alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 314 

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 14, 2005. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the 

Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall 

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 

Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 

comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for section 607. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority 
2 

•HRES 314 EH 

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering 

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of 

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and reports the 

bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill 

do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
BEVERLY CUNNINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUST BENEFICIARY, Respondent

v. ALVIN D. CUNNINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, ALVIN D. CUNNINGHAM AS TRUSTEE, AND ALVIN D. CUNNINGHAM TRUST, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 125 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
# L_2023147EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/1

---

Notification to the Joint Sectoral Committee by the European Union under Article 7 of the Sectoral Annex on Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) of the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America

THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America done in 1998, and in particular Article 7 of the Sectoral Annex on Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs Annex) as amended on 1 March 2017.

NOTIFIES THE JOINT SECTORAL COMMITTEE THAT:

The European Union has determined that, for the product scope indicated in Article 4 and Appendix 3 to the GMPs Annex, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has the capability, capacity and procedures in place to carry out GMP inspections at a level equivalent to the EU and enforce compliance with GMP and therefore, shall be added to the list of recognised authorities for veterinary products under the GMPs Annex.

This determination is without prejudice to any future decisions of the Joint Sectoral Committee with respect to the inclusion of vaccines for human use, plasma derived pharmaceuticals and investigational products in the operational scope of the GMPs Annex.

This notification shall be effective from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Signed in Brussels, on 30 May 2023.

For the European Union

Stella KYRIAKIDES

---
#### § 603.510 Recipient qualifications.

Prior to award of a TIA, the contracting officer's responsibilities for determining that the recipient is qualified are the same as those for awarding a grant or cooperative agreement. If the recipient is a consortium that is not formally incorporated, the contracting officer has the additional responsibility described in § 603.515.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:


1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of the COMM 2013-LC6 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

2  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
    by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
    the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their
    obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
    1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
    included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
    this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
    reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
    provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as
    Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells
    Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator,
    Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender
    Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of
    PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Harmon Corner
    Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National
    Association, as Special Servicer for the Harmon Corner Mortgage Loan, Well
    Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator
    for the Harmon Corner Mortgage Loan, Well Fargo Bank, National Association
    as Custodian for the Harmon Corner Mortgage Loan, and Park Bridge Lender
    Services LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Harmon Corner Mortgage Loan.


    Dated:   March 28, 2014


    /s/ Helaine M. Kaplan
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### Bogan *v.*The State.

*Indictment for Selling Liquor withoid License.*

1. *Form of indictment and proof.*— An indictment which charges that the defendant’“sold vinous or spirituous liquors without a license, and contrary to law,” being in the form prescribed in the statute (Code of 1886, § 4037), is sufficient, and under it any violation of a special or local prohibition law may be proved.

2. *Same; exception in favor of physicians and druggists*— If the defendant was a physician or druggist, and lawfully disposed of liquor under the restrictions allowed by the local law, this was matter of defense, and it was not necessary that the indictment should negative it.

3. *Unconstitutional proviso in valid law.*— A proviso in a local prohibitory law, making an unconstitutional discrimination in favor of wines manufactured in the State, may be declared void by the courts, while giving full force and effect to the other parts of the law.

Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court

Tried before Hon. James Aiken.

The judgment entry of the lower court in this case recites that the indictment against defendant having, been read to him, he demurred thereto upon the grounds specifically set *450forth in said demurrer; and that the demurrer ivas overruled; that on trial being had on his plea of “not guilty,” defendant was convicted and fined in the sum of two hundred dollars. The demurrer, referred to in the judgment entry, nowhere appears in the record filed in this cause. The indictment charged, “that . . . Each Bogan sold vinous or spirituous liquors, without a license and contrary to law,” <fcc.

Thos. N. McClellan, Attorney-General,' for the State.

SOMERVILLE: J.

1. The indictment ivas in the form prescribed by section 4037 of the Code (188(5), which constituted section 480(5 of the Code of 1876, and by the express terms of the statute itself is made sufficient to cover “all violations of special and local laws, regulating the sale of spirituous liquors within the place *specified.”*— Powell *v. State,*60 Ala. 10; *Boon v. State, Ib.*226.

2. If the defendant was a druggist, or physician, and laAvfully disposed of wine or liquors under the restrictions alloAved in sections 2 and 3 of the act approved February 28, 1881 (Acts 1880-81, p. 1(57-168), he should haAre set this fact up as a matter of defense. These particular cases were in the nature of provisos, rather than of exceptions incorporated in the enacting clause, and 'it, therefore, was unnecessary for the -indictment to negative them by averring, in advance,, that the defendant did not come within the operation of these excepted cases *.*— Carson *v. State,*69 Ala. 235; *Britton v. State,*77 Ala. 202.

3. If the last proviso of the act, contained in section 4, Avhich permitted any citizen of Alabama to sell domestic wine, was void as an unconstitutional discrimination against the citizens of other States, under the authority of *McCreary v. State,*73 Ala. 480, we should hold the remainder of the act to continue in full force and effect. — See, also, *Powell v. State,*69 Ala. 10; and *Tiernan v. Rinker,*102 U. S. 123.

We discover no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.
#### LEVY v. WOLFE et al.,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by Leon Levy against Marie M. Wolfe and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 163 App. Div. 952, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1126.
ex10-60.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.60

     

    
      Third
Amendment

      to

      Employment
Agreement

      


      This
Third Amendment to Employment
Agreement (the “Third Amendment”), is being entered into effective
December 10, 2009 by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”) and Mr. S. James Miller Jr. (the “Executive”).

                          

      WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of
September 27, 2005 and subsequently amended on September 27, 2008 and again on
April 6, 2009 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”);

      


      WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and

      


      WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.

      


      NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Employment Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

      


      
        	
                1.

              	
                Section “2. Term
      of Agreement”  strike the
      language “continue until December 31, 2009” and replace it with “continue
      until December 31, 2011”.

              


      

       

      
        	
                2.

              	
                Except
      as expressly amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue and
      be in full force in all respects.

              


      

       

      


      


      _________________________________                                          
_________________________________

      


      ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           S.
James Miller
### Stevenson,Todd From: Kim, Hyun Sent: Thursday, April 12, 20122:14 PM To: Stevenson, Todd Subject: FW: Requestfor newtable sawsafety feature to be reviewed by CPSC ISSUE=46100 PROJ= 20

From: CPSCHotline@ [mailto:telesishq.com CPSCHotline@telesishg.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:29AM To: Fleming, Nychelle Subject: Requestfor newtable sawsafety feature to be reviewed by CPSC ISSUE=46100 PROJ=20 When replying, type yourtext above this line. Notification ofCPSC Case Registration VVorkspace: CPSC CPSC Case: Request for new table saw safety feature to be reviewed by CPSC CPSC Case Number:46100 Escalation: None Status:Closed Date: 04/11/2012 Time: 10:29:54 Created By:Mariela Mata Click here to view CPSC Case in Browser Description: Entered on 04/11/2012 at 10:29:54 EDT(GMT-0400) byMariela Mata: Request for new table saw safety feature to be reviewed by CPSC Alex or Nikki, **Mr. Niichel, would also like to speak with someone in the CSPC about his new safety design. Isthere a particular person that he can talkto aboutthe design? We were not sure ifthis should go to Compliance, since the CPSC is working on a similar area oftable saw safety? Bill Niichel 516 Meredith Drive Puedlo West, CO 81007 Cell 719-641-5274 719-510-5074 E-mail: mniichel@me.com Mr. Niichel said thatthe commission wants to make all table saws safer and he believes that his system would make every table saw ever made saferand at a low cost. Mr. Niichel would like to have someone contact him in regards to his new safety system. He is willing to provide a video thatwill show how this system works and how itwill make the saw's safe. Mr. Niichel stated thatthis Save M System is new and has only been on the market for 3 months. The manufacturer stated thatyou can also visit his website Savemsystem.com to view videos ofthe system. How should this be hanlded? Thanks, 1Mariela Mata

CurrentAssignees: Mariela Mata CC(s): (permanent) Maureen Redmon, swolfson@cpsc.gov, nfleming@cpsc.gov, afilip@cpsc.gov Contact Information: Phone:719-641-5274Contact Source:Consumer

2
§ 429.50 Commercial unit heaters. ( a ) *Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to commercial unit heaters; and
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Certification reports.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to commercial unit heaters; and
( 2 ) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The type of ignition system and a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable design requirements.
#### § 20.1701 Use of process or other engineering controls.

The licensee shall use, to the extent practical, process or other engineering controls (e.g., containment, decontamination, or ventilation) to control the concentration of radioactive material in air.

[64 FR 54556, Oct. 7, 1999]
#### In the Matter of James T. Molloy, Respondent, v. James R. Lawley et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, Respondents, and Barbara M. Sims, Appellant. In the Matter of Michael F. Dillon, Respondent, v. James R. Lawley et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, Respondents, and Barbara M. Sims, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Erie County Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Appellant Sims appeals from an order invalidating her designating petition and restraining respondent Board of Elections from printing appellant’s name on the primary ballot of the Democratic primary elections as a candidate for the office of District Attorney. On May 14,1969 appellant filed a petition purporting to designate her as such a candidate containing 2,664 signatures. On May 16 petitioner Molloy filed general objections to it, and on May 19, 1969 respondent Board of Elections in ruling on the general objections found that 1,299 of such signatures were invalid and 1,365 were valid. On May 22,1969 specific objections to the petition were filed with the Board of Elections, and on May 26, 1969 the board declared that 1,583 were invalid, leaving 1,081 valid signatures remaining. Special Term found that 113 of the 1,081 signatures declared valid by the board were in fact invalid, leaving only 968 of the required 1,000 signatures. This whs implemented by the order appealed from. Special Term made findings of fact which failed to specify the name, page, or line in the nominating petition of any of the signatures invalidated by it. The record before us is completely inadequate to pass upon the issues presented. Special Term should make proper findings in which it is demonstrated with precision the 113 signatures that have been found to be invalid. In other words, the court should by appropriate references to lines and pages of the designating petitions identify the signatures that have been invalidated and the reasons therefor. It should be further delineated what names, if any, so stricken by the court had been previously stricken by the Board of Elections. (Order entered June 9, 1969.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term prohibiting placing of name on ballot.) Present—-Del Yecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
#### § 431.17 [Reserved]
(June 27, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Alan Albright, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, oral order denying motion to suppress certain evidence unanimously reversed, motion granted and new trial granted. Memorandum: The sole issue presented is the correctness of an order denying appellant’s motion to suppress certain evidence, as defendant pleaded guilty to the indictment — charging criminal possession of stolen property — following denial of the motion. The proof at the hearing disclosed that in February, 1968 two Rochester police officers saw defendant enter a cab carrying two suitcases, a box, a shopping bag and some aluminum tubing. Appellant was known to one of the detectives, who had been told by an unidentified informant that if he ever saw defendant, he should follow him and he (the officer) would “ find out plenty ”. The informant “ even mentioned the Greyhound” bus station. The officers in their car followed the cab to the bus station where defendant alighted and entered the station. Upon interrogation, appellant invited a search of the' suitcase. An imitation pistol and a quantity of watches were found therein. Another witness identified the watches as having been stolen a few days before in the course of a burglary at a jewelry store where the witness was employed. The officers, of course, were authorized to stop appellant and demand an explanation of his actions if they reasonably suspected he was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a felony or other specified offenses (Code Crim. Pro., § 180-a). “ The first problem is the authority of the police in the circumstances shown here to stop and question defendant. The validity of subsequent police action would in turn necessarily rest on the initial right to make the immediate and summary street inquiry.” *(People*v. Rivera, 14 N Y 2d 441, 444.) The record is barren of any proof that the officers had reasonable suspicion that appellant was committing or had committed a felony. The extent of their information was in substance that defendant was a character who should be followed if seen by the officers. In response to inquiry by the court one of the officers admitted that he had no “information or reasonable grounds to believe” that defendant had committed a crime. “Nothing resembling probable cause existed until after the search had turned up the [stolen watches]. It is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification.” *(Sibron*v. *New York,*392 U. S. 40, 62-63.) It follows that inasmuch as the officers had no initial right to stop defendant and interrogate him the ensuing search (although made with appellant’s consent) was fatally infected and the fruits thereof should be suppressed. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property, second degree.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
2007-2390.

#### Prater v. Dashkovsky.

Franklin App. No. 07AP-389, 2007-Ohio-6785. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion granted.

Pfeifer, O’Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
§ 501.142 Modification or rescission. ( a ) A ruling may be modified or rescinded by— ( 1 ) Publication of the modification or rescission by DOE in the Federal Register and in 10 CFR part 518; or
( 2 ) Adoption of a rule that supersedes or modifies a prior ruling.
( b ) A person shall not be subject to the sanctions or penalties stated in these regulations for actions taken in reliance upon a ruling, notwithstanding that the ruling is subsequently declared to be invalid or no longer applicable. A person affected by a ruling may not rely upon it for more than 30 days after it has been rendered invalid pursuant to issuance of a superseding rule by OFE, or after it has been rescinded or modified by DOE.
# Subpart 849.1 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 849 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS
#### § 605.4 Exceptions.

Single-case exceptions from this part may be authorized in writing by the Director or Deputy Director of SC or the Head of a Contracting Activity upon the written request of DOE staff, an applicant for an award, or a recipient. A request from an applicant or a recipient must be submitted to or through the cognizant contracting officer. Whenever a proposed exception from this part would be a exception from 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910, the exception must also be authorized in accordance with the procedures prescribed in that part.

[57 FR 40583, Sept. 3, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 76046, Dec. 19, 2014]
§ 430.40 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart prescribes the procedures to be followed in connection with petitions requesting a rule that a State regulation prescribing an energy conservation standard, water conservation standard (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals), or other requirement respecting energy efficiency, energy use, or water use (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals) of a type (or class) of covered product not be preempted.
( b ) This subpart also prescribes the procedures to be followed in connection with petitions to withdraw a rule exempting a State regulation prescribing an energy conservation standard, water conservation standard (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals), or other requirement respecting energy efficiency, energy use, or water use (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals) of a type (or class) of covered product.
[63 FR 13318, Mar. 18, 1998]