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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 327 Erickson Ave., Essington, PA 19029, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete                               ( print page 70935)                            listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 16, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2013.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: November 8, 2010.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010-29164 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
EX-10.24



 






Exhibit 10.24




DOUBLECLICK INC.




Description of Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors



Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for the Company’s non-employee
directors.



Cash Compensation. Non-employee directors currently receive an annual retainer of $10,000 for
their services on the Board of Directors of the Company. Committee members also receive an annual
retainer of $2,500 for each committee upon which they sit, and committee chairs receive an
additional $2,500 annual retainer for each committee that they chair. Directors who are Company
employees receive no additional special compensation for serving as directors, but all directors
are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
Committee retainers are not paid to directors who are officers or employees of the Company.



Stock Option Grants. Under the Automatic Option Grant Program under the Company’s Amended and
Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, which is attached as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, each non-employee member of the Board of
Directors is automatically granted a non-statutory option to purchase 100,000 shares of the
Company’s Common Stock at the time of his or her initial election or appointment to the Board of
Directors, provided that individual has not previously been in the employ of the Company or any
parent or subsidiary of the Company. On the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, each
individual who is to continue to serve as a member of the Board of Directors, whether or not that
individual is standing for re-election to the Board of Directors at that particular annual meeting,
will automatically be granted a non-statutory option to purchase 20,000 shares of Common Stock,
provided such individual has served as a non-employee member of the Board of Directors for at least
six months. All automatic option grants will have an exercise price equal to the fair market value
per share of Common Stock on the grant date and will have a term of ten years, subject to earlier
termination following the optionee’s cessation of service on the Board of Directors. Each
automatic option will be immediately exercisable; however, any shares purchased upon exercise of
the option will be subject to repurchase should the optionee’s service as a non-employee member of
the Board of Directors cease prior to the vesting in those shares. The initial grant of 100,000
shares will vest in successive equal annual installments over the optionee’s initial four-year
period of service on the Board of Directors. Each subsequent grant of 20,000 shares will vest in
full upon the optionee’s completion of one year of service on the Board of Directors, as measured
from the grant date. However, each outstanding option will immediately vest upon (1) certain
changes in the ownership or control of the Company or (2) the death or permanent disability of the
optionee while serving on the Board of Directors.
§ 201.49 Other crop seed. ( a ) Seeds of plants grown as crops (other than the kind(s) and variety(ies) included in the pure seed) shall be considered other crop seeds, unless recognized as weed seeds by applicable laws, or regulations, or by general usage. All interpretations and definitions for “pure seed” in § 201.48 shall also apply in determining whether seeds are “other crop seed” or “inert matter” with the following two exceptions which may be applied as acceptable alternatives: ( 1 ) Uniform Blowing Procedure in § 201.51a(a) for kinds listed in § 201.47(e) may be disregarded. If disregarded, all seed units (as defined in § 201.47a) for these kinds found in the working sample shall be manually separated into pure seed and inert matter. Only units containing at least one caryopsis with some degree of endosperm development which can be detected either by slight pressure or by examination over light are considered other crop seed.
( 2 ) Multiple Unit Procedure in § 201.51a(b) for kinds listed in § 201.48(g)(3) may be disregarded. If disregarded, all multiple units and single units (as defined in § 201.51a(b)) for these kinds found in the working sample shall be manually separated into single florets. Each floret containing a caryopsis with some degree of endosperm development, which can be detected either by slight pressure or examination over light, is considered other crop seed. Empty florets and glumes, if present, are considered inert matter. Refer to § 201.51(a)(4).
( b ) [Reserved]
[59 FR 64498, Dec. 14, 1994; 60 FR 2493, Jan. 10, 1995]
§ 254.3 Administration by an ITO. ( a ) *Applicability of part 253.* All of the provisions of part 253 are herein incorporated and apply to part 254, except as specifically modified by part 254.
( b ) Section 253.4 Administration, does not apply and is replaced by § 254.3.
( c ) *Federal administration.* Within the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), shall be responsible for the Food Distribution Program. FNS shall have the power to determine the amount of any claim and to settle and adjust any claim against an ITO.
( d ) *ITO administration.* The ITO, acting as State agency, shall be responsible for the Food Distribution Program within the approved FNS service areas if FNS determines the ITO capable of effective and efficient administration.
( e ) *Qualification as an ITO.* The ITO of a tribe in Oklahoma must document to the satisfaction of FNS that the ITO meets the definition of an ITO in § 254.2, is organized under the provisions of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 or has a tribal organization established and approved under BIA regulations.
(The information collection requirements contained in paragraph (e) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0316)
#### In the Matter of Jeremy M. Jacobs et al., Respondents, v Board of Assessors of the Town of Elma et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: An award of an additional allowance in a tax assessment review case can be made only when the court finds that the assessment was increased without adequate cause or that the amount of the assessment was grossly discriminatory (Real Property Tax Law, § 722, subd 2; *Grant Co. v Srogi,*71 AD2d 457; *Matter of Rice v Srogi,*70 AD2d 764). Although the Trial Justice in this case did not expressly find gross discrimination, it is clear that such was the basis of his determination, and the facts justify such finding. On this record, we therefore make such finding and affirm the grant of the additional allowance. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — Real Property Tax Law, art 7.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
§ 1735.21 Refinancing loans. ( a ) Any new direct or guaranteed loan authority provided under the RE Act may be used to refinance an outstanding obligation of the applicant on another loan made under Titles II and VI of the RE Act, or on a non-RUS loan if that loan would have been for eligible telecommunications purposes under the RE Act provided that: ( 1 ) The applicant is current with its payments on the RUS loan(s) to be refinanced; and
( 2 ) The amortization period for that portion of the loan request that will be needed for refinancing will not exceed the remaining amortization period for the loan(s) to be refinanced. If multiple notes are being refinanced, an average remaining amortization period will be calculated based on the weighted dollar average of the notes being refinanced.
( b ) The amount that can be refinanced will be included in the funding opportunity announcement that will open a funding window based on the funds authorized for any given fiscal year.
[86 FR 50608, Sept. 10, 2021]
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, James R. Musick, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Vitro Diagnostics,
Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

Date:    February 4, 2005


/s/  James R. Musick
---------------------------------------
     James R. Musick,
     President, Chief Executive Officer
     and Principal Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

h0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

146020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146020

COA: 311536

Wayne CC: 11-002149-01-FC

CALVIN EUNICE MARSHALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
(April 8, 1980)

#### Loren E. Rosenthal, Appellant, v Elaine Rosenthal, Respondent.

Kupferman, J.,

dissents in part in the following memorandum: I dissent in part only with respect to the defendant-respondent’s second contention as to religious school training. To the extent that the order of the court at Special Term can be interpreted to be limited solely for a hearing on the question of defendant’s financial condition, it would be in error, because the agreement provides that "the father will be responsible and shall pay for school, religious training, day camp and summer camp for the child, provided, however, that: (1) he is given an equal voice in choosing such school and camp; and (2) that he is financially able to do so”. There is no provision in the agreement that the schooling shall be at a religious school. Further, public policy suggests emphasis on the public school system, here in Great *516Neck and adequate. (See *Berry v Berry,*56 AD2d 522, 523; *Tannenbaum v Tannenbaum,*50 AD2d 539, 540.) To the extent that the agreement requires that religious training shall be provided, it need not be as part of general schooling. Order filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ANTWAUN VONTRELL LEE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:19-cv-320-AW-GRJ

CORIZON HEALTH SERVS., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER

I have reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s January 27, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 11. No objections have been filed. I have determined 

that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. The Report and 

Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendant Corizon Health Services in the First Amended Complaint, 

ECF No. 8, are dismissed without leave to amend. 

SO ORDERED on March 17, 2019. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
#### § 252.7 OMB control number.

The information collection and reporting requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0325.
#### § 29.2256 Clean.

Tobacco is described as clean when it contains only a normal amount of sand or soil particles. Leaves grown on the lower portion of the stalk normally contain more dirt or sand than those from higher stalk positions. (See Rule 4, § 29.2395.)
118 STAT. 1100 PUBLIC LAW 108–299—AUG. 9, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4417:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,

Vol. 150 (2004):

June 14, considered and passed House.

July 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–299

108th Congress

An Act

To modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine-readable, tamper-resistant entry

and exit documents.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN DEADLINES FOR MACHINEREADABLE, TAMPER-RESISTANT ENTRY AND EXIT DOCUMENTS.

Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry

Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732) is amended, in each of subsections (b)(2)(A), (c)(1), and (c)(2), by striking ‘‘2004,’’ and inserting

‘‘2005,’’.

Approved August 9, 2004.

Aug. 9, 2004

[H.R. 4417]
*Tuesday, October 27,1998*

MOTION DOCKET

96-2872.

#### State v. Raglin.

Hamilton C.P. No. B96000135. Upon consideration of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the timely filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States,

IT IS ORDERED that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the compliance with the mandate and the execution of sentence be, and the same hereby are, stayed pending the timely filing of the petition in the Supreme Court of *1466the United States.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such petition is timely filed, this stay shall continue for an indefinite period pending final disposition of this cause by the Supreme Court of the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from  Superior  Wireless,  Inc.  December  31, 1997  financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000793986
<NAME>                              Superior Wireless Communications, Inc.



<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                                         943
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               943
<PP&E>                                         79,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (48,428)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,010,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,766,462
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,499
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,757,231)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (1,010,730)
<SALES>                                        64,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,000
<CGS>                                          45,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  614,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (595,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (596,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (596,551)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.40)



</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 2, 2019

No. 04-18-00926-CV

IN RE Bertha Bermea SANCHEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Motion to Substitute Counsel filed by the real party in interest is hereby GRANTED. 

Ms. Beth Watkins and the Law Office of Beth Watkins d/b/a Watkins Law d/b/a Watkins 

Appeals PLLC is authorized to withdraw as counsel for real party in interest, Marisol Perez 

Sotelo, and Ms. Shannon K. Dunn and the Law Office of Shannon K. Dunn, PLLC is hereby 

substituted in as counsel for Marisol Perez Sotelo. 

The Clerk of this court is directed to remove Ms. Watkins and her law firm from notices 

from this court and add Ms. Dunn and her law firm to all future notices.

It is so ORDERED on January 2, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________

 Keith E. Hottle,

 Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15-01-30519-MCVAJA, styled Marisol Perez Sotello v. Bertha Bermea 

Sanchez, pending in the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Amado J. Abascal, 

III presiding.
### Agricultural pesticides found in ground water of the Quincy and Pasco basins

By: Lonna M. RobertsJoseph L. Jones

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs24095

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Amendment to Employment Agreement--Robert L. Recchia



 EXHIBIT 10.3(H) 
  
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made January 11, 2005 by and between Valassis Communications, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) and Robert L. Recchia (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of March 18, 1992, as amended on January 2, 1996, January 3, 1997 and December 9, 1998, December 23, 1999,
June 8, 2000, March 14, 2001, July 8, 2002 and January 9, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect an increase in the Executive’s Annual Base
Salary. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above
recitals, the parties hereto agree as set forth below. 
  
 1. The
first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: 
  
 “The Executive’s Annual Base Salary (“Annual Base Salary”), payable on a biweekly basis, shall be at the annual rate
of not less than $390,000 effective January 1, 2005.” 
  
 2.
All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. This instrument, together with the Employment Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Corporation have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and
year first above written. 
  

			
	 VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Barry P. Hoffman


	 Name:
	 	 Barry P. Hoffman

	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President and Legal Counsel

		
	 	 	 /s/ Robert L. Recchia


	 	 	 Robert L. Recchia
#### § 29.1061 Stem.

The midrib or large central vein of a tobacco leaf.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]