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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7377 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management 

Act of 1982 to improve the management of royalties 

from oil and gas leases, 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, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7377 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Royalty Resiliency 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF ALLOCATIONS OF PRODUC5 TION FOR UNITS AND COMMUNITIZATION 

6 AGREEMENTS. 

7 Section 111(j) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 

8 Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1721(j)), as amend9 ed by the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and 

10 Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–185), is amended 

11 to read as follows: 

12 ‘‘(j) The Secretary shall issue all determinations of 

13 allocations of production for units and communitization 

14 agreements within 120 days of a request for determina15 tion. Until the Secretary issues the determination, the les16 see or its designee of a lease in a unit or communitization 

17 agreement shall report and pay royalties on oil and gas 

18 production for each production month in accordance with 

19 the terms of the proposed allocation of production for the 

20 unit or communitization agreement. After the Secretary 

21 issues the determination, the lessee or its designee shall, 

22 as necessary, correct such reports and the amount of roy23 alties paid on oil and gas production under the unit or 

24 communitization agreement by not later than the end of 

25 the third month following the month in which the lessee 

26 or its designee receives the determination from the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:23 Sep 12, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7377.RDS H7377

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 7377 RDS

1 retary. Subject to the full and timely monthly payment 

2 of royalties to all parties in accordance with the terms of 

3 the proposed allocation of production for the unit or 

4 communitization agreement, the Secretary shall waive in5 terest due on obligations subject to the determination until 

6 the end of the third month following the month in which 

7 the lessee or its designee receives the determination from 

8 the Secretary. This subsection shall not apply to unit or 

9 communization agreements containing Indian lands.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### § 515.20 Approval of medicated feed mill license applications.

Within 90 days after an application has been filed under § 515.10, if the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) determines that none of the grounds for denying approval specified in section 512(m)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) applies, an authorized employee of the Food and Drug Administration designated by the Commissioner shall notify the applicant that it is approved by signing and mailing to the applicant a copy of the Form FDA 3448.
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.                  

###### Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board). 

# DATE AND TIME:

The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on January 21, 2010, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056. 

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: 

## Open Session 

### A. Approval of Minutes

    - December 10, 2009 (Open and Closed)

### B. New Business

    - Review of Insurance Premium Rates

## Closed Session 

    - Update on System Institution Risk

Dated: January 7, 2010. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-406 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
38880.

#### SWEAT v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

Randall Sweat was indicted in the Superior Court of Bacon County for the offense of murder, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. He assigns error on the *748overruling of his motion for new Trial on the general and four special grounds. *Held:*

Decided May 30, 1961.

1. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Two photographs identified as State’s Exhibits 2 and 3 over the objection that said photographs were “prejudicial, irrelevant and immaterial, and not germane to any issue.” *Manning v. State,*33 Ga. App. 610, 612 (9) (127 S. E. 475). Special ground 1 is without merit.

2. Special grounds 2 and 3 contend that the court erred in failing to charge the’jury without request the principles of ’law with reference to’ involuntary manslaughter. The' court submitted to the jury the law of murder, voluntary manslaughter and justifiable homicide. Since these were the only grades of homicide authorized -under the. evidence, thg court did-not err in failing to charge the. law of involuntary manslaughter as contended in these grounds. *Lynch v. State,*207 Ga. 325 (2) (61 S. E. 2d 495); *Metts v. State,*74 *Ga.*App. 708 (2) (41 S. E. 2d 328).

3. .Special ground 4 contends that the court erred in giving the following in charge to the jury: “Gentlemen of the jury, the law puts on the defendant where’ he admits the killing the burden to Satisfy the jury that he was justified under'some rule of law, unless the evidence in' the case against him shows some justification or mitigation.” There being evidence 'of an admission of the homicide, made by the accused 'before the trial without any accompanying explanation which-would justify the killing, .this charge was not', erroneous. *Mann v. State,*124 Ga. 760, 763 (53 S. E. 324, 4 L. R. A. (NS) 934); *Roseboro v. State,*127 Ga. 826 (56. S. E. 991).

4. The evidence adduced upon the. trial by the State together with the defendant’s statement, which disclosed that the defendant intervened in a quarrel between the deceased and a third person, that the deceased who was armed with a knife threatened the defendant, that they began to scuffle, and that the defendant drew his knife and killed the deceased by stabbing him, was sufficient to support the verdict of voluntary manslaughter.- : ■

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the amended motion for new trial. ...

*Judgment*affirmed,

*Townsend, P..J.,-.and-Frankum, J., concur.*

*749J. *Laddie Boatright,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
<CURRENCY>   US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,198
<INVENTORY>                                      4,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,745
<PP&E>                                          13,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,750
<BONDS>                                         98,106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,687
<SALES>                                         34,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,062
<CGS>                                           12,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                       539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company has not disclosed EPS as there is no public market for its common
equity. However, the Company does have publicly traded senior unsecured notes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 211.113 Control of microbiological contamination. ( a ) Appropriate written procedures, designed to prevent objectionable microorganisms in drug products not required to be sterile, shall be established and followed.
( b ) Appropriate written procedures, designed to prevent microbiological contamination of drug products purporting to be sterile, shall be established and followed. Such procedures shall include validation of all aseptic and sterilization processes.
[43 FR 45077, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 73 FR 51932, Sept. 8, 2008]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.06


Board of Directors
Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc.
553 Old Corvallis Road
Hamilton, MT  59840-3131

Members of the Board:

        We hereby consent to the inclusion of our opinion letter to the Board of
Directors of Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. as Appendix C to the proxy
statement/prospectus of Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. constituting a part of
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 relating to the proposed merger
transaction involving Ribi and Corixa Corporation and references thereto in such
proxy statement/prospectus under the captions "SUMMARY - Opinion of Ribi's
Financial Advisor", "THE MERGER - Recommendation of Ribi's Board; Ribi's Reasons
for the Merger", and "THE MERGER - Opinion of Ribi's Financial Advisor". In
giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons
whose consent is required under, and we do not admit that we are "experts" for
purposes of, the Securities Act of 1993, as amended, and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder.



                                           /s/ HAMBRECHT & QUIST LLC
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-99740, Form S-8 No. 33-40365 and Form S-8 No. 333-9162) pertaining to the Power Control Technologies Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, the M & F Worldwide Corp. 1997 Stock Option Plan, and the M & F Worldwide Corp. 2000 Stock Option Plan of M & F Worldwide Corp. of our reports dated February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of M & F Worldwide Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of M & F Worldwide Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
February 28, 2008

---
#### Winterhalter v. Bell Telephone Co.

Before McNaugher, Ellenbogen and O’Brien, JJ.

*Samuel J. Goldstein,*for plaintiff.

*Richard B. Tucker, Jr.,*and *Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn,*for defendant.

July 10, 1950.

Ellenbogen, J.,

This case is before the court en banc on motion for judgment n. o. v. ex parte defendant and motion for new trial ex parte plaintiff.

On the motion for judgment n. o. v. we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff which may be drawn from the evidence: Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 359 Pa. 381.

When we read the evidence in that light, it is clear that the motion for judgment n. o. v. must be refused.

It appears that on January 26, 1948, at about 1:30 p.m., plaintiff was walking on Sherman Avenue, in the City of Pittsburgh. While crossing Eloise Street, he tripped over a telephone wire which had been stretched *190across the intersection and was lying on the surface of the street.

The motion for judgment n. o. v. is based on three contentions: First, that plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of defendant; second, that plaintiff failed to'prove that defendant’s negligence if any, was the proximate cause of the accident, and third, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

None of the contentions require extended argument. Stretching a telephone wire across an intersection, without notice or warning to pedestrians, is negligence. The fact that the wire was lying flat on the ground and about as thick as a paper match does not absolve defendant from the duty to warn pedestrians of the presence of the wire.

Plaintiff testified that something hit his feet which caused him to be lifted into the air and to fall to the ground; when plaintiff arose from the street, an employe of the telephone company asked him, “Didn’t you see this wire?”, and called his attention to the telephone wire stretched across the intersection. It was at that time that plaintiff for the first time saw the wire. Later on plaintiff testified that the employe of the telephone company said to him, “Didn’t you see us pulling this wire?”. The testimony was for the jury, and the inference that it was the wire that caused plaintiff to trip and fall is a reasonable one. The negligence of defendant and the question of proximate cause was for the jury.

The testimony was to the effect that this wire was a thin black wire lying on a black asphalt pavement. Whether under these peculiar facts, plaintiff should have seen the wire was for the jury.

The motion for judgment n. o. v. ex parte defendant will be refused.

The verdict is for $920.61, of which $500 appears to be for pain and suffering. While the verdict is small *191and possibly even inadequate, it is not such as would cause us to order a new trial.

The motion for a new trial, filed ex parte plaintiff, is refused.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, John Low, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSpescom Software Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably  likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  May 16, 2005 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| /s/ John W.  Low          |   |
| John W. Low               |
|                      |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136621 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136621 

 COA: 283433 

Oakland CC: 2007-213521-FH 

TIMOTHY RONALD BROWN, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

l0915 

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

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

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registrations Statements(Form S-3 Nos. 333-39618 and 333-62685) of SportsLine.com, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-43746, 333-46021, 333-46023, 333-46029, 333-57821, 333-33650 and 333-33654) pertaining to theSportsLine.com, Inc. 1997 Incentive Compensation Plan, 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1995 Stock Option Plan and certain other options and warrants, of our report dated November 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof SportsLine.com, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/S/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 

November 14, 2003
Opinion issued August 12, 2014 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00008
- CV

——————————— EZINNE UBANI , Appellant V. MAZEN JUMAA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 43470

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ezinne Ubani , has neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R.2 A PP
. P . 20.1, 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Sharp, Keyes, and Huddle.
HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 31202 1982
Editorial Note on Part 175
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 175 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; and 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 175.380 Xylene-formaldehyde resins condensed with 4,4′-isopropylidenediphenol-epichlorohydrin epoxy resins. The resins identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be safely used as a food-contact coating for articles intended for use in contact with food, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions. ( a ) The resins are produced by the condensation of xylene-formaldehyde resin and 4,4′-isopropylidenediphenol-epichlorohydrin epoxy resins, to which may have been added certain optional adjuvant substances required in the production of the resins or added to impart desired physical and technical properties. The optional adjuvant substances may include resins produced by the condensation of allyl ether of mono-, di-, or trimethylol phenol and capryl alcohol and also may include substances identified in § 175.300(b)(3), with the exception of paragraph (b)(3)(xxxi) and (xxxii) of that section.
( b ) The resins identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a food-contact coating for articles intended for contact at temperatures not to exceed 160 °F with food of Types I, II, VI-A and B, and VIII described in table 1 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter provided that the coating in the finished form in which it is to contact food meets the following extractives limitations when tested by the methods provided in § 175.300(e): ( 1 ) The coating when extracted with distilled water at 180 °F for 24 hours yields total extractives not to exceed 0.05 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface.
( 2 ) The coating when extracted with 8 percent (by volume) ethyl alcohol in distilled water at 160 °F for 4 hours yields total extractives not to exceed 0.05 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface.
( c ) The resins identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a food-contact coating for articles intended for contact at temperatures not to exceed room temperature with food of Type VI-C described in table 1 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter provided the coating in the finished form in which it is to contact food meets the following extractives limitations when tested by the methods provided in § 175.300(e): ( 1 ) The coating when extracted with distilled water at 180 °F for 24 hours yields total extractives not to exceed 0.05 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface.
( 2 ) The coating when extracted with 50 percent (by volume) ethyl alcohol in distilled water at 180 °F for 24 hours yields total extractives not to exceed 0.05 milligram per square inch.