alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-108-000]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference

April 18, 2000.
    In the Commission's order issued on March 20, 2000, \1\ the 
Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address 
issues raised by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 90 FERC para. 61,282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on 
Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at 10:00 am, in a room to be designed at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10104 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### SEELY *v.*BLAIR.

Slander — malice—against a public officer or a candidate.

11116 action of slander was intended to prevent people from redressing such grievances by personal violence.

The first inquiry in slander is, were the words spoken? if so, were they spoken maliciously? Where the accusation is of crime, the law presumes the accused innocent, infers malice from the false charge.

*I*Excuse or justification must be proven by the defendant, and if he fail the plaintiff should recover.

That one is in public office, or a candidate, confers no authority upon any to slander or utter falsehoods of him. The truth may be spoken of an officer, not falsehood ; any other rule would subvert the government, and leave all public employment to men having no regard for character.

Slander, on a charge of perjury. Plea not guilty, and notice of justification that the words are true.

It appeared in evidence, that "the plaintiff was a candidate for sheriff, and the defendant went round the county to prevent his election, and frequently accused him of perjury and swearing falsely. Much evidence was introduced, to prove that the plaintiff had sworn falsely, in a controversy between Seely, Morly, & Co. and the Geauga Iron Co. before a justice of the peace.

*Giddings*and *G. Pease,*for the plaintiff.

*J. H. Paine*and *G. Tod,*for the defendant.

They contended the case was one to try how far free inquiry might be made into the conduct of candidates for office in this free country.

Lane, J.

to the jury. The remedy by the action of slander, was given to prevent parties from redressing such grievances by personal violence. Your acquaintance with the tone of society here, fit you to estimate the amount of compensation for injury resulting from an accusation of perjury. The first inquiry is, are the words proven to have been spoken? If so, were they spoken maliciously, or in a slanderous sense? Malice is an evil intention: if one accuse another of crime, he is presumed to make a false accusation, and malice is inferred from the falsehood. The excuse or justification for speaking must be proved by the defendant; as, that the words were true, or were spoken under circumstances to negative malice, and if he fail so to do, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict. If rthe words are proven, and doubts exist only as to the defence, they are to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff That the plaintiff was a *359candidate for office, is no excuse for slandering him. We have no right to tell a lie of another, because he is a candidate for office, or is in office; though we may speak the truth of him, we have no right to bear false witness against our neighbor. It would subvert our government, to allow the promulgation of falsehood, which would drive from office men who regard character, and leave in only those without any.

Verdict for the plaintiff ‡640.

Motion for new trial overruled, and judgment on the verdict.
Entered:10/31/22 16:58:28 Desc:

of 1
#### § 713.6 What is the permissible deductible?

(a)

(1) The maximum amount of allowable deductible is computed based on a federally insured credit union's asset size and capital level, as follows:

| Assets | Maximum deductible |
| --- | --- |
| $0 to $100,000 | No deductible allowed. |
| $100,001 to $250,000 | $1,000. |
| $250,000 to $1,000,000 | $2,000. |
| Over $1,000,000 | $2,000 plus 1/1000 of total assets up to a maximum of $200,000; for credit unions that have received a composite CAMELS rating of “1” or “2” for the last two (2) full examinations and maintained a capital classification of “well capitalized” under part 702 of this chapter for the six (6) immediately preceding quarters the maximum deductible is $1,000,000. |

(2) The deductibles may apply to one or more insurance clauses in a policy. Any deductibles in excess of the above amounts must receive the prior written permission of the NCUA Board.

(b) A deductible may not exceed 10 percent of a federally insured credit union's Regular Reserve unless a separate Contingency Reserve is set up for the excess. In computing the maximum deductible, valuation accounts such as the allowance for loan losses cannot be considered.

(c) A federally insured credit union that has received a composite CAMELS rating of “1” or “2” for the last two (2) full examinations and maintained a capital classification of “well capitalized” under part 702 of this chapter for the six (6) immediately preceding quarters is eligible to qualify for a deductible in excess of $200,000. The federally insured credit union's eligibility is determined based on it having assets in excess of $1 million as reflected in its most recent year-end 5300 call report. A federally insured credit union that previously qualified for a deductible in excess of $200,000, but that subsequently fails to qualify based on its most recent year-end 5300 call report because either its assets have decreased or it no longer meets the capital requirements of this paragraph or fails to meet the CAMELS rating requirements of this paragraph as determined by its most recent examination report, must obtain the coverage otherwise required by paragraph (b) of this section within 30 days of filing its year-end call report and must notify the appropriate NCUA regional office in writing of its changed status and confirm that it has obtained the required coverage.

[64 FR 28720, May 27, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 61716, Oct. 26, 2005; 77 FR 31992, May 31, 2012; 80 FR 66723, Oct. 29, 2015; 84 FR 35525, July 24, 2019; 86 FR 59289, Oct. 27, 2021]
EXHIBIT 5

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23987-5 Filed:04/11/23 Entered:04/11/23 21:08:29 Desc:

Exhibit 5 Page 1 of 4
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

27/MAY/2022 - Andreea I. Boscor ATA-certified Spanish-English #525556

By Targem Translations Inc.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20288 Filed:03/09/22 Entered:03/10/22 09:39:55 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1

Response to Omnibus Objection Case-17 BK-03283-LTS

Antonio Juan Marrero Borges

HC 01 Box 6482

Santa Isabel, PR 00757

787-601-1510

March 7, 2002

The reason for this Response is because as heir to my father Mr. Juan Marrero Ortiz, who was 

employed by the Corporación Azucarera of PR, from Case 17 BK03283-LTS with claim number 

169726, I believe that I should be compensated with the benefits that he never received for time 

worked at said Corporation and any other benefit to which he was entitled and which was not 

paid to him.

Very respectfully submitted,

[handwritten:] Antonio Marrero

Antonio Juan Marrero Borges

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23987-5 Filed:04/11/23 Entered:04/11/23 21:08:29 Desc:

Exhibit 5 Page 2 of 4
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

27/MAY/2022 - Andreea I. Boscor ATA-certified Spanish-English #525556

By Targem Translations Inc.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20288-1 Filed:03/09/22 Entered:03/10/22 09:39:55 Desc:

Envelope Page 1 of 1

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23987-5 Filed:04/11/23 Entered:04/11/23 21:08:29 Desc:

Exhibit 5 Page 3 of 4
TRANSLATOR’S CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION

Translation from: Spanish (Puerto Rico) into English (US)

TARGEM Translations Inc.

I, Andreea I. Boscor, ATA-certified Spanish-English #525556, acting as translator at TARGEM Translations Inc., a NEW 

YORK City corporation, with its principal office at 185 Clymer Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11211, USA, certify that:

the English translated document is a true and accurate translation of the original Spanish and has been translated to 

the best of my knowledge.

Original Document Name: Claim No. 169726 DN 20288

 

Signed this 27th of May 2022 

__________________________ 

 Andreea I. Boscor

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23987-5 Filed:04/11/23 Entered:04/11/23 21:08:29 Desc:

Exhibit 5 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 10.26
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC. AND H. THOMAS WATKINS
 WHEREAS Company Executive Employment
Agreement
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Effective as of October 27, 2008, Section 4(h)(ii) is hereby amended in its entirety as
follows:(ii) The Company will also reimburse Executive for weekly
roundtrip coach class commercial air travel to Chicago, Illinois and
related expenses through November 21, 2009, or until the earlier
relocation of his family to the Maryland/Virginia/Washington D.C.
area; such reimbursement of related expenses shall be in accordance
with the Companys policies then in existence.2.
    
    Section 5(f) is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the following sentence:Such Date of Termination, in each case, is the date as of which the
Company and Executive reasonably anticipate that no further services
will be performed by Executive and shall be construed as the date
Executive first incurs a separation from service as defined under
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code).3.
    
    Section 18(vi) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:(vi) Termination of employment, Date of Termination,
resignation, or words of similar import, as used in this Agreement
means, for purposes of any payments under this Agreement that are
payments of deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the
Code, the Executives separation from service as defined in
Section 409A of the Code. If a payment obligation under this
Agreement arises on account of Executives separation from service
while he is a specified employee (as
defined under Section 409A of the Code and determined in good faith
by the Compensation Committee), any payment of deferred
compensation (as defined under Treasury Regulation Section
1.409A-1(b)(1), after giving effect to the exemptions in Treasury
Regulation Sections 1.409A-1(b)(3) through (b)(12)) that is
scheduled to be paid within six months after such separation from
service shall accrue with interest and shall be made within 15 days
after the end of the six-month period beginning on the date of such
separation from service or, if earlier, within 15 days after
appointment of the personal representative or executor of
Executives estate following his death. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, interest shall accrue at the prime rate of
interest published in the northeast edition of The Wall Street
Journalon the date of Executives separation from service.4.
    
    In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 H. THOMAS WATKINS
    
    WITNESS:/s/ H. Thomas Watkins
    
    Cynthia HowlandHUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC.
    
    ATTEST:By:
    
    /s/ James H. Davis, Ph.D
    
    Rose HadidianJames H. Davis, Ph.D.
ANEXO A

Relación de reclamaciones objeto de la Cuadringentésima nonagésima cuarta objeción 

global 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21746-2 Filed:08/05/22 Entered:08/05/22 18:41:44 Desc:

Anexo A Page 1 of 2
ESTADO DE 

PRIORIDAD

Cuadringentésima Nonagésima Cuarta Objeción Global

Anexo A - Reclamos a ser reclasificados

ALEGADOS RECLAMOS MODIFICADOS

NOMBRE DEUDOR

ESTADO DE 

PRIORIDAD IMPORTE

N.o DE 

RECLAMACIÓN DEUDOR IMPORTE

El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto 

Rico

El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto No Garantizada $173.84

Rico

 1 ANTILLES OFFICE SUPPLY 49967 503(b)9 $173.84

PO BOX 3474

MANATÍ, PR 00674

Base para: Los bienes listados en el reclamo fueron recibidos fuera del plazo de recepción establecido de 20 días conforme al título 11 del Código de los Estados Unidos, sección 

503(b)(9) y, por lo tanto, no le dan derecho a una prioridad administrativa.

El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto 

Rico

El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto No Garantizada $5,400.00

Rico

 2 TECHNICAL POWER 32814 503(b)9 $5,400.00

SERVICES

P.O.BOX 3826

GUAYNABO, PR 00970

Base para: El Demandante reclamó una prioridad administrativa en virtud del título 11 del Código de los Estados Unidos, sección 503(b)(9), pero la evidencia de reclamo no 

corresponde a bienes vendidos y, por lo tanto, el demandante no tiene derecho a una prioridad administrativa.

TOTAL $5,573.84 TOTAL $5,573.84

1

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21746-2 Filed:08/05/22 Entered:08/05/22 18:41:44 Desc:

Anexo A Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1 - Amendment No. 3 to Agreement and Plan of Merger




EXHIBIT 10.1





AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER





        
THIS    AMENDMENT    NO.   3   TO   AGREEMENT   AND   PLAN   OF   MERGER   (this
"Amendment")  is made as of this  15th day of April,  2003,  among
Bioanalytical  Systems, Inc., an Indiana corporation  ("BAS"),  PI
Acquisition  Corp.,  a  Maryland  corporation  ("MergerCo"),   and
PharmaKinetics    Laboratories,    Inc.,    a    Maryland    corporation    (the
"Company").  All  capitalized  terms used but not  defined  herein
shall have the  meanings  assigned  to such terms in the  Merger  Agreement  (as
defined below).



        
WHEREAS, BAS, MergerCo and the Company are parties to that certain Agreement and
Plan of Merger  dated as of June 20,  2002,  as  amended by  Amendment  No. 1 to
Agreement  and Plan of Merger dated as of July 24, 2002 and  Amendment  No. 2 to
Agreement   and  Plan  of   Merger   dated  as  of   November   21,   2002  (the
"Merger Agreement"); and 



        
WHEREAS,  BAS,  MergerCo and the Company desire to amend certain portions of the
Merger  Agreement  pursuant  to the  terms  and  conditions  of this  Amendment;




        
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained,  and
pursuant  to Section  10.11 of the Merger  Agreement,  the Merger  Agreement  is
hereby amended by the parties as follows: 


	 	
Section  9.1(b)(iii)  is hereby amended by deleting the phrase  "March  31,
2003"; and replacing it with "June 30, 2003".







[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]







        
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed by
their duly authorized officers as of the date first above written. 


	 	
BIOANALYTICAL SYSTEMS, INC.







By:  /s/ Peter T. Kissinger

Peter T. Kissinger, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer







PI ACQUISITION CORP.







By:  /s/ Peter T. Kissinger

Peter T. Kissinger, Ph.D.

Director







PHARMAKINETICS LABORATORIES, INC.







By:  /s/ James M. Wilkinson

James M. Wilkinson, II, Ph.D.

President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit C 

Task Code Time Breakdown 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23909-3 Filed:03/31/23 Entered:03/31/23 15:19:32 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 3
PROMESA TITLE III: ERS 

 

TASK TITLE NAME RATE HOURS 

BILLED 

AMOUNT 

BILLED 

1

 

206 Associate Joshua A. Esses $853.00 0.30 $255.90 

Associate Total 0.30 $255.90 

206 Total 0.30 $255.90 

212 Legal Assistant Lawrence T. Silvestro $291.00 0.40 $116.40 

Tal J. Singer $291.00 1.10 $320.10 

Legal Assistant Total 1.50 $436.50 

212 Total 1.50 $436.50 

218 Associate Megan R. Volin $853.00 1.20 $1,023.60 

Associate Total 1.20 $1,023.60 

Legal Assistant Natasha Petrov $291.00 22.30 $6,489.30 

Legal Assistant Total 22.30 $6,489.30 

218 Total 23.50 $7,512.90 

Grand Total 25.30 $8,205.39 

 

MATTER 33260.0007 ERS Title III - General 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23909-3 Filed:03/31/23 Entered:03/31/23 15:19:32 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 2 of 3
PROMESA TITLE III: ERS 

 

TASK TITLE NAME RATE HOURS 

BILLED 

AMOUNT 

BILLED 

2

206 Partner Jeffrey W. Levitan $853.00 3.90 $3,326.70 

Michael A. Firestein $853.00 1.70 $1,450.10 

Partner Total 5.60 $4,776.80 

Senior Counsel Jennifer L. Roche $853.00 0.60 $511.80 

Senior Counsel Total 0.60 $511.80 

206 Total 6.20 $5,288.60 

210 Partner Michael A. Firestein $853.00 5.20 $4,435.60 

Steven O. Weise $853.00 1.50 $1,279.50 

Partner Total 6.70 $5,715.10 

Senior Counsel Jennifer L. Roche $853.00 1.50 $1,279.50 

Senior Counsel Total 1.50 $1,279.50 

Associate Laura Stafford $853.00 1.90 $1,620.70 

Associate Total 1.90 $1,620.70 

210 Total 10.10 $8,615.30 

Grand Total 16.30 $13,903.90 

MATTER 33260.0068 ERS Title III - Cooperativa de Ahoro y Creditor Vegabajena 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23909-3 Filed:03/31/23 Entered:03/31/23 15:19:32 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 13**
  **CERTIFICATION**
 **OF**
 **CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND**
 **CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  I, Craig L. Dobbin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CHC Helicopter Corporation for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CHC Helicopter Corporation.
  September 17, 2004
By:
(signed) Craig L. DobbinCraig L. Dobbin
Chairman &Chief Executive Officer
  I, Jo Mark Zurel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CHC Helicopter Corporation for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CHC Helicopter Corporation.
 
 September 17, 2004
By:
(signed) Jo Mark ZurelJo Mark Zurel
Senior Vice-President &Chief Financial Officer
#### TIETJEN *et al. v.*MELDRIM.

No. 9150.

October 15, 1932.

*845
      *George H. Richter,*for plaintiffs.

*Oliver & Oliver,*for defendant.

Gilbert, J.

The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the answer, of which complaint is made in the first assignment of error.

On the first trial the jury found for the defendants. On the second trial the court directed a nonsuit. On the third trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. In the third trial numerous questions were submitted for separate findings of fact. These questions directed and compelled a scrutiny of the numerous separate issues on the facts. On each question the jury found for the defendant. The trial judge approved the findings. Every legal question involved in the case as now presented has been settled by the two former adjudications. This court has given serious attention to the case, on each of the three appearances. The verdict *846is supported by evidence. We find no error of substantial importance, certainly none which would require the grant of a third new trial.

*Judgment affh'med.*

*All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., absent.*

Russell, C. J.,

concurring specially. Pretermitting any consideration of the decision of this court *in Tietjen*v. *Meldrim,*169 *Ga.*678, I concur in affirming the judgment of the learned trial judge. Governed by the broadest principles of equity, there is no error in any of the rulings of the lower court which would require the court to grant another trial in this case. Though I have been unable to find any evidence of the making of improvements or the expenditure of money on the part of the only defendant in the case since she acquired title, which would afford a basis for a plea of estoppel in her behalf, I am not sure that the court can at this time consider any of the plaintiff’s assignments of error which are entirely dependent upon consideration of the evidence, for the reason that so many pages of this voluminous record appear in the form of questions and answers that it must be doubted whether there was a bona fide effort to malee such a brief of the evidence as is required by law.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.
**Title:****Perspectives on crime and justice[electronic resource] : lecture series.
 
1996-1997 | 1997-1998 | 1998-1999 | 1999-2000 | 2000-2001
 
SuDoc Number:J 28.24/3-2:
Item Number:0718-A-33 (online)
CGP System Number:000605460
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
July 19, 2017********
#### The State of Florida, ex rel. John Collier, et al., *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. J. Ed. Raulerson, et al., Composing the Board of County Commissioners of Hardee County, Florida, *Defendants in Error.*

Decision Filed April 10, 1923.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hardee County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.

*Treadwell*& *Treadwell,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Wubur W. Whitehurst,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

All concur.