alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12566]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33870]


Eastern Alabama Railroad, Inc.--Acquisition Exemption--CSX 
Transportation, Inc.

    Eastern Alabama Railroad, Inc. (EARY), a Class III rail carrier, 
has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 
acquire and operate a rail line owned by CSX Transportation, Inc.\1\ 
The rail line extends from milepost LAM 453.58, at Gannt's Junction, to 
milepost LAM 479.94, at Talladega, a distance of 26.36 miles in 
Talladega County, AL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EARY represents that it has operated the rail line, as the 
assignee of a lease with option to purchase, since 1992 following 
its acquisition of the Natchez Trace Railroad's properties. See 
Eastern Alabama Railway, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Natchez Trace Railroad, Finance Docket No. 32044 (ICC served Apr. 
16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after May 17, 
2000.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33870, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Fritz R. Kahn, Esq., 1920 N Street, NW, Eighth Floor, 
Washington, DC 20036-1601.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: May 12, 2000.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12566 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Exhibit 10.56
 CONSULTING AGREEMENT
WITH
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS, INC.
 Capital Campaigns, Inc. Torvec, Inc.
 WHEREAS ® ®
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW THEREFORE,
 I. EXCLUSIVITY




---



##### 



II. TERM
  III. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT
  (A)
 (B)
  2




---



##### 



IV. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPANY
 (A)
 (B)
 V. CONSULTANTS COMPENSATION; PAYMENT OF PRE-APPROVED EXPENSES
 (A) th
 (B)
  3




---



##### 



(C)
 (D)
 VI. CONFIDENTIALITY
  VII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
 (A)
  4




---



##### 



(B)
      VIII. TERMINATION UPON FUNDING; FUTURE AGREEMENT
 (A)
 (B)
  5




---



##### 



IX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
  X. NOTICES
   
 
  
 
  6




---



##### 



XI. COUNTERPARTS
  XII. AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
  XIII. TRANSFER, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
  XIV. GOVERNING LAW
  XV. SEVERABILITY
   7




---



##### 



XVI. DELAYS OR OMISSIONS
  Executed as of the date above first written.
 Accepted and Agreed:
 TORVEC, INC.By:James Y. GleasmanChief Executive Officer
 CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS, INC.By:Michael C. CopperthitePresident
  8
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 12 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
GARY LEE MCCOLPIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. GARY STOTTS, Secretary of Corrections and DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-3324 (D. Ct. No. 93-CV-3411) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered subm itted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court denying pro se appellant’s motion to reconsider the district court’s order dis missing his claim for a denial of1 Appellant has an outstanding balance for the filing fee of this appeal and is

reminded of his continuing obligation to forward partial payments to the Clerk of the District Court in accordance with the district court's order of February 11, 1997. - 2 - religious liberty. On appeal, the appellant reiter ates the conclusory allegations that were made in the district court that he has be en denied his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Con stitution of the United States with respect to the practice of his religiou s beliefs. We affirm. In an order dated October 25, 1996, the district co urt provisionally granted appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on app eal pending receipt and examination of appellant’s financial records. 1 In his pro se brief on appeal, appellant alleges th at appellees have placed unconstitutional restrictions on his freedom to exe rcise his religious beliefs. After examining all of the pleadings, briefs, and o ther documents filed in the district court and in this court on appeal, we holdthat appellant has failed to present a non-frivolous argument on the law and fac ts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438 (1962). We therefore affirm the order of the district court denying reconsideration of the order dismissing appellant’s action. We further hold that the filing of this appeal is deemed a “prior occasi on” pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and affirm the order of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in the order of the district court dated August 26, 1996,- 3 -

dismissing the action, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion for specific performance . AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-69496, 333-89204,333-92196 and 333-130597 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-134430, 333-94387,333-91526, 333-113617 and 333-116180 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 28, 2007, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of Quicksilver Resources Inc. and subsidiaries andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which reporton the financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),*Shared-Based Payment*), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quicksilver Resources Inc.and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE
#### § 1902.12 Opportunity for modifications and clarifications.

The Assistant Secretary may afford the State an opportunity to modify or clarify its plan on the basis of any comments received under § 1902.11 or § 1902.13, before commencing a proceeding to reject the plan. In this connection, the State may informally discuss any issues raised by such comments with the staff of the Office of Federal and State Operations. The Assistant Secretary may afford an additional opportunity for public comment, particularly when such an opportunity would not unduly delay final action on the plan and when the comments could be expected to elicit new relevant matter.

[38 FR 12605, May 14, 1973]
#### Gloria Lee, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 154]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Housing Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 1, 1998, as denied its cross motion, *inter alia,*for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the description of the accident location in her notice of claim was insufficient to allow the defendant New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Authority) to conduct a proper investigation *(see, De Los Santos v New York City Hous. Auth.,*214 AD2d 532). Since the notice of claim was deficient, the complaint must be dismissed insofar as asserted against the Housing Authority *(see,*Public Housing Law § 157; General Municipal Law § 50-e).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contention need not be considered. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Mc-Ginity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
§ 1912a.11 Minutes; transcript. ( a ) Detailed minutes of the Committee meetings shall be prepared, and shall be certified as accurate by the Chairman. In addition to the minutes there shall be kept verbatim transcripts of the Committee meetings.
( b ) The minutes shall include at least the following: ( 1 ) A list of the Committee members and agency employees who were present at the meeting;
( 2 ) Any significant conclusions reached which are not recommendations;
( 3 ) Any written information made available for consideration by the Committee, including copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the Committee;
( 4 ) Any recommendations made by the Committee and the reasons therefor;
( 5 ) An explanation of the extent, if any, of public participation, including a list of interested persons who presented oral or written statements; and an estimate of the number of the members of the public who attended the meeting.
[Civ. No. 2289.

First Appellate District.

October 22, 1917.]

#### THANNHAUSER & CO., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.

Costs — Undertaking in Action Against Nonresident — Power of Court to Extend Time.—Writ of prohibition dismissed upon authority of *Bertg*v. *Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, ante,*p. 83.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.

The same question is involved in this application as in *Hertz*v. *Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, ante,*p. 83.

Chickering & Gregory, for Petitioner.

Lent & Humphrey, Joseph H. Mayer, and George D. Perry, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

It is conceded that the same question is involved in this application as in *Hertz*v. *Superior Court,*No. 2283, *ante,*p. 83, decided by this court on October 22, 1917, wherein a writ of mandate was denied. Upon the authority of that case the writ in the present case is dismissed.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 899 

To amend section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding 

the Federal Pell Grant maximum amount. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. LEVIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 regarding the Federal Pell Grant maximum amount. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL PELL GRANT MAXIMUM AMOUNT. 

4 Section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 

5 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(2)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub7 paragraph (C); 

8 (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

9 the following: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 899 IS

1 ‘‘(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 

2 the amount of the Federal Pell Grant for a student 

3 eligible under this part shall be— 

4 ‘‘(i) $7,600 for academic year 2007–2008; 

5 ‘‘(ii) $8,600 for academic year 2008–2009; 

6 ‘‘(iii) $9,600 for academic year 2009– 

7 2010; 

8 ‘‘(iv) $10,600 for academic year 2010– 

9 2011; and 

10 ‘‘(v) $11,600 for academic year 2011– 

11 2012, 

12 less an amount equal to the amount deter13 mined to be the expected family contribu14 tion with respect to that student for that 

15 year.’’; and 

16 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as 

17 amended by paragraph (2)) the following: 

18 ‘‘(B) If the Secretary determines that the in19 crease from one academic year to the next in the 

20 amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant author21 ized under subparagraph (A) does not increase stu22 dents’ purchasing power (relative to the cost of at23 tendance at an institution of higher education) by 

24 not less than 5 percentage points, then the amount 

25 of the maximum Federal Pell Grant authorized 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 899 IS

1 under subparagraph (A) for the academic year for 

2 which the determination is made shall be increased 

3 by an amount sufficient to achieve such a 5 percent4 age point increase.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (the “company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mary J. Twinem, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

 

 
| Date: February 25, 2011 |                                        |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                        |
|                    |                                        |
|                    | /s/    MARY   J. TWINEM |
|                    | Mary J. Twinem                              |

 

----
§ 431.23 Policy review. ( a ) The FAA reviews an RLV mission license application to determine whether the proposed mission presents any issues, other than those issues addressed in the safety review, that would adversely affect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, would jeopardize public health and safety or the safety of property, or would not be consistent with international obligations of the United States.
( b ) Interagency consultation is conducted as follows: ( 1 ) The FAA consults with the Department of Defense to determine whether an RLV mission license application presents any issues adversely affecting U.S. national security.
( 2 ) The FAA consults with the Department of State to determine whether an RLV mission license application presents any issues adversely affecting U.S. foreign policy interests or international obligations.
( 3 ) The FAA consults with other Federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, authorized to address issues identified under paragraph (a) of this section, associated with an applicant's RLV mission proposal.
( c ) The FAA advises an applicant, in writing, of any issue raised during a policy review that would impede issuance of a policy approval. The applicant may respond, in writing, or revise its license application.
#### FREDERICK S. LEE v. UNITED STATES

[84 C. Cls. 629; 301 U. S. 695]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court May 17, 1937.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       171,782,911
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   3,169,376
<MORTGAGE>                                  13,734,791
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             197,477,950
<CASH>                                       2,939,453
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             370,450
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      27,225,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             256,872,362
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            189,398,071
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         14,460,410
<POLICY-OTHER>                               2,256,654
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,917,986
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       836,895
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,249,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               256,872,362
<PREMIUMS>                                  39,129,106
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         12,972,322
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (33,794)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 639,248
<BENEFITS>                                  19,218,783
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     84,574
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        30,560,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,843,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                   761,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,082,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                559,842
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,522,552
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 16.308 Payment of award.

An applicant seeking payment of an award shall submit to the Comptroller for the Department of Labor a copy of the final decision granting the award, accompanied by a statement that the applicant will not seek review of the decision in the United States courts. The request for payment shall be addressed to: Comptroller, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances S. Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
April 6, 2000

Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones

U. S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 208585-0121,

Dear Ms. Edwards-Jones:

Please find Robertson Worldwide's statement for the April 18, 2000 Department of Energy

Public Hearing.

I am Robert Pelino, Chief Operating Officer of Robertson Worldwide, and a member of the

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). I am here representing Robertson

Worldwide.

Robertson believes that the current Proposed Ballast Rule satisfies all of the legal requirements

and adequately addresses all of the Stakeholders concerns. Robertson supports the comments of

the Ballast Section of NEMA as presented earlier in the hearing by Norm Grimshaw and also

supports the proposed Ballast Rule submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and outlined by the DOE

in the March 15,2000 Federal Register Notice. Therefore, Robertson requests the Department of

Energy to adopt this Proposed Rule as the Final Rule.

Thank you,

Robert D. Pelino

Chief Operating Officer

13611 Thornton Road, Blue Island, Illinois 60406

Phones: 708-388-2315 Fax: 708-388-2420 Toll Free: 800-323-5633

www.robertsonww.com

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99FF

WlJRl.DWll1£ '0' 

INNOVATIVE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS 

April 6, 2000 

Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 208585-0121 j 

Dear Ms. Edwards-Jones: 

Please find Robertson Worldwide's statement for the April 18, 2000 Department of Energy 

Public Hearing. 

I am Robert Pelino, Chief Operating Officer of Robertson Worldwide, and a member of the 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). I am here representing Robertson 

Worldwide. / 

Robertson believes that the current Proposed Ballast Rule satisfies all of the legal requirements 

and adequately addresses all of the Stakeholders concerns. Robertson supports the comments of 

the Ballast Section ofNEMA as presented earlier in the hearing by Norm Grimshaw and also 

supports the proposed Ballast Rule submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and outlined by the DOE 

in the March 15,2000 Federal Register Notice. Therefore, Robertson requests the Department of 

Energy to adopt this Proposed Rule as the Final Rule. 

Thank you, 

Robert D. Pelino 

Chief Operating Officer 

13611 Thornton Road, Blue Island, Illinois 60406 

Phones: 708-388-2315 Fax: 708-388-2420 Toll Free: 800-323-5633 

www.robertsonww.com