alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## OtPARTMEMTO F V .V . 

## ^H>\jNSPORWteti-

- r/CKETOPERMiON S II : I . ..•!. • airpor t 

# GhamBer Chambe r o t Convnsic e o

f S L Josep h Count

y advancin g regiona l economi c prosperit y 

### il l



## jiOOC T - U AS : 25 .

Augus t 25 , 201 0 Secretar y Ra y LaHoo d Unite d State s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Washington , DC 2059 0 DOT-OFT-2010-012 4 RE : Suppor

t o f th e Sout h Bend Regional Airpor

t Applicatio n fo

r Fundin g Unde

r th e Department o f Transportatio n Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Development

Progra m Dea r Mr . Secretary , On behal f o f Th e Chambe r

o f Commerc e o f

St . Josep h County , our

1,20 0 member businesse s and th e 96,00 0 employee s the y represent , I woul d like t o expres s ou r enthusiasti c suppor

t fo r th e Small Communit

y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Gran t applicatio n submitte d b y th e St . Josep h Count y Airpor t Authorit y fo r marketin g ftinding to encourag e anew carrie r to ente r th e Sout h Bend marke

t wit h non-sto p servic e t o Denver , CO . Busines s and personal trave l cost s ar e considere d carefully , an d affordabl e fare s fromth e Sout h Bend Regiona

l Airpor t ar e important

t o everyone . A fligh

t t o Denve r

o n alo w cos t

airlin e ha s th e potentia l t o delive r

grea t valu e t o thi s region . Th e propose d servic e t o Denve r International Airpor t offer s a n importan t

busines s destinatio n fro

mSB N an d mor

e importantl y provide s th e Micbian aregio n wit

h a n acces s poin t

t o othe r strategi c westboun d destinations . Ther e i s presentl y n o low-cos t

wa y to fl y wes t fromth e Sout

h Ben d Regional Airport . Th e Chambe

r o f Commerc e o f

St . Josep h Count

y i s committe d to usin g thi s new servic e whenever possible . Becaus e Tli e Sout h Ben d Regiona

l Airpor t i s close , line s ar e shorter

an d parkin g i s affordable , w e ar e incline d t o us e i

t rathe r tha n drivin g t o adistant

airport . W e wan

t t o se e anonsto p fligh

t t o Denver , C O fro

mou r loca l airport , and w e ar e committe d to thi s new ser\ic e t o succee d an d w e wil l hel p t o suppor t i t i n an y wa y w e can . W e urg e yo

u to fiill y fun d th e reques t

fro mSout h Ben d Regiona l Airpor t fo r aSmal l Communit

y Air Servic e Development

Grant . Thank

yo u fo r your consideration . Sincerely , Pau l R . Laskowsk

i Interi mPresiden

t and CE O

•iThe^CqmmercBqentera/iblE;"(Colfax;A%^ . S ^ Sout h Ben d Regiona l Aiipoil , Sout h Bend , Indian a Smal l Communit y Ai rServic e Developmen t Progra m Proposa l 

### 201 0 4 8
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28524]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 8, 2010, Noramco Inc., 
1440 Olympic Dr., Athens, Georgia 30601, made application by renewal to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codeine-N-Oxide (9053).....................  I
Morphine-N-Oxide (9307)....................  I
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668)......................  II
Alfentanil (9737)..........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)..........................  II
Carfentanil (9743).........................  II
Tapentadol (9780)..........................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive,
    Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than 
January 11, 2011.

    Dated: November 1, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28524 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### In the Matter of Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, *1004Respondent, v John J. Pisaturo et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Gates, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs and matter remitted to the zoning board of appeals for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner owns a fast food restaurant in the Town of Gates. The structure was built in 1966. In 1976 an amendment to the town zoning ordinance increased the applicable setback requirements. In 1979 petitioner applied to the town zoning board of appeals for variances for relocation of freezer and trash bins and for construction of a drive-through service window at the side of the structure. The board denied the variances, finding that petitioner’s requests, if granted, would produce a substantial increase and burden on available governmental facilities, a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and a substantial detriment to adjoining properties. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the board’s actions, Special Term reversed and granted the variances. In seeking an area variance the landowner must first show some significant economic injury caused by the ordinance. If such is shown, the burden then shifts to the municipality to prove that the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate exercise of the zoning power. Assuming that the municipality has met this burden of proof, the burden again shifts to the landowner to show that, as applied, the restrictions are unrelated to public health, safety or welfare, and that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the surrounding community *(Matter of National Merritt v Weist,*41 NY2d 438). The supporting proof need not be as compelling as is required for a use variance and the quantum of proof required varies with the magnitude of the variance sought *(Matter of National Merritt v Weist, supra,*p 443). Useful guidelines for the making of that determination are set forth in *Matter of Wachsberger v Michalis*(19 Mise 2d 909, aifd 18 AD2d 921). Of course, a determination by the zoning board of appeals having a rational basis and supported by substantial evidence must be confirmed *(Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441). The board’s findings are conclusory in form and the record of the proceedings before the board is factually too sparse to permit intelligent judicial review *(Matter of Kadish v Simpson,*55 AD2d 911; *Corter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals for Vil. ofFredonia,*46 AD2d 184, 187-188). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the zoning board of appeals to give the petitioner an opportunity to offer adequate proof of economic injury and for the board to adduce evidence to support its findings. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—CPLR art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
#### John J. O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent, Appellant, v. Frederick LINDSEY, Petitioner, Appellee.

No. 4717.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

March 18, 1954.

See, also, 204 F.2d 359.

Arnold H. Salisbury, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts (George Fingold, Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts, with him on the brief), for appellant.

Wilbur G. Hollingsworth, Boston, Mass., for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In view of the order of the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of May 25, 1953, and of the decision of that Court of January 4, 1954, 116 M.E.2d 691, in the case of Lindsey v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and after notice to the parties,

It is now herein ordered as follows: The order of the District Court of December 31, 1952, is vacated and the case is remanded to that Court with directions to enter an order discharging the writ and dismissing the petition.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 33-
53030 and 33-86910) on Form S-8 of Research Frontiers Incorporated of our report
dated February 16,1996, relating to the balance sheets of Research Frontiers 
Incorporated as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and the related statements of 
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in the December
31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated.



                            /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Jericho, New York
March 27, 1996
§ 1776.9 Scoring applications. ( a ) Applications that are incomplete or ineligible will be returned to the applicant, accompanied by a statement explaining why the application is being returned.
( b ) Promptly after an application period closes, all applications that are complete and eligible will be ranked competitively based on the following scoring criteria: ( 1 ) Degree of expertise and experience in promoting the safe and productive use of individually-owned decentralized water systems and ground water. Up to 30 points
( 2 ) Degree of expertise and successful experience in making and servicing loans to individuals. Up to 20 points
( 3 ) Percentage of applicant contributions. Points allowed under this paragraph will be based on written evidence of the availability of funds from sources other than the proceeds of a DWS grant to pay part of the cost of a loan recipient's project. In-kind contributions will not be considered. Funds from other sources as a percentage of the DWS grant and points corresponding to such percentages are as follows: ( i ) 0 to 9 percent—ineligible;
( ii ) 10 to 25 percent—5 points;
( iii ) 26 to 30 percent—10 points;
( iv ) 31 to 50 percent—15 points; and
( v ) 51 percent or more—20 points
( 4 ) Extent to which the work plan demonstrates a well thought out, comprehensive approach to accomplishing the objectives of this part, clearly defines who will be served by the project, and appears likely to be sustainable. Up to 20 points
( 5 ) Extent to which the goals and objectives are clearly defined, tied to the work plan, and measurable. Up to 10 points
( 6 ) Lowest ratio of projected administrative expenses to loans advanced. 10 points
( 7 ) Administrator's discretion, considering such factors as creative outreach ideas for marketing DWS loans to rural residents, the amount of funds requested in relation to the amount of needs demonstrated in the work plan, previous experiences demonstrating excellent utilization of a revolving loan fund grant, and optimizing the use of agency resources. Up to 10 points
( c ) All qualifying applications under this part will be scored based on the criteria contained in this section. Awards will be made based on the highest ranking applications and the amount of financial assistance available for DWS grants. All applicants will be notified in writing of the score each application receives.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1430.219 Appeals.

Any producer who is dissatisfied with a determination made pursuant to this subpart may request reconsideration or appeal of such determination under part 11 or 780 of this title.
#### §§ 1784.4-1784.7 [Reserved]
#### Bruce M. Weiss, an Infant, by Irving Weiss, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents (Action No. 1.) Bruce M. Weiss, an Infant, by Irving Weiss, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Beth El Hospital, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Order entered January 12, 1965, denying plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate two actions unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, and motion granted to, the extent of consolidating Action No. 1 *710pending in New York County with Action No. 2 pending in Kings County, with one bill of $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs against all defendants. The two actions are grounded in malpractice. The infant plaintiff was born in Beth El Hospital and that institution, together with certain members of its staff, are the defendants in Action No. 2. These defendants are charged with negligently causing a condition of retrolental fibroplasia. The infant was transferred to Abraham Jacobi Hospital, a city hospital, and the city and members of the staff of that hospital are the defendants in Action No. 1. The charge against these defendants is that by a negligent failure properly to diagnose and treat the infant plaintiff’s condition, that condition was aggravated. The mere statement of these claims shows that the continuing course of a negligently induced abnormality is involved in both. An extensive duplication of medical testimony is virtually certain. In the event of a recovery by the plaintiff, contrary contentions by the respective defendants as to causation and extent of damage caused by each can be resolved. While the theories of liability for the respective defendants are not identical, the distinctions are not too difficult for a jury to understand and determine. The advantages resulting from consolidation outweigh the arguments that would prevent it. No difficulty is presented by the fact that the actions are pending in different counties *(Smith*v. *Witteman Co.,*10 A D 2d 793). As Action No. 2 in Kings County was the first action begun, it is the appropriate one to remain as the consolidated action. Settle order on notice. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.
#### § 1260.500 General.

State organizations or associations shall be certified by the Secretary as provided for in the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 to be eligible to make nominations of cattle producers to the Board. Additionally, where there is no eligible organization or association in a State, the Secretary may provide for nominations in the manner prescribed in this subpart. Organizations or associations determined by the Secretary to represent importers of cattle, beef, and beef products may submit nominations for membership on the Board in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in this subpart. The number of nominees required for each allotted position will be determined by the Secretary.
#### §§ 1773.35-1773.37 [Reserved]
ex10-2.htm


 


Exhibit 10.2







DIGITAL ANGEL CORPORATION







April 11, 2013







MEG Properties, LLC


Joseph Grillo


New London, Connecticut







Dear Joe:







This letter outlines our agreement to:








	
  

	
n

	
Amend the Consulting Agreement with you (via MEG Properties, LLC) dated January 30, 2012 (“Consulting Agreement”), and








	
  

	
n

	
Amend and terminate the Amendment to Employment Agreement with you dated July 22, 2011 (“Employment Agreement”)












By this letter agreement, we agree as follows:








	
  

	
n

	
In recognition of your continued delivery of services to the Company relating to the UK operations, to extend the Consulting Agreement for 2 months on the same terms and conditions set forth therein.  The Consulting Agreement terminated as of March 31, 2013.








	
  

	
n

	
The Employment Agreement will be terminated effective immediately.  Such termination includes the termination of your right to receive the third year non-compete payment contemplated by the Employment Agreement, in an amount equal to one (1) year of base salary during your employment with the Company, which right you explicitly waive by signing this letter agreement, contingent upon the Company having paid you all amounts owed under the Consulting Agreement (as modified above).








	
  

	
n

	
The terms of the Consulting Agreement and Employment Agreement that are explicitly intended to remain in full force and effect following termination of such agreements shall remain in full force and effect.












Joe, we appreciate your exceptional service to the Company and we look forward to your continuing contributions as a member of the Board of Directors.







If this letter reflects your understanding of the terms discussed, please indicate so below.







Sincerely,







Daniel Penni


Chairman of the Board of Directors







AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


 



	/s/ Joseph Grillo	 	/s/ Joseph Grillo	 
	Joseph Grillo  	 	MEG Properties, LLC, by Joe Grillo
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           OJJDP Updates Statistical Briefing Book      

# OJJDP Updates Statistical Briefing Book

OJJDP has updated its Statistical Briefing Book (SBB), which offers online access to statistics on a variety of juvenile justice topics. Changes to the SBB include updates to:
                  -  Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics
                  - 		The  National Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook
                  - 		FAQ sections on  Juveniles in Court  and  Juveniles on Probation

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armando Diaz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 22, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
§ 15b.6 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with this part.
( b ) *Adoption of grievance procedures.* A recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by this part. Such procedures need not be established with respect to complaints from applicants for employment or from applicants for admission to postsecondary educational institutions.
( c ) The Secretary may require any recipient with fewer than fifteen employees to designate a responsible employee and adopt grievance procedures when the Secretary finds a violation of this part or finds that complying with these administrative requirements will not significantly impair the ability of the recipient to provide benefits or services.
EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999
(100% owned)

FAHNESTOCK VINER HOLDINGS INC. (Ontario)
Registrant

  -E.A. VINER INTERNATIONAL CO.(Delaware)

     -HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS INC.(New York)

     -NEWSON INC.(Pennsylvania)

     -EVANSTON FINANCIAL  CORPORATION, INC.(Pennsylvania)

     -VINER FINANCE INC.(Delaware)

          -FAHNESTOCK & CO. INC.(New York)

               -PACE SECURITIES, INC. (inactive) (New York)

               -REICH & CO. INC. (in liquidation) (Alabama)

               -FREEDOM INVESTMENTS, INC.(Delaware)

               -FIRST OF MICHIGAN CAPITAL CORPORATION (Delaware)

                    -FIRST OF MICHIGAN CORPORATION (Delaware)

                    -FIRST OF MICHIGAN VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
                     (Michigan)

                    -CRANBROOK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (Michigan)