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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3209 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3209

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify 
the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide 
        irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3209

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify 
the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide 
        irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ACREAGE FOR IRRIGATION WATER.

    Section 501 of the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 
(43 U.S.C. 615dddd) is amended by striking ``fifty-three thousand 
acres'' and inserting ``approximately 53,000 acres''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 308.508 Answer. ( a ) The defendant may request a hearing by filing an answer with the reviewing official within 30 days of service of the complaint. An answer will be deemed to be a request for hearing.
( b ) In the answer, the defendant: ( 1 ) Must admit or deny each of the allegations of liability made in the complaint;
( 2 ) Must state any defense on which the defendant intends to rely;
( 3 ) May state any reasons why the defendant contends that the penalties and assessments should be less than the statutory maximum; and
( 4 ) Must state the name, address, and telephone number of the person authorized by the defendant to act as defendant's representative, if any.
( c ) If the defendant is unable to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section within the time provided: ( 1 ) The defendant may, before the expiration of 30 days from service of the complaint, file with the reviewing official a general answer denying liability and requesting a hearing, and a request for an extension of time within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) The reviewing official will file promptly with the ALJ the complaint, the general answer denying liability, and the request for an extension of time as provided in § 308.510 of this subpart.
( 3 ) For good cause shown, the ALJ may grant the defendant up to 30 additional days within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
##### 



Year Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Fixed Charges:Interest expense on
indebtedness
(including
amortization of debt
expense and
discount)
    
    $
    17,849
    
    
    $
    22,868
    
    
    $
    23,723
    
    
    $
    23,746
    
    
    $
    24,638Interest expense on
portion of rent
expense
representative
of interest
    
    
    14,614
    
    
    
    9,089
    
    
    
    7,604
    
    
    
    7,206
    
    
    
    6,159Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    32,463
    
    
    $
    31,957
    
    
    $
    31,327
    
    
    $
    30,952
    
    
    $
    30,797Earnings (Loss):Net loss before
provision for income
taxes and
cumulative effect
of change in
accounting
principle
    
    $
    (239,439
    )
    
    $
    (242,898
    )
    
    $
    (185,324
    )
    
    $
    (219,716
    )
    
    $
    (117,152
    )Fixed Charges per above
    
    
    32,463
    
    
    
    31,957
    
    
    
    31,327
    
    
    
    30,952
    
    
    
    30,797Total Earnings (Loss)
    
    $
    (206,976
    )
    
    $
    (210,941
    )
    
    $
    (153,997
    )
    
    $
    (188,764
    )
    
    $
    (86,355
    )Ratio of Earnings to
Fixed Charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Coverage deficiency
(1)(2)(3)
    
    $
    (239,439
    )
    
    $
    (242,898
    )
    
    $
    (185,324
    )
    
    $
    (219,716
    )
    
    $
    (117,152
    )
  (1)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2004 includes net charges of $12,975, relating to a
$15,408 charge for restructuring partially offset by a gain recognized on the extinguishment
of debt of $2,433.(2)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2002 includes charges aggregating $46,396 arising from
the Companys impairment charge relating to its investment in CAT and a charge for
construction design changes of $32,158 and $14,238, respectively.(3)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2001 includes charges aggregating $26,208 arising from
the Companys impairment charge relating to its investment in Transgene and debt conversion
expenses of $22,314 and $3,894, respectively.
§ 341.4 Amendments to registration. ( a ) Within 60 calendar days following the date which any information reported on Form TA-1 becomes inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete, the registrant shall file an amendment on Form TA-1 correcting the inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information.
( b ) The filing of an amendment to an application for registration as a transfer agent under § 341.3, which registration has not become effective, shall postpone the effective date of the registration for 30 days following the date on which the amendment is filed unless the FDIC accelerates, denies, or postpones the registration in accordance with section 17A(c) of the Act.
[47 FR 38106, Aug. 30, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 1182, Jan. 12, 1987]
§ 611.220 Outside directors. ( a ) *Eligibility, number and term* — ( 1 ) *Eligibility.* No candidate for an outside director position may be a director, officer, employee, agent, or stockholder of an institution in the Farm Credit System. Farm Credit banks and associations must make a reasonable effort to select outside directors possessing some or all of the desired director qualifications identified pursuant to § 611.210(a) of this part.
( 2 ) *Number.* Stockholder-elected directors must constitute at least 60 percent of the members of each institution's board. ( i ) Each Farm Credit bank must have at least two outside directors.
( ii ) Associations with total assets exceeding $500 million as of January 1 of each year must have no fewer than two outside directors on the board. However, this requirement does not apply if it causes the percent of stockholder-elected directors to be less than 75 percent of the board.
( iii ) Associations with $500 million or less in total assets as of January 1 of each year must have at least one outside director.
( 3 ) *Terms of office.* Banks and associations may not establish a different term of office for outside directors than that established for stockholder-elected directors.
( b ) *Removal.* Each institution must establish and maintain procedures for removal of outside directors. When the removal of an outside director is sought before the expiration of the outside director's term, the reason for removal must be documented. An institution's director removal procedures must allow for removal of an outside director by a majority vote of all voting stockholders voting, in person or by proxy, or by a two-thirds majority vote of the full board of directors. The outside director subject to the removal action is prohibited from voting in his or her own removal action.
§ 309.3 Federal Register publication. The FDIC publishes the following information in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public: ( a ) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the officers from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may secure information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
( b ) Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
( c ) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports or examinations;
( d ) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the FDIC;
( e ) Every amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing; and
( f ) General notices of proposed rule-making.
§ 611.1157 Disclosure and reporting requirements. ( a ) *Annual report to shareholders.* In its annual report to shareholders, as set forth in § 620.5(a)(12) of this chapter, a System institution must provide information on its UBE investment and business activity.
( b ) *Periodic reports as directed.* As directed by FCA, a System institution must submit periodic reports to FCA on any equity investment in a UBE or UBE status as provided under § 621.12 of this chapter, and in accordance with §§ 621.13 and 621.14 of this chapter.
( c ) *Dissolution of a UBE.* A System institution must submit a timely report to FCA on the dissolution of a UBE that it controls.
42752.

#### GIFFORD v. JACKSON et al.

Argued May 1, 1967

Decided May 23, 1967.

*774
      *Walter H. Bolling,*for appellant.

*Pittman & Kinney, H. E. Kinney,*for appellees.

Joslin, Judge.

The question of personal liability of one who makes a contract on behalf of a corporation to be formed has been approached by the courts from one of two perspectives. There two approaches are, (1) the pre-incorporation contract approach, and the other, (2) the agency theory approach. The more logical one, however, is the pre-incorporation contract approach as in this none of the inconsistencies and illogic of the other are present.

The pre-incorporation contract approach considers the one making a contract, on behalf of a corporation to be formed, as bound personally on the contract, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. 18 AmJur2d 647, 660, 667, Corporations, §§ 106, 119, 127; 18 CJS 521, Corporations, § 119; *Dehco, Inc. v.*
      *775
      *Greenberg,*105 Ga. App. 236 (124 SE2d 311); *Wells v. Fay & Egan Co.,*143 Ga. 732 (85 SE 873); O’Rorke v. Geary, 207 Pa. 240 (56 A 541). No corporation has any existence until formed; therefore, to make a contract “for a corporation to be formed” would be of no legal effect if the persons making it were not bound, and the law will not presume a legal absurdity. See *Hagan v. Asa G. Candler, Inc.,*189 Ga. 250 (5 SE2d 739, 126 ALR 108). Under the pre-incorporation contract theory of this case then, the person making a contract for a corporation to be formed is personally liable on that contract.

If the agency theory is used, it is held that if a contract is entered into by an agent in the name of a nonexistent principal, the inference is that the agent is bound on it. In such a situation it is assumed that the agent intended that the contract should be binding on him. *Hagan v.*Asa *G. Candler, Inc.,*supra. Although both approaches come to the same result when applied to this case, the pre-incorporation contract theory is believed to give the better basis for determining the problems raised by the contract for a corporation to be formed.

The last two grounds for demurrer are not sustainable, in that the petition sufficiently alleges a contract for the sale of certain properties to be paid for from designated royalties and that they are now due.

The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer and in refusing to dismiss the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
In Special Term,

December 1854

— Gholson, J. presiding.

#### LAWS, RHODES, & BARR *vs.*McCARTY & TORREYSON.

The absence of the first names of defendants amounts only to a misnomer, and forms no ground to discharge an attachment, or strike a petition from the files.

The law respecting amendments for misnomer, is substantially the same as before the statute authorizing actions to be brought against defendants in their firm name.

An objection, that the petition is in the form of the common counts in assumpsit, forms no grouna to strike the petition from the files.

This is a. motion to discharge an attachment, and to strike the petition in the case from the files.

*192TI. T. Kyle, for plaintiff.

E. A. Thompson and Wm. Johnston, for-defendants.

GHOLSON, J.

Two objections are taken; one, that the first names of the defendants are not set out. This, I consider merely what is termed a misnomer under the old practice. If the defendants will state that they have Christian names, and what they are, I will direct that they be inscribed in the proceedings. But, on such a ground I shall neither discharge the attachment, nor strike the petition from the files.

The present is not — does not purport to be — and as has been decided in this Court, cannot properly be a proceeding under the statute which authorizes suits against partnerships, without setting out or proving the names of the members of the firm. That statute in no respect abridged the right of suing, which before existed. When the names of the members of a partnership *do*in no manner appear, the statute affords a convenient remedy; also when there is difficulty in obtaining service on all the partners. But, in cases where the sirnames all appear, the only difficulty which could have been encountered was a plea in abatement, and this was obviated by an amendment. The law in this respect is substantially the same.

As to the objection that the petition is in the form of the common counts in assumpsit, it may possibly be a’ ground of demurrer, or of a motion to make the petition more definite and certain under Section 118 of the Code; but it does not afford a ground to strike the petition from the files. Defendants cannot get rid, in so easy a manner, of a claim which, at least, presents some appearance of being just.

, The motion will be overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24676]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


November 5, 2009 Public Hearing

    Time and Date: 2 p.m., Thursday, November 5, 2009.
    Place: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room,1100 
New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Status: Hearing Open to the Public at 2 p.m.
    Purpose: Public Hearing in conjunction with each meeting of OPIC's 
Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present 
views regarding the activities of the Corporation.
    Procedures:
    Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide 
advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. 
Thursday, October 29, 2009. The notice must include the individual's 
name, title, organization, address, and telephone number, and a concise 
summary of the subject matter to be presented.
    Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for 
individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, 
to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request an 
opportunity to be heard.
    Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record 
must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no 
later than 5 p.m. Thursday, October 29, 2009. Such statement must be 
typewritten, double-spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
    Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda, 
which will be available at the hearing, that identifies speakers, the 
subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for 
each presentation.
    A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary 
will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate 
Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
    Written summaries of the projects to be presented at the November 
19, 2009 Board meeting will be posted on OPIC's Web site on or about 
October 15, 2009.
    Contact Person for Information: Information on the hearing may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 
218-0136, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f2c000101060a412b0018011c2f001f060c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04476b6a6a6d612a406b736a77446b746d672a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 8, 2009.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24676 Filed 10-8-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30740

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN E. CALLAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-69-ALL-C

_________________________________________________________________ April 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender has filed a motion to

withdraw from the representation of defendant Justin E. Callahan,

who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and

was sentenced to 180 months in prison. The Public Defender asserts

that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Callahan has

filed a response to this motion alleging that whether he was

properly sentenced as an armed career criminal presents a nonfrivolous issue.2

Under Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), an appointed

attorney must follow established standards when seeking to withdraw

from a direct criminal appeal because the appeal lacks any arguable

issue. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, the

attorney must request permission to withdraw and must submit a

“brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably

support the app eal.” I d. at 744. The attorney must isolate

“ possibly important issues” and must “furnish the court with

references to the record and legal aut horities to aid it in its

appellate function.” U nited States v. Johnson

, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329

(5th Cir. 1976). After the defendant has had an opportunity to

raise any add itional points, the court fully examines the record

and decides whether t he case is frivolous. A nders

, 386 U.S. at

744.

Our review of the record in this case reveals no non-frivolous

issues for appeal. Callahan’s indictment was sufficient; his

guilty plea was taken by the court under proper Rule 11 safeguards;

the court complied with Rule 32 by affording Callahan an

opportunity to address the court; and his sentence was properly

enhanced under Taylor v. United States , 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The

motion to with draw is therefore GRANTED and the conviction is

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R.42.2.
```

[House Report 106-974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-974

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

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 111, MAKING 
         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                _______
                                

  October 11, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 627]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 627, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                  summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for consideration in the House of 
House Joint Resolution 111, making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives all points 
of order against consideration of the joint resolution. The 
rule also provides one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. Finally, the rule provides one 
motion to recommit.

                                  

```
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trans WorldEntertainment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Robert J. Higgins, Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John J. Sullivan, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)   The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Robert J. Higgins                |                         | /s/ John J. Sullivan |   |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | Executive Vice President and |
|                                 | Chief Financial Officer      |
|                                 |                         |
| June 9, 2005                    | June 9, 2005            |

 

1

----