alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BROWARD COUNTY, Appellant, v. William J. ALSDORF et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

John U. Lloyd, County Atty., and John Ruff, Asst. County Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

C. Lavon Ward, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon examination of the briefs and record and after a review and consideration of the applicable law we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. In particular, several of the points raised in this interlocutory appeal were previously considered and found to be without merit. See Broward County v. Alsdorf, Fourth District Court of Appeal Case, 306 So.2d 534, opinion filed December 13, 1974. We would observe, however, that with respect to amendments to a complaint, although the better practice is to recast the pleading in its entirety designating the pleading as amended, i. e., “first amended complaint” or “second amended complaint”, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the plaintiff-appellee to file a pleading merely showing the specific nature of the amendment. Stern v. Perma-Stress, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 509; see also Fla. Civil Practice Before Trial, sec. 27 (2d ed.) published by The Florida Bar. Inasmuch as the likelihood is great that this litigation will ultimately find its way back to the appellate system it would be beneficial if a new amended pleading is filed replacing the original complaint, as indicated in *Stern, supra.*

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
# C_2006074EN.01001602.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2006 — Le Canne v Commission

(Case T-276/03) (1)

1

(Judgment annulling a Commission decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance - Procedures for compliance - Action for failure to act - No need to adjudicate - Action for compensation)

(2006/C 74/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Azienda agricola ‘Le Canne’ (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: F. Mazzonetto and G. Carraro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

:

Application for

First, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2002 in Case T-241/00 Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR II-1251 and, second, compensation for the loss alleged to have resulted from that failure

Le Canne

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim alleging failure to act; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim alleging failure to act;

| 2. | Dismisses the claim for compensation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claim for compensation;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3302 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3302

   To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide additional 
  deposit insurance coverage for accounts at depository institutions 
which reduce net fee income in any year by 50 percent or more, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 1996

  Ms. Waters introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide additional 
  deposit insurance coverage for accounts at depository institutions 
which reduce net fee income in any year by 50 percent or more, 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 ``Bank Fee Reduction Incentive Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS WHICH 
              REDUCE FEES.

    Section 11(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1922(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(9) Increased deposit insurance for institutions which 
        reduce fees.--
                    ``(A) In general.--If the Corporation determines, 
                in accordance with such procedures as the Corporation 
                shall establish, that the net fee income of an insured 
                depository institution is reduced by 50 percent or more 
                over any 2 consecutive semiannual periods due to a 
                reduction in the number and amount of fees imposed by 
                the institution in connection with consumer accounts 
                and consumer transactions, paragraphs (1)(B), (2)(A), 
                and (3) and section 7(i) shall be applied, with respect 
                to such institution, during the 2 semiannual periods 
                which begin after the date of such determination by 
                substituting `$105,000' for `$100,000' each place such 
                term appears in such paragraphs and section.
                    ``(B) Exception authorized.--The Corporation may 
                waive the application of subparagraph (A) to any 
                insured depository institution if the Corporation 
                determines that the application of such subparagraph to 
                such institution would create a disproportionate 
                increase in risk to a deposit insurance fund.''.
                                 <all>
```
First Amendment to Employee Agreement between Registrant and James V. Iaco



 Exhibit 10.34 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Between 
 Mirant Corporation 
 and 
 James V. Iaco 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“the Amendment”) is
made as of August 11, 2006, between Mirant Corporation (the “Company”), Mirant Services, LLC (“Services”) and James V. Iaco (“Executive”). Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement executed by the parties on November 3, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Section 18 of the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows: 
 The portion of Section 5(a) of the Employment Agreement that states: 
 Severance. 
 (a)
Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by reason of the failure of the Company
to offer to renew the Agreement on terms that are based on competitive practices for companies of comparable size and standing in the same industry, or (3) by Executive for Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). 
 shall hereby be amended
to state as follows: 
 Severance. 
 (a) Termination Without Cause, Non-Renewal or for Good Reason. In the event of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company (1) by the Company without Cause (as defined herein), (2) by
reason of the failure of the Company to offer to renew the Agreement on terms and conditions at least equal to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement executed on November 3, 2005, which shall be deemed to include a Base Salary and
Target Bonus at least equal to the Executive’s Base Salary and Target Bonus at such time, or (3) by Executive for Good Reason (as defined herein), subject to the execution of a Release substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D,
Executive shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in this Section 5(a). 







 The terms of this Amendment shall have no force and effect on any other provision of the Employment
Agreement, including subsections (i) through (v) of Section 5(a). Upon execution, the terms of this Amendment shall be incorporated into the Employment Agreement and shall become binding and enforceable to the same extent and under
the same terms and conditions as all other provisions in the Employment Agreement when executed on November 3, 2005. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	MIRANT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its: SVP, Administration
	
	MIRANT SERVICES, LLC
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Patricia A. Barnard
	Its: SVP, Administration
	
	 
	James V. Iaco
#### EASTERN SPEEDWAYS, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE HAMILTON TRUST COMPANY, A BANKING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 18, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the defendant-appellant, *Harry Meyers*and *Fred G. Stickel.*

For the plaintiff-respondent, *A. Leon Kohlreiter*and *Archibald Kreiger.*

The opinion of the cout was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,330.22, together with interest and costs. The case was tried before the court without a jury upon an agreed state of facts. The plaintiff company commenced the conduct of automobile races at the Nutley Velodrome. Its president had promoted other sporting events and had kept the bank account of his other ventures with the defendant. It was the practice for one of the bank tellers to be present at each sporting event. From the cash receipts, the expenses for prizes, salaries, &c., were *258deducted. The net balance, together with a statement, was handed to the bank’s representative, who took the same to Paterson and left the bag in the bank vault. The next day it was counted and entered in the depositor’s book. The arrangement being satisfactory it was adopted when the present plaintiff opened its account with the defendant.

A bank officer stated to the plaintiff’s officer arranging for the account, that the bank would be absolutely responsible from the time its officer received the deposit because of insurance carried. Mr. Archie Phillips, a bank teller, was selected to take care of the plaintiff’s deposits when received at the velodrome. He was also secretary-treasurer of the plaintiff company.

On Sunday evening, August 28th, 1938, a championship race was held in Nutley. After deducting all necessary expenses, the sum of $5,204.43 in cash was handed to Phillips. He put this money *in*a *bag*and in company with others started to drive to the defendant’s banking house. While en route, about one-thirty o’clock on the following morning, August 29th, 1938, he was held up on Main avenue in Clifton by unknown persons and robbed of the entire sum. Plaintiff had judgment for this loss.

The practice of receiving deposits at a place other than defendant’s banking house is a poor practice and perhaps *ultra vires.*But such defense is not allowed where it would defeat the ends of justice and work a legal wrong. *Earle*v. *American Sugar Refining Co.,*74 *N. J. Eq.*751; *Hudson, &c., Loan Association*v. *Horowytz,*116 *N. J. L.*605, and cases collected in *Downs*v. *Jersey Central Power Co.,*115 *N. J. Eq.*348; *affirmed,*117 *Id.*138.

The findings of the trial judge find support in the agreed statement. Other points of law argued by the appellant, critically' examined, are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— The Chief Justice, Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— The Chancellor, Case, Porter, JJ. 3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Resources.
    Date: September 28, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Wendy F. Davidson, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-402-8399, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#660207100f021509081126080f070f0248080f0e48010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="640005120d00170b0a13240a0d050d004a0a0d0c4a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21791 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006144EN.01001402.xml

| 20.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4223 — Macquarie/Westscheme/Statewide/MTAA/ARF/Moto UK)

(2006/C 144/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4223. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4223. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Fred WASSERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-490.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsConceptual model of turbulent flameholding for scramjet combustorsNew concepts and approaches to scramjet combustor design are presented. Blowoff was from failure of the recirculation-zone (RZ) flame to reach the dividing streamline (DS) at the rear stagnation zone. Increased turbulent exchange across the DS helped flameholding due to forward movement of the flame anchor point inside the RZ. Modeling of the blowoff phenomenon was based on a mass conservation concept involving the traverse of a flame element across the RZ and a flow element along the DS. The scale required to achieve flameholding, predicted by the model, showed a strong adverse effect of low pressure and low fuel equivalence ratio, moderate effect of flight Mach number, and little effect of temperature recovery factor. Possible effects of finite rate chemistry on flameholding and flamespreading in scramjets are discussed and recommendations for approaches to engine combustor design as well as for needed research to reduce uncertainties in the concepts are made.Document ID19800024901Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsHuber, P. W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1980Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1543L-13600Accession Number80N33409Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19800024901.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
EXHIBIT 32.2


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

In connection with the Annual Report of Alfacell  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,  2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert D. Love,
Chief 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.



                                        /s/ ROBERT D. LOVE
                                        ------------------
                                        Robert D. Love
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer and
                                        Chief Accounting Officer)
                                        October 16, 2006


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Alfacell Corporation and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        18**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|  | (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 result of operations of the                  Company. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    /s/                  Kevin L. Cornwell |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Kevin                  L. Cornwell                       |
| Chief                  Executive Officer                 |
| July                  19, 2005                           |

*A        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other        document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature        that        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement        has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.        *

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132720 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132720 COA: 261045 Crawford CC: 04-002176-FC KELLY JO PRATT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
Proposed Rule: Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under the Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

Meeting Documentation: Environmental Non-Government Organizations 7/15/2010 

Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of 

Organization 

(Attach list of 

all attendees 

names and 

emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to Docket? 

Date sent to EPACCD 

7/15/10 Lisa Grogan-McCulloch 

GroganMcCulloch.lisa@epa.gov

202-343-9743 

Craig Segall 

Sierra Club 

Helen Silver 

Clean Air 

Task Force 

Emma Cheuse 

Earth Justice 

Tim Ballo 

Earth Justice 

Pamela 

Campos 

Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Katie 

Patterson 

Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Sara Vink 

Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Phyllis Fox 

Sierra Club

o Definition of emission data. 

o Impact of CBI proposal on public verification 

of GHG data. 

o Publication of data that is determined to be CBI 

in an aggregated format. 

o Whether a process to reconsider a final 

non-CBI determination is needed. 

No written 

comments were 

submitted prior 

to the meeting. 

N/A