alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KEYES & MARSHALL BROS. LIVERY CO., Appellant, v. JAMES HARDY, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

June 6, 1911.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Additional Abstract Filed by Respondent: Conolusiveness. Where an additional abstract is duly served on appellant and filed by respondent in the appellate court, showing that a certain instruction, the giving of which is made the basis of an assignment of error, was in fact not given, and no objection to such additional abstract is filed in the appellate court by appellant, as required by Rule 12 of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, the court will assume that no objection can be made to such additional abstract, and will refuse to review the instruction.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Eugene M. McQuillin,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*132*Collins & Chappell*for appellant.

*Stern é Haberman*for respondent.

CAULFIELD, J.

Action for breach of contract. There was verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed. The only point urged upon this appeal is, that “the fourth instruction given by the court at the instance of the defendant is erroneous.” The abstract of plaintiff (appellant) sets forth four instructions alleged to have been given at the instance of the defendant, being instructions 2, 3, 4 and 5, and states that to the giving of each of them the plaintiff excepted. But defendant (respondent), prepared and has duly served upon the appellant and filed, an additional abstract, from which it appears that the bill of exceptions does not show the giving of the alleged instruction marked number 4, but shows that only instructions 2, 3 and 5 were given, as follows:

> “At the request of the defendant, the court gave the following instructions, to-wit (clerk will here insert instructions 2, 3, and 5), to the giving of each and all of said instructions the plaintiff then and there duly excepted at the time.”

No objections to this additional abstract, served and filed by respondent, have been filed in this court, as required by our Bule 12, and hence we take it that none can be made thereto, and proceed upon that theory. So that as the record appears, from the bill of exceptions, instruction No. 4, to the alleged giving of which plaintiff (appellant) makes its only point for reversal, was in fact not given. That matter is, therefore, not before us for review, and there being no error apparent on the fact of the record, the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

*Reynolds, P. J.,*and *Nortoni, J.,*concur.
# C_2016048EN.01009901.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/99

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council

(Case F-118/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities - Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities - Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure - No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 048/114)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wolfgang Bärwinkel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council decisions on the classification of officials in grades AD 9 to AD 14 occupying posts identified as holding special responsibilities in the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ before 31 December 2015 and not placing the applicant among the officials so classified.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 48.

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModels of Terminal Arrival Efficiency RateTerminal Arrival Efficiency Rate (TAER) is a measure of TRACON performance and the impact of Traffic Management Initiatives (TMI) within 100 miles of the airport. This measures not just the approach control performance, but also ARTCC performance to deliver traffic evenly. Identifying conditions that lead to low TAER can allow development of method to improve it. In this study, we developed linear and decision tree models of TAER.Document ID20190025963Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKulkarni, Deepak*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 17, 2019Publication DateMay 1, 2019Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220199ARC-E-DAA-TN68287Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsAir Traffic ManagementAvailable DownloadsNameType20190025963.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Page 1  

Notes from Call with Nalco on September 10, 2014

On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, ERG contacted Nalco to discuss data comparing the

mercury removal performance using Nalmet Nalco 1689 to the use of TMT‐15 (see DCNs SE05148 and

SE05149). ERG discussed the performance data with Peter TenEyck of Nalco.   

Regarding DCN SE05148 and SE05148.A1, ERG received the following information from Nalco:

 The data were collected using wastewater from [Redacted].

 The actual data file is considered CBI.

 Nalco 8130 is a ferric coagulant (i.e., a ferric blend).

 Nalco 7766+ is an anionic emulsion polymer.

 Nalco 71301 is a cationic polymer.

 The jar tests were all conducted starting from the same batch of a 5‐gallon sample.

 While the raw wastewater results are not available, comparison to “Jar 23” would provide the

best basis for the removals achieved by the chemical additions.

 Nalco is not certain why data for certain jars are missing (e.g., 2, 3, 6).

 For the comparison of results between Nalmet 1689 and TMT‐15, the following jars could be

compared:

o Jar 11 vs. Jar 19

o Jar 12 vs. Jar 20

o Jar 18 vs. Jar 22

Regarding DCN SE05149 and SE05149.A1, ERG received the following information from Nalco:

 The data were collected using wastewater from [Redacted].

 The actual data file is considered CBI, however, the chemicals, dosages, and effluent

concentrations could be provided in a redacted version of the file.

 Nalco confirmed that all samples started with the same raw wastewater from July 9, 2009.

 For the comparison of results between Nalmet 1689 and TMT‐15, the following samples could

be compared:

o Samples 1‐4 vs. Samples 5‐8 (e.g., 1 vs. 5, 2 vs. 6)

o Samples 17‐20 vs. Samples 25‐28 (e.g., 17 vs. 25, 18 vs. 26)

ERG asked Mr. TenEyck if he could provide ERG with the cost of Nalmet 1689 to refine its cost estimates

for the ELGs and Mr. TenEyck directed ERG to discuss the costs with Dan Cicero.  On Wednesday,

October 1, 2014, ERG contacted Mr. Cicero to obtain the estimated costs for Nalmet 1689. Mr. Cicero

stated that the costs vary by customer depending on the quantity ordered and the specification
Page 2  

requested.  ERG noted that they are looking for an average cost that would be reasonable for a national

estimate. Mr. Cicero provided ERG with the following cost estimate and additional information:

 The general dosage for the chemical would be [Redacted].

 An average cost for the chemical would be [Redacted]/pound (not including freight costs).

 The density of the product ranges from [Redacted] and the average value of [Redacted] could be

used in the estimates.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5400 *Alpha*-globulin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An *alpha-*globulin immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the *alpha-*globulin (a serum protein) in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of *alpha-*globulin may aid in the diagnosis of inflammatory lesions, infections, severe burns, and a variety of other conditions.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
Exhibit 99(a)


         Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/  Kerry L. Woody
-----------------------------------
Kerry L. Woody
October 31, 2002
Dear Ms. Long,

On August 29, 2016, Jacksonville University received Air Agency Certificate No. 6JUS376C empowering

us to operate an approved Pilot School for Ground Courses. (Attached).

Thus, it is with great pleasure that I request that our Petition for Exemption No. FAA

- 2014

- 0064 be

withdrawn as the requested relief is no longer required.

On behalf of the Faculty and Students of the Jacksonville University School of Aviation, please a ccept our

sincere appreciation for the many hours spent in staffing and reviewing our petition.

Sincerely,



# CAPT Matt Tuohy

Director

Jacksonville University School of Aviation

Davis College of Business

2800 University Blvd N.

Jacksonville, FL 32211

Email mtuohy@ju.edu

Office: (904)256

- 7894

Fax: (904)256

- 7649

Mobile: (904) 707

- 6549

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt

- tuohy/5/843/99b
Exhibit 32.02

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GVC Venture Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc Hanover,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

          (2)       The information contained in the report fairly presents, in
                    all material respects, the financial condition and results
                    of operations of the Company.

May 14, 2004

                                      /s/ Marc Hanover
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Marc Hanover
                                      Vice President, Finance and Treasurer
                                      (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
                                      Accounting Officer




                                       16
#### Walter Shanbrom *v.*Marion Tupko

*David E. FitzGerald, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Louis Feinmark*and *Irving Smirnoff,*in opposition.

Submitted August 25

decided September 24, 1969

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
§ 820.180 General requirements. All records required by this part shall be maintained at the manufacturing establishment or other location that is reasonably accessible to responsible officials of the manufacturer and to employees of FDA designated to perform inspections. Such records, including those not stored at the inspected establishment, shall be made readily available for review and copying by FDA employee(s). Such records shall be legible and shall be stored to minimize deterioration and to prevent loss. Those records stored in automated data processing systems shall be backed up. ( a ) *Confidentiality.* Records deemed confidential by the manufacturer may be marked to aid FDA in determining whether information may be disclosed under the public information regulation in part 20 of this chapter.
( b ) *Record retention period.* All records required by this part shall be retained for a period of time equivalent to the design and expected life of the device, but in no case less than 2 years from the date of release for commercial distribution by the manufacturer.
( c ) *Exceptions.* This section does not apply to the reports required by § 820.20(c) Management review, § 820.22 Quality audits, and supplier audit reports used to meet the requirements of § 820.50(a) Evaluation of suppliers, contractors, and consultants, but does apply to procedures established under these provisions. Upon request of a designated employee of FDA, an employee in management with executive responsibility shall certify in writing that the management reviews and quality audits required under this part, and supplier audits where applicable, have been performed and documented, the dates on which they were performed, and that any required corrective action has been undertaken.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7558 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7558

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2024

  Mr. Wittman (for himself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Sarbanes) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

    Section 117(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1267(j)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and;
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030, 
        $100,000,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.11

                             [UROCOR, INC. LETTERHEAD]

January 29, 1998

Mr. Karl Nigg
21630 Inglenook Lane
Barrington, IL  60010

Dear Karl:

As follow-up to our conversation earlier this week, UroCor is pleased to extend
you an offer to join the company as Vice-President, UroTherapeutics Business
Development.  This position will report directly to me while interacting closely
with Socrates Choumbakos in Corporate Development.  Our initial focus will be on
further developing the business plan for the UroTherapeutics Group and
aggressively sourcing additional therapeutics deals from a licensing, co-promote
or acquisition perspective.

Initial base salary will be $150,000.00 paid on a bi-weekly basis.  At the
conclusion of 12 months, you will be eligible for a performance and compensation
review.  A bonus opportunity of 25% of base salary will be available based on
corporate performance to revenue and operating income objectives as well as,
performance to specific individual objectives.  This bonus is paid based on full
year performance and has typically been paid 60 to 90 days will be eligible for
60,000 shares.   These shares will vest equally over a 4 year period in 12 month
increments (i.e. 25% per year).  The price for these options will be based on
the closing price of UroCor's stock on the day that UroCor's Compensation
Committee approves these options (expected to be in the next 2 - 3 weeks).  The
exercise period will be 10 years.

From a re-location perspective, as we discussed, UroCor will make available
$1,000 per month for up to 9 months for temporary living expenses. 
Additionally, we will reimburse physical moving expenses and pay for up to 5
trips between Chicago and Oklahoma City (or vice versa).  Additionally, UroCor
offers a 401K program with a company match of 25% after 1 year of service.

Further, the company has an incentive stock purchase plan which allows employees
to purchase stock at 15% below market price.  The company also has a standard
medical, dental and life insurance program.  The details of this plan were
provided to you last week.  We also allow 2 weeks vacation 1-5 years employment
and 3 weeks vacation after 6 years.

As with all employees, your employment is "at will", and as such, this offer
does not represent a contract.  Your first 90 days of employment are considered
an introductory period.  Last, every employee is required to sign a
Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement with UroCor at the time of employment.

Karl, I am very excited about the prospect of your joining UroCor and believe
you will make a significant impact in the development and build out of our
UroTherapeutics Group.  Please let me know at your earliest convenience what
additional areas we should discuss and a potential start date in February.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (405)290-4101.


Sincerely,

/s/ William A. Hagstrom

William A. Hagstrom
President & CEO


WAH:jr

                                    -1-
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robin Raina, state and attest that:

(1) I am the Chief Executive Officer of Ebix, Inc. (the
Registrant).

(2) In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Report containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented.



By: /s/ Robin RainaName: Robin Raina Chief
Executive Officer November 15, 2012
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3600 *Schistosoma* spp. serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Schistosoma* spp. serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to *Schistosoma* spp. in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of schistosomiasis caused by parasitic flatworms of the genus *Schistosoma.* Schistosomiasis is characterized by a variety of acute and chronic infections. Acute infection is marked by fever, allergic symptoms, and diarrhea. Chronic effects are usually severe and are caused by fibrous degeneration of tissue around deposited eggs of the parasite in the liver, lungs, and central nervous system. Schistosomes can also cause schistosome dermatitis (e.g., swimmer's itch), a skin disease marked by intense itching.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
# C_2015138EN.01002402.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Sofia (Municipal Court Sofia) (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Rumyana Asenova Petrus v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-451/14)

(2015/C 138/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Rayonen sad Sofia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rumyana Asenova Petrus

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Defendant:

By order of 5 February 2015, the Court ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Sofia (Bulgaria)

---