alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
29–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–692 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 780] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 780, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule 

reported on the legislative day of Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 

providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the 

child tax credit, and for other purposes. 

Æ
#### SCHUYLKILL TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter J. ROTHENSIES, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. J. Mayer, Former Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, and Francis R. Smith, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania.

No. 11131.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 4, 1954.

Decided Feb. 17, 1954.

Bernard V. Lentz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Fred Bremier, Jr., Thomas Raeburn White, White, Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Loring W. Post, Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., William C. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ap-pellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to recover for a tax payment which the taxpayer says was not properly exacted from it. It has to do with the question whether a loss was to be treated as an ordinary loss or charged as a capital loss. The district court decided the case against the taxpayer and rendered a thoroughly considered opinion in so doing, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1953, 115 F.Supp. 594. We do not have anything to add to that opinion.

The judgment will be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ruths
Chris Steak House, Inc. for the quarter ended March 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Ruths Chris
Steak House, Inc., certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc.

Date: May 9, 2008



By:

/s/ Geoffrey D. K. StilesGeoffrey D. K. StilesExecutive Vice President and President of Ruths Chris Steak House


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ruths
Chris Steak House, Inc. and will be retained by Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Ju stices

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 September 24, 2012

s0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144648

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144648

COA: 305915

Tuscola CC: 07

- 010484

- FH

DWAYNE ANTONY ROCCA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of t he Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27 , 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**Exhibit 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement    No. 333-127119    on    Form S-8    of our report dated March 13, 2006, relating to the    combined statements of operations and cash flows of the    Promenade Trust (the Presley Business) for the period    January 1, 2005 to February 7, 2005, appearing in the    Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of CKX, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended    December 31, 2007. /s/  Deloitte &    Touche LLP     Memphis, TN    February 28, 2008
120 So.2d 841

#### Madeline M. HOLLAND v. Lawrence BALANTYNE, Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, and Malvern F. Driscoll.

No. 44276.

May 31, 1960.

Frank J. Klein, New Orleans, for appellant.

Driscoll & Flanagan, Luden J. Fourcade, New Orleans, curator ad hoc, for appellee.

HAMLIN, Justice.

The appellant, Madeline M. Holland, did not appear at the time set for argument of the appeal in this Court and did not file a brief in support of her appeal. It is well settled that under these circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. Di Martino v. O’Brien, 225 La. 329, 72 So.2d 749; Harvey v. Thomas, 227 La. 25, 78 So.2d 497; Juneau v. Juneau, 227 La. 921, 80 So.2d 864.

It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
#### § 1773.30 [Reserved]
Errata for SP 800-73-1 

Date Section, 

Page 

Change 

4/17/06 Table 1 Correct the Contact/Contactless access condition for 

the Card Authentication Certificate Buffer from 

“Contact” to “Contact/Contactless”. 

4/17/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct all certificate sizes to 

1895 bytes. 

4/17/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct the size of Card 

Holder Unique Identifier buffer to 3379 bytes. 

4/17/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct the size of Card 

Holder Fingerprints buffer to 4000 bytes. 

4/17/06 Appendix A, 

pg 46 

Card Holder Unique Identifier Buffer Table: Insert the 

Buffer Length data element (Tag 0xEE, length = 2 

bytes) description as defined in Figure 1, Page 9, 

“PACS Implementation Guidance Version 2.2” 

(http://www.smart.gov/information/TIG_SCEPACS

_v2.2.pdf), as the first row of this buffer description. 

Note that this data element is optional. 

4/17/06 Appendix A, 

pg 46 

Correct the first row of the Card Holder Fingerprints 

buffer to read “Fingerprints I and II”. Delete the 

second row. Both fingerprints are stored in a single 

378 record with the tag 0xBC. 

4/20/06 1.5.2, Pg. 2, 

1.5.3, Pg. 2, 

1.6, Pg. 3, 

1.7, Pg. 4 

Modified language to clarify the document structure 

and terminology with respect to references to Parts 1, 

2 and 3 

4/20/06 4.2, Pg. 22 Replaced the term “GSC-IS object identifiers” with 

“BER-TLV tags” 

4/20/06 7.1.2, Pg. 37 Corrected Lc parameter of GET DATA from ‘10’ to ‘05’ 

4/20/06 7.2.3, Pg. 40 Corrected Lc parameter of RESET RETRY COUNTER 

from ‘08’ to ‘10’ 

4/20/06 Appendix B, 

Pg. 49, Table 

22, First cell 

of third row 

Corrected command string: 

’00 87 00 9B 12 7C 10 82 08 88 77 66 55 44 33 22 11’ 

To: 

’00 87 00 9B 0C 7C 0A 82 08 88 77 66 55 44 33 22 11’ 

5/2/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct access rule for X.509 

Certificate for PIV Authentication from “PIN” to 

“Always Read”. 

5/2/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct access rule for X.509 

Certificate for Digital Signature from “PIN Always” to 

“Always Read”. 
5/2/06 Appendix A, 

pg 45 

Buffer Description Table: Correct access rule for X.509 

Certificate for Key Management from “PIN” to 

“Always Read”.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69733-69734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28620]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0181 and DOT-OST-2010-0215]


Applications of National Air Cargo Group, Inc. D/B/A National 
Airlines for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010-11-05).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding National 
Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines fit, willing, and able, 
and awarding it certificates of public convenience and necessity to 
engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
November 19, 2010.

[[Page 69734]]


ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0181 and DOT-OST-2010-0215 and addressed to U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 
20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to 
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785.

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-28620 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Julian J. Fisher, appellee, v. American Sand & Gravel Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,625.

*631Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Schall & Schall, for appellant; S. M. Sehall and Wallace S. Schall, of counsel. Joel C. Carlson, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00525-CR Rodney Dw ayne Lew

is, Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. 52,001, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM

Appellant’s mo t io n t o dis mi ss this appe al i s gra nted . SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 42 .2(a). The appeal

is dis mi ssed. Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Dism i ss ed on A ppe ll an t’s Moti on File d: October 25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 2 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 of (the Report) of Community Bankers Trust Corporation (the
Company), the undersigned Executive Vice President, who is acting as the Companys principal executive officer, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Rex L. Smith, IIIRex L. Smith, IIIExecutive Vice President(principal executive officer)/s/ Bruce E. ThomasBruce E. ThomasExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 3, 2011
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR 

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Friday, June 11, 2010 

Room 8E-089 

Purpose 

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties 

on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) addressing test procedures for residential central 

air conditioners and heat pumps (CAC). 

9:00 – 9:15 am Welcome, Introductions & Agenda Review (Doug Brookman) 

 

9:15 – 9:45 am Interest Parties Statements (Doug Brookman) 

 

 Interested parties may present opening statements at this time.

 

9:45 – 10:00 am Test Procedure History (Wes Anderson)

 

Summary of the statutory background, test procedure history, rulemaking 

process, and general issues about which DOE seeks input during today's 

public meeting. 

10:00 – 10:10 am Scope of Test Procedure Revisions (Brian Dougherty) 

Presentation and discussion of the scope of the proposed revisions to the 

CAC test procedure. Interested parties may ask questions and provide 

feedback. 

10:10 – 11:00 am Proposed Revisions Set #1 (Brian Dougherty) 

Presentation and discussion of DOE’s proposed revisions (set #1) to the 

CAC test procedure. Interested parties may ask questions and provide 

feedback. 

11:00 – 11:15 am Break 

11:15 – 12:00 pm Proposed Revisions Set #2 (Brian Dougherty) 

Presentation and discussion of DOE’s proposed revisions (set #2) to the 

CAC test procedure. Interested parties may ask questions and provide 

feedback. 

EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004 1.2.001
12:00 – 12:15 pm Rulemaking Schedule and Impact on Manufacturers (Jennifer 

 Williamson) 

Presentation and discussion of the rulemaking scheduled for the CAC test 

procedures and the impact on manufacturers for testing CAC equipment. 

Interested parties may ask questions and provide feedback.

12:15 – 12:20 pm Summary and Next Steps (Wes Anderson)

 

 DOE will summarize the next steps in the rulemaking process. Interested 

 parties may ask questions and provide feedback.

12:20 – 12:30 pm Questions & Comments/Closing Remarks (Doug Brookman) 

Interested parties may ask final questions and present closing statements at 

this time. 

12:30 pm Adjourn 

EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004 1.2.001
#### § 1710.127 Drug free workplace.

Borrowers are required to comply with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8101 *et. seq.*) and the Act's implementing regulations (2 CFR part 421) when a borrower receives a Federal grant or enters into a procurement contract awarded pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (title 48 CFR) to sell to a Federal agency property or services having a value of $25,000 or more.

[79 FR 76002, Dec. 19, 2014]
No. 07-20-00366-CR

Ex parte Joseph Charles Campa Original Proceeding

December 28, 2020

§

§

§

§

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 28, 2020, it is ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed that this writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

o O o

FILE COPY
pharmagen_ex1018.htm


EXHIBIT 10.18




 


CONSENT AND AGREEMENT


TO SENIOR SECURED REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT




 


Reference is made to that certain Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, dated November 30, 2012 (as amended and as may hereafter be amended or restated from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), made by and among (i) Pharmagen Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada and formerly known as Sunpeaks Ventures, Inc., as borrower (the “Borrower”), (ii) Pharmagen Distribution, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and formerly known as Healthcare Distribution Specialists LLC, as guarantor (the “Guarantor” and together with Borrower, the “Credit Parties”), and (iii) TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP, a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands, as lender (the “Lender”). Unless otherwise defined herein, the capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement.


 


Pursuant to the Credit Agreement, any Subsidiary which is formed or acquired or otherwise becomes a Subsidiary of the Borrower following the date of the Credit Agreement shall become an additional Credit Party thereto, including, but not limited to, causing such party to execute counterparts to the Credit Agreement.


 


Following the date of the Credit Agreement, the undersigned has become a subsidiary and beneficiary of the Borrower and hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that it is receiving a direct benefit from Borrower’s receipt of certain sums pursuant to the Credit Agreement and the continuing good standing relationship with Lender. In consideration therefore and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, by its execution hereof, the undersigned hereby consents and agrees to become a party to the Credit Agreement in the capacity of a Guarantor and Credit Party. The undersigned consents and agrees to the payment of the amounts contemplated in the Credit Agreement, documents contemplated thereby and to the provisions contained therein relating to conditions to be fulfilled and obligations to be performed by it pursuant to or in connection with the Credit Agreement. The undersigned hereby agrees and acknowledges that this executed Consent and Agreement shall be attached to the Credit Agreement and shall become a part thereof.


 


 




	
PHARMAGEN LABORATORIES, INC.

	 
	 	 	 
	
By: 

	/s/ Mackie Barch	Date:  March 29, 2013
	 	
Name: Mackie Barch

	 
	 	
Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1735.41 Notes.

Loans are represented by one or more notes. Interest accrues only on funds advanced. There are no loan commitment fees or charges. See RUS Bulletin 320-12 for additional information. This CFR part supersedes those portions of RUS Bulletin 320-12 “Loan Payments and Statements” with which it is in conflict.
#### King *VS.*Dicken.

Assumpsit. V/SS6

Appeal from the Henderson Circuit; M’Lean, Judge.

*Jlssumpsit for money wrongfully made under execution. Reversal of decree. Mleasure of recovery.*

Upon reversal ofdicree F°-J *made*original6decree to ho re*373funded to lh« defendant s-o far as the property sold was his. Proof of property in another competent in mitigation-.

*372May 12.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This appeal is prosecuted to reverse a judgment obtained by Christopher Dicken against Elijah King in an action of assumpsit for money made out of the former by the latter by sales of property under executions on a decree afterwards reversed by this court.

We do not doubt that Dicken was entitled, in consequence of the reversal of the decree, to restitution, riot 0f the property which had been sold, but of the Pr*ce f°r which it was sold ; nor do we doubt that this suit is maintainable, nor that the proof on the *373trial authorized a verdict and judgment in favor of Dicken. But we are of opinion, that he obtained a judgment for a larger sum than the proof entitled him to.

*Demy,*for appellant; *Waring,*for appelleev

It seems that one of the articles of property which had been sold under the decree, was a mare, for selling which, William Dicken, who averred that it was his, and not C. Dicken’s, afterwards sued the sheriff and obtained a judgment in damages for conversion, by selling it as the property of C. Dicken.

On the trial, in this case, King offered to prove that Christopher Dicken (the appellee) was sworn as a witness in the suit between William Dicken and the sheriff, and swore that the mare was the property of William, and not of him (Christopher] at the time of its sale by the sheriff, and offered also to prove other facts conducing to shew that the mare was not the property of the appellee. But the circuit court, being of opinion that ho such testimony was material or admissible, refused to admit it. In this there was error.

If C. Dicken did not own the mare, the law did not imply an assumpsit to restore it or its value to him, but to the true owner only. Both the appellant and the sheriff who, at his instance, sold the mare, were liable to the owner for its value. The owner having asserted his claim, and recovered damages from the sheriff, the appellee cannot be entitled, in assumpsit or in any other form of proceeding, to restitution for any part of the sum for which *his execution was credited in consequence of the sale of the piare.*

The rejected proof was admissible on the question of proprietorship of the mare at the time of sale.

The judgment cannot be sustained, because it is far too much, unless the appellee had a right to recover the price for which the mare had been sold.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, the verdict -set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Form S-3 Nos. 33-13793 and 33-46056) and in
the related prospectus and in the registration statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-18932, 33-29291, 33-35091, 33-37696,
33-37697, 33-37698, 33-55596, 33-73040, 333-15113, 333-88295, and 333-55556) pertaining to the stock purchase plans
of Candela Corporation of our report dated August 18, 2003 (except for Note 14 as to which the date is September 24, 2003) with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Candela Corporation included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 28, 2003.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
September 24, 2003

---

QuickLinks
98-1867.

#### State ex rel. Sevayega v. Russo.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Ant onio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00860

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.M., A CHILD,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 00506 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant’s brief was due on February 1 , 201 8 , and on that day, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time of twenty days. In his motion, appellant ’s counsel state s he needs additional time to research and prepare the brief

.
After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief and ORDER that appellant file his brief on or before February 21 , 2018 . C ounsel is reminded that this court is mandated to dispose of appeals involving termination of parental rights within 180 days from the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Accordingly, any delay in the filing of the brief encroaches upon our time for disposition , and further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of February, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.68 [Reserved]