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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice Number 3280] 

                    The International Telecommunications Advisory Committee—Radiocommunications provides policy and technical advice to the department on matters concerning radiocommnuication in preparation for United States participation in international meetings and conferences.                           ( print page 26259)    

A meeting of the ITAC-R will be held Thursday, May 11, 2000, in room 1912, at the Department of State. The purpose of the meeting is to provide information and obtain advice, as appropriate, concerning the World Radiocommunication Conference underway May 8-June 2, 2000, in Istanbul, Turkey. The department apologizes for such short notice necessitated by changes in the chairman's schedule.

Members of the general public may attend these meetings. Entrance to the Department of State is controlled; people intending to attend any of the ITAC. Meetings should send a fax to (202) 647-7407 not later than 24 hours before the meeting. This fax should display the name of the meeting and date of meeting, your name, social security number, date of birth, and organizational affiliation. One of the following valid photo identifications will be required for admission: U.S. driver's license, passport, U.S. Government identification card. Enter from the C street lobby; in view of escorting requirements, non-government attendees should plan to arrive not less than 15 minutes before the meeting begins. 

Dated: May 2, 2000. 

Brian K. Ramsay, 

Telecommunications Officer, Office of Multilateral Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-11408 Filed 5-3-00; 2:45 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710-45-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 8 

To restore and enhance the capabilities of the Armed Forces, to enhance 

the readiness of the Armed Forces, to support the men and women 

of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. 

CANTWELL, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. WEBB, Mr. MENENDEZ, 

Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To restore and enhance the capabilities of the Armed Forces, 

to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces, to support 

the men and women of the Armed Forces, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rebuilding America’s 

5 Military Act of 2007’’. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 8 IS

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RESTORATION AND EN2 HANCEMENT OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 

3 UNITED STATES. 

4 It is the sense of Congress that Congress should 

5 enact legislation— 

6 (1) to restore and enhance the capabilities of 

7 the Armed Forces for deterrence, combat, and post8 conflict operations; 

9 (2) to enhance the readiness of the Armed 

10 Forces, including by the reset of military equipment; 

11 and 

12 (3) to support the men and women of the 

13 Armed Forces, including the members of the Na14 tional Guard and Reserves, through the provision of 

15 quality health care and enhanced educational assist16 ance. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mntteb**~tate5 ~ourt**  

# of**~peaI5** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI**~trtutt**
HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC., 

### Plaintiffs·Appellees, 

### v. IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, 

### Defendant-Appellant.
2012-1358 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case no. 08-CV-1897, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. ONMOTION Before LOURIE, SCHALL, andDYK, 

### Circuit Judges. LOURIE, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively "HTC") move to dismiss IPCom GmbH & Co., KG's appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. IPCom responds. HTC replies.HTCV.IPCOM 2 IPCom concedes that the district court's judgment is not final, and that IPCom's motion for certification offinal judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) remains pending. IPCom may re-file a notice of appeal within 30 days ifthe district court grants the Rule 54(b) motion or, if that motion is denied, after entry of final judgment. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shallbear its own costs.



## AUG 022012 Date

cc: MichaelA. ObIon, Esq. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Mitchell G. Stockwell, Esq.

## c:ouRf~lf~FOR U.s. THEFEDERALCIRCUIT s23 Issued as a Mandate: 

## AUG 022012 AUG 022012 JANHOIIBALY 

## ctmK
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc. v IMPERIAL CAB COMPANY, et al.

Case No. 87-128AP (County Court Case No. 86-10859CC05)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

November 2, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Stephen C, Shenkman for appellant.

Michael S. Kaufman for appellee.

Before NADLER, FEDER, SHAPIRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FEDER, Judge.

The within appeal is from the granting of a “Corrected Motion to Vacate Default”. We reverse.

*149It is Black letter law that a Court cannot set aside a properly entered Default without the two-pronged proof of a meritorious defense and excusable neglect. *North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber,*143 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1962).

Herein, Default Judgment was entered on October 6, 1986 (and the individual appellee had notice thereof and actually attended that hearing). Two days *later*counsel filed a Notice of Appearance for both appellees (a pleading that does not exist and has no legal efficacy whatsoever). Five months later, an “Emergency Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Default” was filed and denied. A subsequent “Corrected Motion to Vacate Default” was filed and granted by another Judge. This appeal ensued.

The difference between the two Motions is the omission from the later filed one of a claim for emergency ex-parte relief on the grounds that the individual defendant lost his license and was about to lose his job.

Nowhere in either motion is there any factual allegation of excusable neglect, other than a statement that “I was unaware of the need to file written defenses.” Ignorance of the law may be neglectful, but not excusable.

Nowhere is there a factual recitation of a meritorious defense, other than “I offered oral defenses to the Complaint”, the nature of which shall remain as enigmatic as the Sphinx.

The lack of either prong is terminally calamitous; the lack of both, fatally disastrous.

In addition, comment seems appropriate on the use of successive Motions to vacate a default. Unfortunately for the appellees, the bromide of “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” has no legal application to a Motion to Vacate a Default. The remedy is a Petition for Rehearing addressed to the *same*Judge on grounds overlooked by the Court originally and within the time period provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure; or an appeal to this Court. See R.C.P. 1.540; *Van Harren v. Markevitch,*447 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) review denied 456 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1984).

For the reasons expressed, the Order Granting the Corrected Motion to Vacate Default must be reversed and the Default Judgment reinstated.
§ 1991.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) No employer may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner retaliate against, including, but not limited to, intimidating, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, or disciplining, a covered individual in the terms and conditions of employment of the covered individual because of any lawful act done by the covered individual to engage in any of the activities specified in paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
( b ) A covered individual is protected against retaliation (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) for any lawful act done by the covered individual: ( 1 ) To provide information, or cause information to be provided to the Federal Government or a person with supervisory authority over the individual, or any other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct, regarding: ( i ) Any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, the antitrust laws; or
( ii ) Any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws; or
( 2 ) To cause to be filed, testify in, participate in, or otherwise assist a Federal Government investigation or a Federal Government proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to: ( i ) Any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, the antitrust laws; or
( ii ) Any violation of, or any act or omission the covered individual reasonably believes to be a violation of, another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation or in conjunction with an investigation by the Department of Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws.
( 3 ) The term violation with respect to the antitrust laws shall not be construed to include a civil violation of any law that is not also a criminal violation.
( 4 ) Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to any covered individual if the covered individual: ( i ) Planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws;
( ii ) Planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction with a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws; or
( iii ) Planned and initiated an obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by the Department of Justice of a violation of the antitrust laws.
[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map ...Bridger-Teton National Forest. Big Piney Ranger District, Wyoming**
 
2012 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:B 76/12/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000933802
 
February 21, 2018
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4729 

To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 

4 PREFERENCES. 

5 Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

6 2465) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘April 30, 2022’’. 

8 SEC. 2. CUSTOMS USER FEES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 13031(j)(3) of the Con10 solidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 

11 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4729 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Sep2 tember 30, 2029’’ and inserting ‘‘November 18, 

3 2029’’; and 

4 (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘Sep5 tember 30, 2029’’ and inserting ‘‘November 18, 

6 2029’’. 

7 (b) RATE FOR MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEES.— 

8 Section 503 of the United States–Korea Free Trade 

9 Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 112–41; 19 

10 U.S.C. 3805 note) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 

11 2029’’ and inserting ‘‘November 18, 2029’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Amendment
to Employment Agreement

    


    


    As you
know, Western Reserve Bancorp elected to participate in the Capital Purchase
Program (CPP) of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  As long as
we are a participant, we must comply with certain TARP compensation
provisions.

    


    One of
these provisions involves your Change in Control Agreement.  It is
necessary that you waive your rights to any “golden parachute” payment (or any
similar payment that could be considered a “golden parachute” under U.S.
Treasury Rules) during the time that we are a participant in TARP.

    


    Also, you
must agree to a “clawback” of any bonus or incentive compensation payment that
is later found to have been made based on materially inaccurate financial
statements or performance criteria.

     

    
 

    
      
        
          
            
              
                	 	WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP,
      INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                         

                      	
                        By:
      

                      	 
      	 
	 	 	 	 


              

            

          

        

      



     

    Acknowledged
and accepted:

    


    


    


    __________________________________________________

    Name                                                                        Date
#### Posner v. A-1 Discount Co.

*Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel,*for plaintiff.

*Dorfman & Pechner,*for defendant.

May 12, 1958.

Levinthal, J.,

— This is an action in equity brought by a trustee to recover certain shares of stock which, it is alleged, were given as security for a loan advanced by the trust. Plaintiff brought the action in his own name as trustee. The names of the beneficiaries of the trust are not set forth either in the caption or in the body of the complaint. Defendant has filed preliminary objections in which it contends that this failure to name the beneficiaries *209makes the complaint insufficiently specific. Apparently, defendant hopes to prove that the obligation which the stock secured was discharged by payment directly to the beneficiaries of the trust and, therefore, argues that before it can answer the complaint, it needs to know the names of the beneficiaries.

We have no doubt but that defendant is entitled to this information. The question is whether this is the proper way to obtain it. While there does not appear to be any case on point, it is our opinion that in an action to enforce an obligation owing to a trust, it is not necessary to name the beneficiaries of the trust in the complaint so long as the trustee indicates that he is suing in a fiduciary capacity. See Pa. R. C. P. 2002. The names of the beneficiaries may and often will be immaterial. Moreover, if there are numerous beneficiaries, it would be onerous to require that all their names be listed in the complaint. In the instant case, the names of the beneficiaries become material only because defendant seeks to advance the defense of payment. This is an affirmative defense which defendant must both plead and prove. See Pa. R. C. P. 1030. In such circumstances, it would be better procedure for defendant to obtain the desired information by discovery and introduce the names into the pleadings via new matter.

Defendant argues that it should not be put to the burden and expense of resorting to discovery. We sympathize with this concern over the high cost of litigation, but this is hardly a reason for dispensing with orderly procedure. Moreover, it seems to us that written interrogatories would have been both less expensive and less burdensome than these preliminary objections.

Defendant’s preliminary objections are dismissed. Defendant has 20 days from the date hereof in which to plead over.
<PAGE>25
Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
           pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens  First
Corporation  (the  "Company")  for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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


By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
        Mary D. Cohron
        Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 14, 2003

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") I, Bill Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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


By:  /s/ Bill D. Wright
         Bill D. Wright
         Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 14, 2003
                                        25
Exhibit 10.49

 



 

Montreal, May 2, 2013

 

BY COURIER

DAVIDsTEA Inc.

c/o Elise Trudeau

5775A Ferrier

Mount-Royal, QC H4P 1N3

 

RE:                           License Agreement Extension

336-340 Queen Street West

 

Further to a License Agreement between the parties dated June 18, 2008, this letter confirms the agreement to extend the Term for a further period of 10 months expiring on July 31, 2014 upon the same terms and conditions as the License agreement.

 

Acknowledged and agreed this 31 of May, 2013.

 

DAVIDsTEA Inc., by its authorized signatory

 

 

	
Per:
    	
/s/ Howard Tafler  /s/   Herschel Segal
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

 

Acknowledged and agreed this 3rd of June, 2013.

 

Le Château Inc., by its authorized signatory

 

 

	
Per:
    	
/s/ Emilia Di   Raddo
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Emilia Di Raddo, CA
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Director, Real   Estate
    	
 
    


 

8300 boul, Dècarie Montréal Québec H4P 2P5 · T. (514) 738-7000 F. (514) 738-8288

Lechateau.com
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of M.C., a child. ) ___________________________________) ) M.C., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4264 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD ) LITEM PROGRAM, ) ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed February 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Rochelle Curley, Judge. M.C., pro se. Meredith K. Hall, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Joanna Summers Brunell, Appellate Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF
AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
LIFEN, INC.

Lifen, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Lifen, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:



RESOLVED, that the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "I" so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:



The name of this corporation is Crdentia Corp.



SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its board of Directors, a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.



THIRD:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



FOURTH:  That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said amendment.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Lifen, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by Lawrence M. Davis, an Authorized Officer, this 28th day of May, 2003.



By: /s/ Lawrence M. Davis
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Name: Lawrence M. Davis