alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CONRAD HEINSZEN AND GUSTAVE BROCKMAN, TRADING AS PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF C. HEINSZEN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES.

[42 C. Cls. R., 58; 206 U. S. R., 370.]

*On the*defendants’ *Appeal.*

The above suit, brought July 1, 1902, to recover back duties exacted in the Philippine Islands bjr the military authorities on goods imported from the United States into the port of Manila between April 11, 1899, and November 15, 1901, was first decided by the court below on demurrer January 7, 1907, and subsequently, on January 23, 1907, upon the stipulation of the parties as to the facts, judgment was entered in favor of the claimants in the sum of $10,827.31.

The court below decides:

1. That the United States are the proper party defendant in a suit to recover back duties exacted by the military authorities in the Philippine Islands in 1899 and 1901 must have been considered and was impliedly decided by the Supreme Court in *Warner. Barnes é Co.*The duties were collected by their military authorities, and not by the authorities of the Philippine Islands.

2. It has also been impliedly decided by the Supreme Court that the payment of such duties was not a voluntary payment and that they may be recovered back, though paid without protest.

3. The *Act 30th June, 1906*(34 Stat. L., 636), validating tariff duties imposed by the authorities of the United States in the Philippine Islands prior to March 8, 1902, can not take away or impair a right of action, then in suit, to recover back such duties exacted without authority of law. So far as the act seeks to do so it is unconstitutional.

4. Retrospective statutes relating to defects in tax proceedings can extend only to such defects as are in the nature of irregularities ; they can not cure defects in matter of authority or jurisdiction, and should be confined to proceedings which the legislatures, by a prior statute, might have dispensed with. The eases and authorities dealing with curative and retrospective legislation fully reviewed.

*537The decision of the court below is reversed upon the grounds that the mere bringing of the action did not deprive Congress of its power to ratify the collections made by its officers in the ñame of the United States of the moneys sought to be recovered.

May 27, 1907.

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 439 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 439

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 12, 2017.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Panetta.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, January 6, 2011, 1 p.m. to January 6, 2011, 3:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 16, 2010, 75 FR 78719-78720.                

The meeting has been changed to an Internet Assisted Meeting (IAM). The meeting will be two days January 6, 2011, 9 a.m. to January 7, 2011, 5 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: December 21, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-32638 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 96 4 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 - CE - 0 35 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
§ 1311.130 Requirements for establishing logical access control—Institutional practitioner. ( a ) The entity within an institutional practitioner that conducts the identity proofing under § 1311.110 must develop a list of individual practitioners who are permitted to use the institutional practitioner's electronic prescription application to indicate that controlled substances prescriptions are ready to be signed and to sign controlled substance prescriptions. The list must be approved by two individuals.
( b ) After the list is approved, it must be sent to a separate entity within the institutional practitioner that enters permissions for logical access controls into the application. The institutional practitioner must authorize at least two individuals or a role filled by at least two individuals to enter the logical access control data. One individual in the separate entity must authenticate to the application and enter the data to grant permissions to individual practitioners to indicate that controlled substances prescriptions are ready to be signed and to sign controlled substance prescriptions. A second individual must authenticate to the application to execute the logical access controls.
( c ) The institutional practitioner must retain a record of the individuals or roles that are authorized to conduct identity proofing and logical access control data entry and execution.
( d ) Permission to indicate that controlled substances prescriptions are ready to be signed and to sign controlled substance prescriptions must be revoked whenever any of the following occurs, on the date the occurrence is discovered: ( 1 ) An individual practitioner's hard token or any other authentication factor required by the practitioner's two-factor authentication protocol is lost, stolen, or compromised. Such access must be terminated immediately upon receiving notification from the individual practitioner.
( 2 ) The institutional practitioner's or, where applicable, individual practitioner's DEA registration expires, unless the registration has been renewed.
( 3 ) The institutional practitioner's or, where applicable, individual practitioner's DEA registration is terminated, revoked, or suspended.
( 4 ) An individual practitioner is no longer authorized to use the institutional practitioner's electronic prescription application (e.g., when the individual practitioner is no longer associated with the institutional practitioner.)
1

Gurdoglanyan, Nicole

From: Regla Perez Pino [rperezpino@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 6:30 AM

To: GovernmentAffairs

Subject: SJU- DCA Non-stop Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing today to express my strong support for JetBlue’s application to offer new beyond-perimeter service at Reagan 

National and link the nation’s capital to two other important capital cities: San Juan, Puerto Rico (connecting onward to St.

Thomas, the capital of the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Austin, Texas.

JetBlue’s application will provide much-needed low-fare, high-quality service from the capital’s downtown airport to the 

capital of our closest territory, and to the capital of the largest of the contiguous 48 states. Both San Juan and Austin are 

crying out for new JetBlue service to DCA, being two of the ten largest markets without nonstop air service to the airport. 

Their application will bring tremendous public benefit and much-needed low-fare competition to DCA.

Please join me in offering your support for JetBlue’s application.

Regla Perez Pino

Alexandria, VA

rperezpino@gmail.com
Exhibit 31

SEMT 2013-3

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

I, Christopher J. Abate, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-3 (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: Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities
Administrator and Paying Agent.

Date: March 30, 2018



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Christopher J. Abate
|Signature               

Chairman of the Board and President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 112.180 Under what circumstances may FDA modify or revoke an approved variance?

We may modify or revoke a variance if we determine that such variance is not reasonably likely to ensure that the produce is not adulterated under section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and to provide the same level of public health protection as the requirements of this part.
Exhibit 32

Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation      General Partner

 

/S/ Kelly Tucek_______________________

Name: Kelly TucekTitle: Assistant Vice President of the General Partner and         principal financial officer of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

Date: November 12, 2003
#### Grace Martin, Respondent, v Drackett Products Company, Appeallant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—partial summary judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 1315
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 82 FR 97041, Dec. 30, 2016.

§ 1315.33 Power of attorney. ( a ) A registrant may authorize one or more individuals, whether or not located at his registered location, to sign certifications required under § 1315.32(h) on the registrant's behalf by executing a power of attorney for each such individual. The registrant shall retain the power of attorney in the files, with certifications required by § 1315.32(h), for the same period as any certification bearing the signature of the attorney. The power of attorney must be available for inspection together with other certification records.
( b ) A registrant may revoke any power of attorney at any time by executing a notice of revocation.
( c ) The power of attorney and notice of revocation must be similar to the following format: Power of Attorney for certifications of quota for procurement of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine _____________ (Name of registrant) ____________ (Address of registrant) ______ (DEA registration number) I, ____________ (name of person granting power), the undersigned, who am authorized to sign the current application for registration of the above-named registrant under the Controlled Substances Act or Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, have made, constituted, and appointed, and by these presents, do make, constitute, and appoint ______ (name of attorney-in-fact), my true and lawful attorney for me in my name, place, and stead, to sign certifications of quota for procurement of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine in accordance with Part 1315 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney must lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. (Signature of person granting power) I, ____________ (name of attorney-in-fact), hereby affirm that I am the person named herein as attorney-in-fact and that the signature affixed hereto is my signature. (Signature of attorney-in-fact) Witnesses: 1. ___________ 2. ___________ Signed and dated on the __ day of _, (year), at ___________. Notice of Revocation The foregoing power of attorney is hereby revoked by the undersigned, who is authorized to sign the current application for registration of the above-named registrant under the Controlled Substances Act or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Written notice of this revocation has been given to the attorney-in-fact ____________ this same day. (Signature of person revoking power) Witnesses: 1. ____________ 2. ____________ Signed and dated on the __ day of _, (year), at ____________.
( d ) A power of attorney must be executed by the person who signed the most recent application for DEA registration or reregistration; the person to whom the power of attorney is being granted; and two witnesses.
( e ) A power of attorney must be revoked by the person who signed the most recent application for DEA registration or reregistration, and two witnesses.
[73 FR 73555, Dec. 3, 2008]
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 903 

To restrict funding for the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive 

Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. 

BYRNE, and Mr. LAMBORN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To restrict funding for the Preparatory Commission for the 

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON FUNDING FOR THE PRE4 PARATORY COMMISSION FOR THE COM5 PREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY 

6 ORGANIZATION. 

7 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—Congress declares that 

8 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2310 (Sep9 tember 23, 2016) does not obligate the United States nor 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 903 IH

1 does it impose an obligation on the United States to re2 frain from actions that would run counter to the object 

3 and purpose of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban 

4 Treaty. 

5 (b) RESTRICTION ON FUNDING.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—No United States funds may 

7 be made available to the Preparatory Commission 

8 for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Or9 ganization. 

10 (2) EXCEPTION.—The restriction under para11 graph (1) shall not apply with respect to the avail12 ability of United States funds for the Comprehensive 

13 Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s Inter14 national Monitoring System. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2006-1606 and 2006-1851.

#### State v. Jones.

Mahoning App. No. 05-MA-69, 2006-Ohio-3636. Reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.
exv10w25



 






Exhibit 10.25




XenoPort, Inc.

Term Sheet for Director Cash Compensation




     Effective immediately upon approval, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of XenoPort, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), approved a policy regarding cash compensation for its
non-employee directors. The policy provides that:




	 	•	 	each non-employee director will receive $20,000 per year for service as a board
member;
	 
	 	•	 	the lead independent director of the Board will receive an additional $10,000
per year for service as lead independent director of the Board;
	 
	 	•	 	each non-employee director will receive an additional $2,000 for each Board
meeting attended in person ($1,000 for meetings attended by video or telephone
conference);
	 
	 	•	 	the chairman of the audit committee will receive an additional $10,000 per year
for service as chairman of the audit committee;
	 
	 	•	 	each member of the audit committee will receive $2,000 per committee meeting
attended in person (or by video or telephone conference);
	 
	 	•	 	the chairmen of each of the compensation committee and nominating and corporate
governance committee will each receive an additional $5,000 per year for service as
chairmen of the compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees;
and
	 
	 	•	 	each member of the compensation and nominating and corporate governance
committees will receive $500 per committee meeting attended in person (or by video
or telephone conference).





     All of the Company’s directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending
Board and committee meetings and for the reasonable expenses incurred by directors to attend
programs designed to provide continuing education regarding the appropriate role of directors in a
public company.
# L_2018167EN.01003602.xml

| 4.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 167/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 167/36

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 29 May 2018
  )

On page 4, in the Annex (concerning amendments to Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012), entry No 68 (concerning Bassam Sabbagh) is deleted.

---