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

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, 2009 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;

Resolution of litigation claims;

A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: January 30, 2009.

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-2333 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
42214.

#### HOME MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CALLAWAY.

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided September 21, 1966.

Hall, Judge.

The error enumerated in this appeal is the overruling of the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto as to the award of penalties and attorney’s fees. The insured’s proof of loss under the homeowner’s insurance policy claimed a loss of $3,214.47, and suit was brought to recover that amount. The verdict returned for the insured’s loss was for $2,300. “Where the verdict in a suit on an insurance policy is for substantially less than the amount claimed in the proof of loss and less than the amount demanded in the petition, no recovery for damages and attorney’s fees is authorized.” *Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boney,*113 Ga. App. 459 (148 SE2d 457).

The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto as to the award of penalties and attorney’s fees.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*

*317
      *Erwin, Birchmore & Epting, Denny C. Galis, Wilbur A. Orr,*for appellant.

*Walton Hardin,*for appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                    4,400
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                              38,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         68,400
<PP&E>                                   20,300
<DEPRECIATION>                          (17,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          160,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   446,000
<BONDS>                                 233,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                500,000
<OTHER-SE>                             (785,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            160,800
<SALES>                                   3,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,900
<CGS>                                     1,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            16,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (19,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (19,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (19,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.01)



</TABLE>
#### COLEMAN V. BROWN.

(Decided May 30, 1912.)

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. James E. Blackwood.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

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

 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending December 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F. Paul Broyer, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  February 11, 2003 | /s/  F. Paul Broyer                      |   |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | F.  Paul Broyer  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1 

### B E C K H A M

, L I SA

Fr o m: SH OJ I, KE RRY

S e nt: T hur s d ay

, M ay 08

, 2014 11 : 36 AM

T o: L ee

, A nita

C c: C O HEN, D e bo rr a ; Z i e gl e r, C y nthia

S u b j ec t: R E: lit e r a tur e s ea r c h o n ac id d e po s iti o n t o m il k v e t ch

H i An i t a,

T h is s o und s d o a b l e

. We ’ll l et y o u k n o w w h a t w e c a n fi nd u si ng t h e s e i n i t ia l s e arc h te r m s

.

--K e rr y

F r o m: L ee

, A n i ta

S e n t: T hu rsd a y , M a y 0 8

, 2 01 4 1 1: 2 2 A M

T o: S H OJ I

, K ERR

Y

S u b j e c t: li te r at u r e s ea r ch o n a c id d e p o si t io n t o m i l k v et c h

H i K e rr y

,

T h a n ks f o r w a l ki ng m e t h r o ugh w h a t y o u w o u l d n e e d t o d o a li t e ra t u r e s e a r c h. I a m i n t e r e s t e d i n d e t e r m i n i ng w h et h e r

t h e r e i s a n y r e c e n t li te r a t u r e l o o ki ng a t e f f e c t s o f aci d d e p o si t i o n o n e nd a ng e r e d p la n t s i n t h e F o u r C o r n e rs ar e a

.

Sp e cificall y

, I a m i n te r e s te d i n s u lf u ric aci d a nd t h e e n d a ng e r e d M a n c o s m ilk

- v et c h.

T h is s t e m s fr o m a v e r y b r o a d s t a t e m e n t i n a 1 98 9 U S F W S R e c o v e r y P la n f o r t h e M a n c o s m ilk- v et c h s t a t i ng t h a t aci d

d e p o si t i o n f r o m p o we r p l a n t s ar e a p o t e n t ial t h r e a t t o t h e s p e c i e s

. T h e d o c u m e n t ack n o w l e dg e s t h a t t h e r e is n o d a t a t o

s ugg e s t t h a t aci d d e p o si t i o n is a n ac t u al t h r e a t

, bu t s i m p l y n o t e s t h a t t h e r e ar e p o w e r p la n t s i n t h e a r e a a n d aci d

d e p o si t i o n ca n af f e c t p la n t s

.

I a m n o t s u r e if a n yt h i ng w i ll c o m e up w i t h t h o s e s p e c i fic te r m s

. I f n o t

, t h e n we c o u l d t r y a nd b r o a d e n t h e s e arc h a

li tt l e

.

M a y b e “ a ci d up t a k e ” ( o r “ a ci d d e p o si t i o n ” ) a nd “m i l k v e t c h ” ?

I a m h o p i ng t o c l o s e t h e l o o p o n b y n e x t W e dn e s d a y

, M a y 1 4

, bu t m y sc h e du l e i s s o m e w h a t f l e xi b l e

. I s t h a t d o a b l e ?

T h a n k y o u v e r y m u c h !

An i t a

A n i t a L ee

, P h D

E n v i r on m en t a l Sc i en t i s t

U S EP A

, A ir D i v i si on

, P l ann i n g O f f i c e ( A ir

- 2 )

75 H a w t ho r ne S t r ee t

San F r an c i s c o

, C A 9 4 1 0 5

( 4 15 ) 9 72

- 3 9 5 8
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.801 Special acts. ( a ) *General.* A special act is one authorizing the payment of benefits to a particular person or persons. If a beneficiary in a special act has no claim before the Department of Veterans Affairs, a formal application must be filed before benefits may be awarded.
( b ) *Limitations.* Where the rate, commencement, and duration are fixed by a special act, they are not subject to be varied by the provisions and limitations of the public laws, but where not fixed, the rate and continuance of the benefit is subject to variance in accordance with the public laws.
( c ) *Provisions of act.* ( 1 ) When pension or compensation is granted by a special act, which fixes the rate and commencement, the rate thereunder cannot be increased nor can any other pension or compensation be paid in the absence of the payee's election, unless the special act expressly states that the benefit granted thereby is in addition to the benefit which the person is entitled to receive under any public law.
( 2 ) If a special act corrects the nature of separation from military service and does not grant pension or compensation directly, the claimant acquires a status so that he or she may apply for and be allowed benefits. The claimant, then, is placed in the same position he or she would have been if originally released under conditions other than dishonorable.
( d ) *Service.* A special act of Congress, reciting that a person is considered to have been mustered into the service on a named date and honorably discharged on a subsequently named date, is sufficient regardless of whether the service department has any record of such service.
( e ) *Hospitalization.* Pension payable under special acts is subject to reduction pursuant to § 3.551.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5503)
[26 FR 1605, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 39 FR 34532, Sept. 26, 1974; 68 FR 34543, June 10, 2003]
# Official Journal L 18/20 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 18 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4820 January 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 18

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4820 January 2005

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Court of Auditors |
| | * | Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Court of Auditors

*

Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Wilhelm, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB/A of IR  BioSciences
Holdings, Inc.

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

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods represented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a 15(e) and 15d-15(e)) =for the registrant and we have:

a. designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.  evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a. all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  controls over  financial  reporting  which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b. any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

                              /s/ Michael Wilhelm
                              -----------------------
                              Michael Wilhelm
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              November 16, 2005
CEDELL HENDERSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1469

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark, Jr. , Judge

.

Cedell Henderson, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney

Gener al, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS , C.J. , CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q OF
RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      14,606,547
<SECURITIES>                                 3,292,686
<RECEIVABLES>                                  340,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,273,621
<PP&E>                                         318,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,614,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,215,321
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,134,571
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,614,357
<SALES>                                        198,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               615,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,946,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,330,945)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,330,945)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.44)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2563 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2563

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott 
                         Nisely Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MAJOR SCOTT NISELY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
Scott Nisely Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Patrick Mainolfi *v.*Peter J. Brazee

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and O’Sullivan, Js.

Argued January 5—

decided March 22, 1949.

*436
      *William K. Lawlor,*for the appellant (defendant).

*George J. Yudkin*filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

Maltbie, C. J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover a payment to the defendant made as a part of the purchase price of a used bulldozer on the ground that there had been a breach of warranty and that the machine had been returned to Ben Slovik, the man from whom the defendant had purchased it, with the understanding that the amount paid to the defendant would be refunded to the plaintiff. The defendant filed an answer denying that there had been any breach of warranty or that the machine had been returned with the understanding alleged, and a cross-complaint in which he sought to recover on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to make another payment agreed to be made to the defendant on the purchase price and to pay certain notes due from the defendant on the machine and assumed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a reply in the nature of a general denial. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant on the complaint and for the plaintiff on the cross-complaint. Both parties appealed, but the appeal of *437the plaintiff was subsequently erased from the docket for failure to prosecute.

The decisive findings of the trial court are that, as a result of a complaint by the plaintiff to the defendant in regard to the condition of the machine, the two men called on Slovik; that after a discussion the defendant and Slovik told the plaintiff to return the machine to Slovik, which was done; and that the defendant intended its return to extinguish his claim against the plaintiff and Slovik’s claim against him. The effect of this finding is that the parties agreed to a rescission of the contract, and the evidence affords support for a reasonable inference that this was their intent.

It is true that rescission as a defense to the cross-complaint should have been specially pleaded. Practice Book § 104; *Boston Lumber Co.*v. *Pendleton Bros., Inc., 102*Conn. 626, 633, 129 A. 782. But the issue was raised by the allegation of the complaint that the bulldozer was returned with the understanding that the amount paid by the plaintiff was to be refunded, and the denial of that allegation; and nowhere in the record does it appear that the defendant raised any question that the pleadings were insufficient to afford a basis for a judgment that the agreement had been rescinded. Under these circumstances any defect in a failure specially to plead rescission in reply to the cross-complaint must be regarded as having been waived. *Hanley Co.*v. *American Cement Co.,*108 Conn. 469, 471, 143 A. 566; *O’Donnell*v. *Groton,*108 Conn. 622, 625, 144 A. 468.

There is no error.

In this opinion Jennings, Ells and O’Sullivan, Js., concurred; Brown, J., concurred in the result.