alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 510.4 Biologics; products subject to license control.

An animal drug produced and distributed in full conformance with the animal virus, serum, and toxin law of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 832; 21 U.S.C. 151 *et seq.* ) and any regulations issued thereunder shall not be deemed to be subject to section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

# **CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Terrence J. Scully,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in theyear covered by this annual report, of Target Credit Card Owner Trust 2005-1;

 

# **2.**               Basedon my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of theperiod covered by this annual report;

# ** **

3.               Based on myknowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.               I am responsiblefor reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annualcompliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

 

5.               The reportsdisclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliancewith the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by anindependent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure,as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that isincluded in these reports.

 

 
| Dated: March 31, 2006 | By:                             | /s/ Terrence J. Scully |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                  | Terrence J. Scully,             |
|                  | Vice President and  Director    |
|                  | Target Receivables  Corporation |

 

----
**Exhibit 10.4**

 

**Crimson Exploration Inc.**

 

Crimson Cash Incentive Bonus Plan

 

*Eligibility*.

All employees are eligible to participate in the Crimson Cash Incentive Bonus Plan (the “*Plan*”).  To be eligible, employees must be employed by Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “*Company*”) or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries at the time the final Plan awards are paid.

 

*Plan Details*.

Under the Plan, each employee may receive a bonus award equal to a percentage of such employee’s base salary, with such percentage being determined by the Company’s performance relative to specific targeted performance measures.

 

The targeted performance measures under the Plan are based on the following five categories:

 

|   | **•** | the amount of annual production |
|--------|------------|---------------------------------|

|   | **•** | the amount of “EBITDAX”1 |
|--------|------------|------------------------------------|

|   | **•** | the percentage of reserve replacement |
|--------|------------|---------------------------------------|

|   | **•** | the amount of total F&D2 cost; and |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------|

|   | **•** | the percentage of ROIC3 |
|--------|------------|-------------------------|

 

The Compensation Committee sets the minimum, target and maximum levels for each of these categories for each fiscal year.

 

Under the Plan, for all employees other than production and engineering employees, each category comprises 20% of each employee’s bonus award.  For production and engineering employees, 50% of each such employee’s bonus award is determined by the Company’s annual production while each other category comprises 12.5% of each such employee’s bonus.  When the Company’s performance with regards to a category falls between the minimum and the target amounts or between the target and maximum amounts, the bonus award will be a prorated accordingly.

 

_________________________

1 Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Depletion, Amortization and Exploration Expenses

2 Finding & Development Costs

3 Return on Invested Capital

 

682051.0006 WEST  6304117 v3
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date: 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

# Place: 

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status: 

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

## 1. Civil Penalty Factors—Final Rule

                    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                     *http://www,cpsc.gov/​webcast/​index.html.*

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: February 22, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-4029 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Exhibit
        22.1
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 To
        the
        Board of Directors
 Level
        8
        Systems, Inc.
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
        of
        our report dated March 23, 2006, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
        and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to
        continue as a going concern) of Level 8 Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
        the
        year ended December 31, 2005.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/Margolis
        & Company P.C.
 
 Certified
        Public Accountants
 
 
 Bala
        Cynwyd, PA
 March
        31,
        2006
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of Spescom SoftwareInc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, andshall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or “filed” for any purposewhatsoever.

 
| Dated:   February 14, 2005 |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| /s/ John W. Low                      |   |
|                                 |
| John W. Low                          |
| Chief Financial Officer              |

 

----
#### ANGELO DiMEGLIO, RESPONDENT, v. SLONK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

For the respondent, *George Pellettieri.*

For the appellant, *Samuel D. Lenox.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Heher in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,158,000              14,291,000
<SECURITIES>                                37,907,000              22,603,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,334,000              10,115,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,047,000)               (768,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,840,000              59,207,000
<PP&E>                                       6,395,000               5,896,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,373,000)             (4,427,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,634,000              63,613,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     (11,670,000)            (13,665,000)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     (141,000)               (135,000)
<OTHER-SE>                                (46,476,000)            (48,882,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              (58,634,000)            (63,613,000)
<SALES>                                      4,374,000               2,114,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,253,000               8,659,000
<CGS>                                          553,000                 537,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,893,000               4,786,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,776,000               5,281,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,409,000)             (1,569,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (375,000)                 371,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,784,000)             (1,198,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0               (547,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               9,437,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,784,000)               7,692,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)                    0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)                    0.57


</TABLE>
#### Wilputte Coke Oven Corporation *v.*Runyan

[No. 17,328.

Filed January 17, 1945.]

*285
      *Oscar C. Strom,*of Gary, for appellant.

*John M. Huberto,*of Gary, for appellee.

Flanagan, J.

— This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Board. The only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Board’s finding-in certain particulars.

In setting forth a condensed recital of the evidence in its brief, appellant has set forth from the testimony of each witness all of that which is favorable to it but omitted most of that which is unfavorable. This does not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the rule of this court in regard to setting forth a condensed recital of the evidence. Rule 2-17 (e), Rules of the Supreme Court. No question is therefore presented for our consideration.

Under the circumstances we feel that the maximum penalty should be applied.

While the award is affirmed and the penalty attached for the reason above given, we may state that we have nevertheless examined the record and find the evidence ample to support the finding of the Board.

Award affirmed with increase of 10%.

Draper, C. J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 58 N. E. (2d) 762.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT
Board of Directors of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A
  and of First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying 
representation letter dated February 28, 1996 about the compliance of First 
Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. and First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. (jointly 
the "Company") with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers ("USAP"), to the extent such procedures were applicable, as of 
December 31, 1995 and for the period July 31, 1995 (date of formation) through
December 31, 1995, as it relates to its responsibilities as servicer for the 
First Security Auto Grantor Trust 1995-A.  As discussed in that representation
letter, management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those 
requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's 
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included 
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the 
minimum servicing standards and performing such procedures as we considered 
necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a 
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal 
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing 
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the 
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of December 31, 1995 and for the
period July 31, 1995 (date of formation) through December 31, 1995 is fairly 
stated, in all material respects.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
February 28, 1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0270

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOR-EL RUBEN QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 21, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 12 2020

11/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0270
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4054]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1661]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 274 Under Alternative Site 
Framework; City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, MT

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) in 
December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) 
as an option for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose 
zones;
    Whereas, the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, Montana, grantee 
of Foreign-Trade Zone 274, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ 
Docket 33-2009, filed 8/4/2009) for authority to reorganize under the 
ASF with a service area of Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana, within and 
adjacent to the Butte-Silver Bow Customs and Border Protection port of 
entry, and FTZ 274's existing Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet 
site;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (74 FR 40566-40567, 8/12/09) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 274 under the alternative site 
framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 
2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone 
project.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this February 5, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4054 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-24-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                       1,480,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               98,372,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,708,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,579,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,633,000
<PP&E>                                      16,090,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,700,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,648,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,403,000
<BONDS>                                     83,973,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,868,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               169,648,000
<SALES>                                     33,226,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,521,000
<CGS>                                       12,551,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,704,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               554,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,350,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,167,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,678,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (434,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,244,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,556,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,312,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company does not report EPS as there is no public market for its equity.
The Company does have publicly traded debt.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: March 14, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

CAROL STANLEY

, *

* No

. 16

- 1343V

Petitioner, *

v. * Special M a ster Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Notice of Voluntary Dismissal;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine Rule 21(a).

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On March 10, 2017 , petitioner filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, requesting that this

claim be dismissed pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a )

. Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 17). In

accordance with this rule , this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice . The Clerk of the

Court is instructed that judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuan t to 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 21(a)

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Any questions about this Order may be directed to my law clerk, Kate Burmeister , at

(202) 357

- 63 75 or kate

_ burmeister @cfc.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

1 Because this unpublished order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I

intend to post it to the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2 899, 2913 (codified as amended

at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days

to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

12(d)(4)(B). Further, consi stent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the

requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.