alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000757597
<NAME> ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-2, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,213,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,017,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,270,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,262,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          684,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,578,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,262,100
<SALES>                                      2,942,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,942,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,018,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,184,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,184,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,184,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                      39.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2456 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Crotonaldehyde. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2006 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Crotonaldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CROTONALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.12 Crotonaldehyde (CAS No. 

4170-30-3) (provided for in 

subheading 2912.19.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2456 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
§ 4288.105 Oversight and monitoring. ( a ) *Verification.* The Agency reserves the right to verify all payment applications and subsequent payments made under this subpart, as frequently as necessary, to ensure the integrity of the Program. The Agency will conduct site visits as necessary. ( 1 ) *Production and feedstock verification.* The Agency will review producer records to verify the type and amount of biofuel produced and the type and amount of commodity/eligible renewable biomass used.
( 2 ) *Blending verification.* The Agency will review the producer's certificates of analysis and feedstock records to verify the portion of the advanced biofuel eligible for payment.
( 3 ) *Certificate of Analysis.* The Agency will review the producer records for quarterly payments to ensure that each Certificate of Analysis has been issued by an Agency-approved qualified entity, which may include the blender only if the blender is not associated with the biorefinery.
( b ) *Records.* For the purpose of verifying compliance with the requirements of this subpart, each eligible advanced biofuel producer shall make available at one place at a reasonable time for examination by representatives of USDA, all books, papers, records, contracts, scale tickets, settlement sheets, invoices, written price quotations, and other documents related to the Program that is within the control of such advanced biofuel producer for not less than 3 years from each Program payment date.
[76 FR 7967, Feb. 11, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 71302, Dec. 27, 2019]
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of February 5, 2009, to the
Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (the
“Agreement”), dated as of January 9, 2009, by
and between First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
(“FR”) and Bruce W. Duncan (the
“Grantee”).




     WHEREAS, FR and the Grantee have previously entered into the Agreement;



     WHEREAS, FR and the Grantee mutually desire to amend the Agreement in order to correct a
scrivener’s error;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


1. Section 2(a)(ii)(B)(1) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the word
“consecutive” immediately preceding the word “trading”.



2. Except as provided herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The
Agreement together with this Amendment No. 1 shall be considered one and the same
agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John H. Clayton
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John H. Clayton 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President — Corporate Legal 	 
	 
	 	BRUCE W. DUNCAN

 	 
	 	/s/ Bruce W. Duncan
118 STAT. 2250 PUBLIC LAW 108–396—OCT. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4579:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–703 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–396

108th Congress

An Act

To modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site in the

State of Missouri, 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. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truman Farm Home Expansion

Act’’.

SEC. 2. HARRY S TRUMAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

The first section of Public Law 98–32 (16 U.S.C. 461 note)

is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

‘‘(d) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire, by donation,

purchase with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from

another Federal agency, or any other means, the land described

in paragraph (2) for inclusion in the Harry S Truman National

Historic Site.

‘‘(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in paragraph (1) consists of the approximately 5 acres of land

(including the structure located south of the Truman Farm

Home site), as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Harry

S Truman National Historic Site Proposed Boundary’, numbered 492/80,027, and dated April 17, 2003.

‘‘(3) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—On acquisition of the land

under this subsection, the Secretary shall modify the boundary

of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site to reflect the

acquisition of the land.’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Truman Farm

Home Expansion

Act.

16 USC 461 note.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 4579]
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7253]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Norwegian Painters''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Norwegian Painters,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, New York, from on or about December 15, 2010, until on or 
about December 15, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-30118 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Subpart 42.10 - [Reserved]

Parent topic: Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services
|   | 1. |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                    |
|--------|----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 2. |   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                       | India Globalization Capital, Inc. |                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                              |                                                                                                            |   |
| Date: August 20, 2012 | By:                               | /s/ Ram Mukunda                 |   |
|                       |                              | Ram Mukunda                                                                                                     |   |
|                       |                              | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                                             |   |
Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 1 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 2 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 3 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 4 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 5 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 6 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 7 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 8 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 9 of 10

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-MD   Document 78   Filed 08/25/08   Page 10 of 10
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91cr5014LAC

WILLARD WOMBLE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on November 26, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1651-Audita Querela 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 11/6/2007 Doc.# 710

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 30th day of

November, 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Audita querela was an ancient writ used to attack the enforcement of a

judgment after it was rendered. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1174

(11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Such a writ may not be granted when relief is

cognizable under § 2255. Id. at 1175. Construing defendant’s motion or writ as

one made pursuant to § 2255, he has failed to obtain an order from the Eleventh

Circuit authorizing this court to entertain a second and successive motion for

such relief. Id. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Entered On Docket: By: Senior United States District Judge

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05014-LC-MD Document 711 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 1
#### The State ex rel. Bonifield, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Bonifield v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 117.]

(No. 97-532

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Law Office of Thomas Tootle*and *Thomas Tootle,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Constance A. Snyder,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Bricker & Eckler, Charles D. Smith*and *Elizabeth A. Preston,*for appellee H.C.F., Inc.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

*118Resnick, J., dissents.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
27.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes the policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses pertaining

to patents, data, and copyrights.

Parent topic: Part 27 - Patents, Data, and Copyrights
#### § 29.2627 Rule 11.

Interpretations, the use of specifications, and the meaning of terms shall be in accordance with determinations or clarifications made by the Chief of the Standards and Testing Branch and approved by the Director.
Exhibit
      33 e)




ASSESSMENT
      OF COMPLIANCE




Re:
      First
      Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
      2006-FF12




I,
      D.
      Keith Gettmann, a duly elected and acting officer of OfficeTiger Global Real
      Estate Services Inc (the “Credit Risk Manager”), certify pursuant to Section
      9.25(a) of the Trust Agreement to the Depositor, with respect to the calendar
      year immediately preceding the date of this Certificate (the “Relevant Year”),
      as follows:




1.   I
        am
        responsible for assessing compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria
        applicable to the Credit Risk Manager during the Relevant Year. The Relevant
        Servicing Criteria applicable to the Credit Risk Manager are contained in
        item
        1122(d)(3)(i) of Regulation AB. For purposes of this assessment, I have used
        the
        Servicing Criteria as set forth in item 1122(d)(3)(i) of Regulation AB to
        assess
        compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria.




2.   Based
      on
      my knowledge, the Credit Risk Manager was, in all material respects, in
      compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria applicable to the Credit Risk
      Manager during the Relevant Year, and there were no material instances of
      noncompliance with respect thereto. This assessment is based on the activities
      the Credit Risk Manager performs with respect to asset-backed securities
      transactions taken as a whole involving the Credit Risk Manager, that are backed
      by the same asset type as the related Mortgage Loans.




3.   A
      registered public accounting firm has issued an attestation report on the
      assessment of compliance for the period consisting of the Relevant
      Year.




Capitalized
      terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the
      related Trust Agreement.




OFFICETIGER
      GLOBAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC.




(as
      Credit Risk Manager)




By:
      /s/
      D. Keith Gettmann


D.
      Keith
      Gettmann


Senior
      Vice President


July
        19,
        2007
#### § 51.1349 Size.

Size may be specified in connection with a grade by agreement between buyer and seller and stated in terms of minimum diameter or minimum and maximum diameters. Diameters shall be specified in inches and not less than eighth-inch fractions thereof. In addition, size may be stated in terms of ratio of length to diameter.
*Thursday, November 5, 1998*

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-2267.

#### In re Objection to Order of Bd. of Commrs. on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

This case was opened upon the filing of an objection to an order of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Whereas movant Mark Szezepinski’s objection does not contain proof of service as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that movant’s objection be¡ and hereby is, stricken, and this case be, and hereby is, dismissed.
#### § 51.1528 Well formed.

“Well formed” means that the fruit has the shape characteristic of the variety. Doubles shall not be considered well formed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Michael Nolan and Robert W. Snow, Appellants.

Appeals by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, both rendered March 2, 1978, convicting defendant Nolan of three counts of robbery in the second degree and defendant Snow of two counts of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences. Judgment affirmed. Defendant Nolan contends that his degree of intoxication impaired his ability to give a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights in violation of *Miranda v Arizona*(384 US 436). The record does not support the assertion. Although Nolan initially made some frivolous comments to the police, there was substantial proof that Nolan’s conduct was entirely rational. Detective Matern, who read Nolan the *Miranda*warnings and to whom the waiver was given, thought that Nolan had been drinking, but Nolan did not appear to Matern or to Officers Cicci or Cuccio to be drunk. Further indicia of rationality were Nolan’s denial of any complicity in a Mobil gas station holdup (after he waived his rights) and his refusal to sign any statement that had been reduced to writing. When he was told that he would be put into a lineup, he proceeded to describe what happened at the gas station and a delicatessen. From the psychiatrist’s testimony at trial, we know that it is perfectly possible for someone like Nolan, a diagnosed alcoholic, to consume a large quantity of alcohol and to appear to be fully rational and oriented. Sometimes, the external appearance may not in fact be the reality. However, we also know from the doctor’s testimony that even under the influence of a high amount of alcohol Nolan would be able to make decisions and to carry them through. The *829proof adduced at the suppression hearing strongly supports the latter finding. It was error, as Nolan contends, to admit Gail Petersen’s identification testimony inasmuch as the prosecution failed to notify the defense that Petersen was shown a photograph of the lineup and identified Nolan, although she had not viewed the lineup. "The administration of justice must not only be above reproach, it must also be beyond the suspicion of reproach” *(People v Savvides,*1 NY2d 554, 556). An error of this sort is in many instances so egregious as to warrant reversal, irrespective of the quantum of evidence of guilt. We do not find the conduct to be of that character here, and a new trial is not required under the circumstances. We have examined Nolan’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Defendant Snow contends on appeal essentially that he was immeasurably prejudiced by the joint trial and that his motion for a severance should have been granted. He maintains that the defenses were antagonistic and that his codefendant’s counsel was hostile and created erroneous impressions before the jury. In view of the fact that the jury evidently credited Snow’s alibi defense and acquitted him of the first count of robbery, we think that any claim of prejudice is without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
§ 319.8-3 Refusal and cancellation of permits. ( a ) Permits for entry from the West Coast of Mexico, as authorized in § 319.8-12 of lint, linters, waste, cottonseed, and cottonseed hulls may be refused and existing permits cancelled by the Administrator if he or she has determined that the pink bollworm is present in the West Coast of Mexico or in Northwest Mexico, or that other conditions exist therein that would increase the hazard of pest introduction into the United States.
( b ) Permits for entry from Northwest Mexico as authorized in § 319.8-13 of lint, linters, waste, cottonseed, cottonseed hulls, and covers that have been used for cotton, may be refused and existing permits cancelled by the Administrator if he or she has determined that the pink bollworm is present in Northwest Mexico or in the West Coast of Mexico, or that other conditions exist therein that would increase the hazard of pest introduction into the United States.
[27 FR 5389, June 7, 1962, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971; 70 FR 33324, June 7, 2005; 78 FR 25570, May 2, 2013]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of J. Bruce Siff, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 1, 1968, which held him ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a]). Appellant, a field engineer, traveled extensively throughout the continental United States for his employer. The employment agreement provided: “ Employee understands that the assignment may change and that he may he required by circumstances or by direction of the Company to move to other areas.” Appellant contends that he tendered his resignation because he did not anticipate at the time of hiring that he would have to relocate as often as was required by the employer. When he accepted this position, six months earlier, appellant was *700aware of the conditions and circumstances upon which he later relied to justify his voluntary separation from employment. The board found that appellant had failed to establish “that the conditions of his. employment were not those anticipated under the employment agreement.” The record amply supports the board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause *(Matter of Hansen*[Catherwood], 31 A D 2d 680). We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.