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

[House Report 107-374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-374

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2146, TWO STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT 
                          CHILD PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

   March 12, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 366]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 366, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2146, 
to amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide life 
imprisonment for repeat offenders who commit sex offenses 
against children, under an open rule. The rule provides one 
hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill.
    The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment. The rule provides that the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered open to 
amendment at any point. The rule authorizes the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of 
clause 4(a) of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the 
committee report), which is needed because the committee report 
was not filed until Tuesday, March 12 and the bill may be 
considered by the House as early as Thursday, March 14.

                                  

```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.5 Conduct of the proceeding.

(a) The Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered by this part and may enter non-final orders to administer the proceeding.

(b) The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension.

(c) *Times.*

(1) *Setting times.* The Board may set times by order. Times set by rule are default and may be modified by order. Any modification of times will take any applicable statutory pendency goal into account.

(2) *Extension of time.* A request for an extension of time must be supported by a showing of good cause.

(3) *Late action.* A late action will be excused on a showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be in the interests of justice.

(d) *Ex parte communications.* Communication regarding a specific proceeding with a Board member defined in 35 U.S.C. 6(a) is not permitted unless both parties have an opportunity to be involved in the communication.
## f!°A -- I'4 Q . - o /PT -- :I a os_ b03 , &0 ~3

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D

.C. 20460



## I Ov4~ LV 2ov $' MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXICSUBSTANCES

SUBJECT : Acceptability of a biodegradation study for Bruggolite to satisfy TSCA section 4

test rule requirements for methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodiumsalt (CAS No . 149-44-0) . FROM : Jed Costanza, Environmental Engineer V, Exposure Assessment Branch (7406M) TO : Mike Mattheisen, Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch (7405M) r~= : I The following is an evaluation of the biodegradation test submitted for the HPV-1 test rule chemical, methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodiumsalt (CAS No. 149-44-0) . The c"

monosodiumsalt was between 89.3 and 98.4% . Thus, the concentration of methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodiumsalt was between 17 .9 and 19.7 mg/L on a carbon basis, which was within the 10 to 20 mg/L range specified in the OECD 301 Btest guideline. While the presence of impurities decreased the percentage of methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt used during testing, the concentration was within an acceptable range for the OECD 301 Btest and comprised greater than 89% of the carbon fraction of the Bruggolite product . biodegradation results provided as Appendix A of your July 15, 2008 memorandum are for a ready biodegradability test completed using the Organization for Economic Co-operation anW, Development (OECD) Guideline 301 B for the product Bruggolite, which contained betweeff, 68.5 and 73.3%of methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodiumsalt . The other componentpf Bruggolite included sodiumhydroxymethanesulfonate, which is the oxidized formof methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt; sodiumsulfite, a commonly used reducing agent ; sodiumsulfate, the oxidized formof sodium sulfite; and water. Other than sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate, the only other carbon containing component of Bruggolite was c sodiumcarbonate. According to the information listed under section 3.5 of Appendix A, the cst concentration of Bruggolite used for the test was 20 mg/L as carbon and we calculated that the carbon containing fraction of Bruggolite attributable to methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,

Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodiumsalt (CAS No . 149-44-0) is anticipated to be readily biodegradable based on BIOWIN v4.10 model predictions and according to the test result listed in the database for Biodegradation and Bioconcentration of Existing Chemical Substances maintained by the Japanese National Institute of Technology and Evaluation. 

## CONTAINS 1~~ CBI Intemet Address (URL) " http ://www .epa. Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum25 % Postconsumer) 1`The impurities of Bruggolite, which included sodiumhydroxymethanesulfonate, sodium

sulfite, sodiumsulfate, water, and sodiumcarbonate, were not anticipated to negatively impact the biodegradation test . The test results are acceptable and we conclude that methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt (CAS No . 144-44-0) is readily biodegradable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.323 Certificate of correction of applicant's mistake.

The Office may issue a certificate of correction under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 255 at the request of the patentee or the patentee's assignee, upon payment of the fee set forth in § 1.20(a). If the request relates to a patent involved in an interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the request must comply with the requirements of this section and be accompanied by a motion under § 41.121(a)(2), § 41.121(a)(3) or § 42.20 of this title.

[77 FR 46626, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.981 Reopening after a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

When a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on appeal has become final for judicial review, prosecution of the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding will not be reopened or reconsidered by the primary examiner except under the provisions of § 41.77 of this title without the written authority of the Director, and then only for the consideration of matters not already adjudicated, sufficient cause being shown.

[77 FR 46628, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### § 210.11 Record companies using individual download licenses.

A record company that obtains an individual download license under 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(3) shall provide statements of account and pay royalties as a compulsory licensee in accordance with this subpart.

[83 FR 63065, Dec. 7, 2018. Redesignated at 85 FR 58143, Sept. 17, 2020]
41551.

#### GREENBERG v. J. C. BRADFORD & COMPANY.

Argued October 4, 1965

Decided November 10, 1965

Rehearing denied November 29, 1965.

*747*G. Hughel Harmon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Thomas C. Shelton, G. Kimbrough Taylor, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The petition was subject to a general demurrer for the reason that it was not alleged in the petition that Thomas H. Stafford signed in the capacity as agent for the plaintiff and that he was authorized to so sign and so act. While this question was not raised by the parties in the argument before this court, the question is in the case and cannot be disregarded on the ground that parties did not argue it. However, upon the trial of the ease the evidence demanded the finding that Mr. Stafford signed the contract as agent of the plaintiff and that Mrs. Mollie G. Greenberg knew that he so acted; that she accepted the benefits of the contract resulting from the performance by the plaintiff of its obligations under the contract and would be now estopped to contend that Mr. Stafford was acting in his individual capacity. The evidence also shows that the contract could not have been performed by Mr. Stafford as an individual in such a capacity. Thus, it appears that the overruling of the general demurrer was harmless and the case should not be reversed because of the error of the judge in overruling the general demurrer on the ground above discussed. See *Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. Pullman Co.,*122 Ga. 700, 709 (50 SE 1008). This contract is not under seal. For the rule respecting proof of agency by parol in cases of unsealed contracts, see, *Merchants Bank of Macon v. Central**748*Bank of Ga.*1 Ga. 418, 429; *Hanks Foundry Co. v. Woodstock Iron Works,*127 Ga. 108 (56 SE 106); *Dorsey v. Rankin,*43 Ga. App. 12 (157 SE 876); *Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co. v. Farmers Supply Co.,*3 Ga. App. 212 (59 SE 713).

It is contended by Mrs. Greenberg that there was no consideration for her execution of the contract above set out. The argument is that Mrs. Greenberg assumed an obligation of her friend, Mrs. Toby Margolis. Whether or not there is other consideration, there is consideration flowing to Mrs. Greenberg in that the contract provided that J. B. Bradford & Company agreed not to sell any stocks of Mrs. Margolis or Mrs. Green-berg within 60 days from November 22, 1957, the date of the contract. J. C. Bradford & Company had a right to sell Mrs. Greenberg’s stock immediately upon her failure to properly margin her account, which the company forebore to do in consideration of the promises of Mrs. Greenberg in the contract. *Tatum v. Morgan,*108 Ga. 336 (33 SE 940). As to this point the demurrers were properly overruled.

The evidence authorized the judgment of the court.

The judgment of the court overruling the general and special demurrers is affirmed.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Jordan and Deen, JJ., concur.*
Third Amendment dated Sept. 5, 2003 to Promissory Note dated June 1, 2000



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

  
 This Third Amendment, made this 5th day of September, 2003, to the Promissory Note dated June 1, 2000, in the original sum of Ten Million and 00/100
($10,000,000.00) Dollars, as subsequently amended by a Rider to Promissory Note dated July 30, 2001, an Amendment To Promissory Note dated September 1, 2001 and a Second Amendment To Promissory Note dated June 30, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Note”), made by Tellium, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Borrower”) in favor of Commerce Bank/Shore, N.A. (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). 
  
  
 W I T N E S S E T H 
  
 WHEREAS, the
Borrower has requested that the Bank extend the term of the Note; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Bank has agreed to said request, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Third Amendment. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and Borrower’s promise to pay Bank all sums due
pursuant to the terms of the Note, as modified herein, it is agreed that the terms of the Note shall be amended and modified as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Payment: This section of the Note shall be amended to provide that Borrower will pay this loan in full on or before January 1, 2004. 

  

	 	2.	Except as amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Note remain unchanged, are and shall remain in full force and effect unless and until modified or amended in writing in
accordance with their terms, and are hereby ratified and confirmed. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. 
  

	BORROWER:	  	TELLIUM, INC.,
	 Attest/Witness:
	  	 A Delaware Corporation
  

	 	  	 	  	 
	 By: /s/

	  	By:	  	 /S/    WILLIAM J. PROETTA


	 	  	 	  	William J. Proetta, President
		
	 BANK:
	  	COMMERCE BANK, N.A.
	 Attest/Witness:
	  	 	  	 
	 By: /s/

	  	By:	  	 /S/    CYNTHIA A. COLUCCI


	 	  	 	  	Cynthia A. Colucci, Vice President
#### Matter, Etc., of the Pennsylvania Glass Co., Judgment Creditor, for the Examination of Michael Foehrenbach, Judgment Debtor. West Side Bank, Judgment Creditor, *v.*Michael Foehrenbach et al., Judgment Debtors.

Appeal from an order in supplementary proceedings.

A. S. Luria, for appellant.

Deyo, Duer & Bauerdorf, for respondent.

W. H. Blinker, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Orders affirmed, with costs. The order appointing Mr. Hyatt receiver, was made after due notice to the judgment debtor and other judgment creditors having proceedings pending. The only right which the Pennsylvania Class Company had after the appointment of such receiver was to have such receivership extended so as to protect its interests.

It was, therefore, proper for the Special Term justice to deny its motion to vacate such receivership.

Present: Eitzsimons, Ch. J.; Conlan and,Schttchman, JJ..

Orders affirmed, with costs.
§ 210.3 Accounting requirements where sales revenue is “recognized.” Where under § 210.2(g)(3)(i), revenue from the sale of phonorecords is “recognized” during any month after the month in which the compulsory licensee actually first parted with their possession, said compulsory licensee shall reduce particular phonorecord reserves by the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized,” as follows: ( a ) If the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized” is smaller than the number of phonorecords comprising the earliest eligible phonorecord reserve, this phonorecord reserve shall be reduced by the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized.” Subject to the time limitations of § 210.2(g)(3)(ii), the number of phonorecords remaining in this reserve shall be available for use in subsequent months.
( b ) If the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized” is greater than the number of phonorecords comprising the earliest eligible phonorecord reserve but less than the total number of phonorecords comprising all eligible phonorecord reserves, the compulsory licensee shall first eliminate those phonorecord reserves, beginning with the earliest eligible phonorecord reserve and continuing to the next succeeding phonorecord reserves, that are completely offset by phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized.” Said compulsory licensee shall then reduce the next succeeding phonorecord reserve by the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized” that have not been used to eliminate a phonorecord reserve. Subject to the time limitations of § 210.2(g)(3)(ii), the number of phonorecords remaining in this reserve shall be available for use in subsequent months.
( c ) If the number of phonorecords for which revenue is being “recognized” equals the number of phonorecords comprising all eligible phonorecord reserves, the person or entity exercising the compulsory license shall eliminate all of the phonorecord reserves.
( d ) Digital phonorecord deliveries shall not be considered as accompanied by a privilege of return as described in § 210.2(g)(3), and the compulsory licensee shall not take digital phonorecord deliveries into account in establishing phonorecord reserves.
[79 FR 56206, Sept. 18, 2014. Redesignated at 85 FR 58143, Sept. 17, 2020]
§ 68.11 What does an individual have to do in return for loan repayments received under the NIH LRPs? Individuals must agree to: ( a ) Engage in qualified research for the applicable contract service period;
( b ) ( 1 ) For Intramural LRPs: Engage in such research full-time as employees of NIH, or;
( 2 ) For Extramural LRPs: Engage in such research for an average of 20 hours per week supported by a domestic nonprofit foundation, nonprofit professional association, or other nonprofit institution (e.g., university), or a U.S. or other government agency (Federal, state or local);
( c ) Keep all loan accounts in good standing, provide timely documentation as needed, including payment verification, service verification, change of research, change of institution, etc. Failure to provide such documentation may result in early termination, and the individual may be subject to statutory financial penalties; and
( d ) Satisfy all of the other terms and conditions of the LRP and the LRP Contract (e.g., Obligations of the Participant). Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the LRP contract may result in early termination, and the individual may be subject to statutory financial penalties.
#### § 230.2 Request for reconsideration.

Upon receiving a *final determination* from the Board, any party may request that the Board reconsider its determination. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of the determination, shall be no more than 12 pages, and shall meet the requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter. The request must identify a clear error of law or fact that was material to the outcome or a technical mistake. The request shall not merely repeat any oral or written argument made to the Board as part of the proceeding but shall be specific as to the purported error or technical mistake that is the subject of the request. For the purposes of this section, the term *final determination* shall include an amended *final determination.*