtor Europe S.àr.l
    
    FranceMaxtor GmbH
    
    GermanyMaxtor (Gibraltar) Limited
    
    GibraltarMaxtor Asia Pacific Limited
    
    Hong KongMaxtor Ireland Limited
    
    IrelandMaxtor (Japan) Ltd.
    
    JapanMaxtor Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaMaxtor Luxembourg
    
    LuxembourgMaxtor Peripherals (S) Pte. Limited
    
    SingaporeMaxtor International S.àr.l
    
    SwitzerlandMaxtor International Manufacturing S.àr.l
    
    SwitzerlandMaxtor Europe Limited
    
    United KingdomDOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES:Maxtor Receivables LLC
Old SDI Sub
Maxtor Realty Corporation
    
    Delaware
California
Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-10-1998
<CASH>                                         153,212
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  599,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                    64,627
<INVENTORY>                                    454,748
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,192,194
<PP&E>                                       1,828,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                 701,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,850,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          721,181
<BONDS>                                      1,040,320
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       319,884
<OTHER-SE>                                     416,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,850,355
<SALES>                                      3,385,764
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,385,764
<CGS>                                        2,864,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,864,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               329,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.98<F3>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON THE SATURDAY CLOSEST TO DECEMBER 31, FISCAL
YEAR 1998 ENDS JANUARY 2, 1999 AND INCLUDES 52 WEEKS. ALL QUARTERS IN 1998 HAVE
12 WEEKS, EXCEPT THE THIRD QUARTER WHICH HAS 16 WEEKS.
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS BASIC
EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
124 STAT. 1192 PUBLIC LAW 111–169—MAY 24, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2802: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–261 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111–155 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 155 (2009): Sept. 22, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 156 (2010): May 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–169 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial 

Foundation to establish a commemorative work in honor of former President 

John Adams and his legacy, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR MEMORIAL 

ESTABLISHMENT. 

(a) LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.—Section 1(c) of Public Law 107– 

62 is amended by striking ‘‘accordance with’’ and all that follows 

through the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘accordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, except that 

any reference in section 8903(e) of that chapter to the expiration 

at the end of or extension beyond a seven-year period shall be 

considered to be a reference to an expiration on or extension beyond 

December 2, 2013.’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Public Law 107–62 is 

amended— 

(1) in section 1(e), by striking ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 8901 et seq.)’’; and 

(2) in section 2, by striking ‘‘(40 U.S.C. 1002)’’ and inserting 

‘‘(40 U.S.C. 8902(a))’’. 

Approved May 24, 2010. 

40 USC 1003 

note. 

40 USC 1003 

note. 

40 USC 8903 

note. 

May 24, 2010 

[H.R. 2802] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                  
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

May 12, 2010
#### Frank Martin et al., Respondents, v. Clarence Traver, Appellant.

— Appeal from an order of a Special Term, County Court, Saratoga County. In view of the reversal of the order granting summary judgment to defendant in the comparison appeal decided herewith *{ante,*p. 571), this appeal becomes moot, since the County Court in granting summary judgment noted that the action in City Court would have been removed and consolidated with the County Court action had summary judgment been denied. Appeal dismissed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### 22.405 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,212,285
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,019,367
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,019,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       69,844,432
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,274,935
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,492,828)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,019,367
<SALES>                                      7,782,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        7,046,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               367,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                328,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            328,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   328,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL  OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (“We") for the
period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Xue Bu, the principal financial officer
of us, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:





(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 result of operations of us





Date:  August
16, 2010





/s/ Xue BuName:  Xue Bu, Principal Financial
      Officer
Exhibit
10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


TO


2001 DIRECTORS’ STOCK OPTION
PLAN


OF


ICU MEDICAL, INC.


 


Sections 5.2, 6.2 and 6.3 of the 2001 Directors
Stock Option Plan of ICU Medical, Inc. are hereby amended, pursuant to Section 11
of the Plan, to read in their entirety as follows:


 


5.2           Automatic Grants. On the date
this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan is adopted by the Board, there shall be
granted automatically to each Director then serving an Option to purchase 8,500
Option Shares. Thereafter beginning in January 2008, (a) on the date
in each January, April, July and October that is two days after the
public announcement of the Company’s earnings for the immediately preceding
calendar quarter, there shall be granted automatically to each Director then
serving an Option to purchase 1,500 Option Shares, and (b) on the date
that any person first becomes a Director, there shall be granted automatically
to him/her an Option to purchase 8,500 Option Shares.


 


6.2           Term. No Option shall
be exercisable after its Expiration Date. The Expiration Date of each Option
shall be the 10th anniversary of its Grant Date.


 


6.3           Vesting. Each Option
shall become exercisable in four equal annual cumulative installments
commencing one year after its Grant Date, subject, however, to Section 3.3(a).


 


Adopted by the Board of Directors of


ICU Medical, Inc. on August 14, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 19 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 19

Denouncing the deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 
  Airport, honoring the lives of the victims, offering condolences to 
  their families, friends, and all those affected, and commending the 
    efforts of law enforcement and emergency response personnel in 
                      responding to the incident.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2017

   Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Nelson, and Mrs. Ernst) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Denouncing the deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 
  Airport, honoring the lives of the victims, offering condolences to 
  their families, friends, and all those affected, and commending the 
    efforts of law enforcement and emergency response personnel in 
                      responding to the incident.

Whereas the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport ranks 21st in the 
        United States in total passenger traffic, with over 73,000 travelers 
        passing through each day on 1 of the over 650 commercial flights that 
        embark and arrive at the airport each day;
Whereas, on Friday, January 6, 2017, around 1:00 p.m., an individual in the 
        baggage claim area of Terminal 2 at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 
        International Airport shot more than 10 people, wounding several and 
        killing 5;
Whereas the people of the United States grieve for the families of all those 
        affected by this tragedy;
Whereas the people of the United States honor the memories of the 5 individuals 
        who tragically lost their lives; and
Whereas constant efforts by law enforcement agencies, civilians, and communities 
        are needed to help thwart future attacks: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) condemns the deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 
        International Airport on January 6, 2017, where 5 innocent 
        people were killed and many others were injured;
            (2) honors the lives and memories of the victims killed in 
        the attack and offers sincere condolences to their families and 
        friends;
            (3) desires that those injured in the attack make a full 
        recovery; and
            (4) commends the efforts of law enforcement and emergency 
        response personnel who selflessly acted to secure the scene and 
        assist those in need.
                                 <all>
```
2419.804-370 SBA acceptance under partnership agreements for acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. ( a ) The following procedures apply to the acceptance of requirements covered by the Partnership Agreement for acquisitions that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. ( 1 ) The SBA's decision whether to accept the requirement will be transmitted to HUD in writing within 5 working days of receipt of the offer.
( 2 ) The SBA may request, and HUD may grant, an extension beyond the 5-day limit.
( 3 ) SBA's acceptance letters should be faxed or emailed to HUD.
( 4 ) If HUD has not received an acceptance or rejection of the offering from SBA within 5 days of SBA's receipt of the offering letter, the contracting officer may assume that the requirement has been accepted and proceed with the acquisition.
( b ) The contents of SBA's acceptance letter shall be limited to the eligibility of the recommended 8(a) contractor.
[77 FR 73529, Dec. 10, 2012]