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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 71 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of 

the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14 (legislative day, MARCH 13), 2008 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. VITTER) submitted the 

following concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the 

presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael 

Ellis DeBakey, M.D. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR 

4 THE PRESENTATION OF THE CONGRES5 SIONAL GOLD MEDAL. 

6 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author7 ized to be used on April 23, 2008, for the presentation 

8 of the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael Ellis 

9 DeBakey, M.D. Physical preparations for the conduct of 

10 the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 71 ATS 

1 conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 

2 Capitol. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21


PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES

The Company and its subsidiaries* as of March 30, 2003 are as follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        State (Country) of            Percentage of Voting
Name of Company                                           Incorporation                 Securities Owned
---------------                                         ------------------            --------------------
<S>                                                     <C>                           <C>
Kellwood Company                                        Delaware                                 Parent
American Recreation Products, Inc.                      Delaware                                   100%
Kellwood Asia Limited                                   Hong Kong                                  100%
Smart Shirts Limited                                    Hong Kong                                  100%
South Asia Garment Limited                              Hong Kong                                  100%
Kellwood Trading, Ltd.                                  Hong Kong                                  100%
KWD Holdings, Inc.                                      Delaware                                   100%
Robert Scott & David Brooks
  Outlet Stores, Inc.                                   Delaware                                   100%
Tri-W Corporation                                       North Carolina                             100%
Halmode Apparel, Inc.                                   Delaware                                   100%
Koret of California, Inc.                               California                                 100%
Koret Outlet Stores, Inc.                               Delaware                                   100%
Biflex International, Inc.                              New York                                   100%
Kellwood Financial Resources, Inc.                      Tennessee                                  100%
Kellwood Shared Services, Inc.                          Delaware                                   100%
Dorby Frocks, Ltd.                                      New York                                   100%
Gerber Childrenswear, Inc.                              Delaware                                   100%
Briggs New York, Inc.                                   Delaware                                   100%


<FN>

*        Some of the above subsidiaries also have subsidiaries which are not
         listed because, in the aggregate, they are not considered to be
         significant.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1



                                  Subsidiaries
                                  ------------


1.   OptiMark, Inc., a Delaware corporation
2.   OptiMark Innovations Inc., a Delaware corporation
3.   OptiMark US Equities, Inc. (f/k/a OptiMark Technologies, Inc.),
        a Delaware corporation
4.   OptiMark Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation
5.   OptiMark OTC Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
6.   OptiMark Trading Systems Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation
7.   Japan OptiMark Systems, Inc., a Japanese corporation
#### Ralph O. STAUBER and Mary S. Boder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lawrence L. KIESER and Juanita Kieser, co-partners d/b/a J & L Outlet, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph O. STAUBER and Mary S. Boder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLIED MILLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-2336.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1982.

Order Published Feb. 2, 1987.

W.H. Utz, Jr., of Utz, Litvak, Thackery, Utz & Taylor, St. Joseph, Mo., for plaintiff s-appellants.

Thomas G. Kokoruda and George A. Barton of Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, Mo., and Jack R. Euler of Euler & Euler, Troy, Kan., for defendants-appel-lees.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely. For the reasons hereinafter stated, this motion is denied.

In the case below, the district court granted defense motions for summary judgment on April 17, 1980. Since May 17 fell on a Saturday, the thirty-day time limit for filing an appeal fell on Monday, May 19. On April 30, plaintiffs sought to extend the time to file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court granted an extension to May 10, a Saturday, and the Rule 59 motion itself was filed by plaintiffs the following Monday, May 12. The motion was subsequently denied on November 21; a notice of appeal followed on December 19.

Defendants contend that since the Rule 59 motion was untimely, *i.e.,*filed beyond the ten days allowed by rule, it was ineffective to toll the thirty-day appeal period, which expired in May.

District courts are without jurisdiction to extend the time to file motions under Rule 59(e). Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b); *Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). However, it is here obvious that plaintiffs *relied to their detriment*upon the district court’s statements and action. That is, by granting an extension and then accepting the Rule 59(e) motion, the district court led plaintiffs to believe that those actions were properly done. As a consequence, plaintiffs permitted the thirty-day appeal period to expire on May 19 without filing their notice of appeal. In these “unique circumstances,” it would *2now work a great hardship on plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal as untimely. *Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service,*375 U.S. 384, 84 S.Ct. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964). The court is of the opinion that to do so would not be in the best interests of justice.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is denied.
Searched for **http://www.cfa.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cfa.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<PAGE>

                                                                  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 K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ronald J. Kanterman, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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: June 27, 2008                    /s/  Ronald J. Kanterman
      --------------------           -------------------------------------------
                                                Ronald J. Kanterman
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
EX-10.38



 Exhibit 10.38 

First Amendment to 

Combination Agreement 

This First Amendment to Combination Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of March 6, 2015 by Fenix Parts,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Fenix”), Gary A. Beagell, Linda Beagell and Steve Barkwell (each a “Shareholder” and together the “Shareholders”), and Gary’s U-Pull It, Inc., a New York
corporation (the “Company”). 
 Whereas, the Parties have entered into a Combination Agreement dated as of August 26,
2014 (the “Combination Agreement”); and 
 Whereas, the Parties desire to amend the Combination Agreement as set forth
herein, 
 It is agreed as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Capitalized terms without definition shall have the same meaning as given in the Combination Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Section 9.1(a)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of Fenix’s breach of or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement); 


 

	 	3.	Section 9.1(b)(3) of the Combination Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	(3)	Closing has not occurred by May 15, 2015 (the “Outside Date”) (other than as a result of the Shareholders’ breach of or failure to perform their obligations under this Agreement);


  

	 	4.	The definitions of “Interim Balance Sheet” and “Interim Financial Statements” shall be modified to include the Company’s balance sheet and financial statements as of and for the period ended
December 31, 2014. 

  

	 	5.	Except as expressly amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Combination Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed. 


Signatures appear on the following page 

  
 1 








 In witness, the Parties have executed this Amendment. 

 

			
	Fenix Parts, Inc.
		
	By		 /s/ Kent Robertson

			Kent Robertson
			Chief Executive Officer
		
			 /s/ Gary A. Beagell

			Gary A. Beagell
		
			 /s/ Linda Beagell

			Linda Beagell
		
			 /s/ Steve Barkwell

			Steve Barkwell
	
	Gary’s U-Pull-It, Inc.
		
	By		 /s/ Gary A. Beagell

	Name:		Gary A. Beagell
	Title:		President


 Signature page to First Amendment to Combination Agreement 

  
 2
#### § 2701.6 Discussion during open meetings.

Deliberations, discussions, comments, statements, or observations made during the course of an open meeting do not constitute actions of the Commission, nor do they necessarily represent the basis for any Commission action. Comments made by a Commissioner or an employee of the Commission may be advanced for purposes of discussion or argument, or as an aside, and may not reflect the views or ultimate position of that Commissioner or employee. Reasons for decisions stated by a Commissioner at an open meeting may be later changed by that Commissioner, as may a Commissioner's vote. For these reasons, persons who choose to act on the basis of discussions at open meetings do so entirely at their own risk and without any assurance that the Commission's final decisions will be reflective of the discussions or initial vote.
EXHIBIT 24



POWER OF ATTORNEY



We, the undersigned directors of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, hereby severally constitute Mary E. Junck and Carl G. Schmidt, and each of them, our true and lawful attorneys with full power to them, and each of them, to sign
for us and in our names, in the capacities indicated below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 to be filed herewith and any amendments to said Annual Report, and
generally do all such things in our name and behalf in our capacities as directors to enable Lee Enterprises, Incorporated to comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and all requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures as they may be signed by our said attorneys, or either of them, to said Annual Report on Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto.



|                                 |  |                  
|-------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Signature                        |  | Date             
|                                 | 
|/s/ Richard R. Cole              |  |                  
|Richard R. Cole, Director        |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Nancy S. Donovan             |  |                  
|Nancy S. Donovan, Director       |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ William E. Mayer             |  |                  
|William E. Mayer, Director       |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Herbert W. Moloney III       |  |                  
|Herbert W. Moloney III, Director |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Andrew E. Newman             |  |                  
|Andrew E. Newman, Director       |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Gordon D. Prichett           |  |                  
|Gordon D. Prichett, Director     |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Gregory P. Schermer          |  |                  
|Gregory P. Schermer, Director    |  | November 14, 2007
|                                 | 
|/s/ Mark Vittert                 |  |                  
|Mark Vittert, Director           |  | November 14, 2007
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rorey Demone Booth

, * From the 385 th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR48727

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 278

- CR * September 19 , 201 9

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

( Willson , J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opi nion, w e modify the judgment of the trial court to reflect a conviction for a

third

- degree felony, and as modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

.
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


Lee Enterprises, Incorporated:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-06435, No. 333-132768, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 333-132768, No. 333-167908, and No. 333-167909) on Forms S-8 and (No. 333-167907) on Form S-3 of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated of our reports dated December 10, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of September 26, 2010 and September 27, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the 52-week periods ended September 26, 2010, September 27, 2009, and September 28, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 26, 2010, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010.





Our report dated December 10, 2010, on the consolidated financial statements states that effective September 27, 2009, the Company changed the measurement date of its pension and postretirement obligations to the date of the fiscal year-end balance sheet in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 715, Retirement Plans .








/s/ KPMG LLP





Chicago, Illinois


December 10, 2010
#### SOUSA v SCHULTZ

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10425.

Decided April 28, 1930

Francis J. Cook, Cleveland, for Sousa.

Schwan, Schwan & Thobaben, Cleveland, for Shultz.

*358VICKERY, *PJ.*

The argument is very ingenuous by which counsel seeks to maintain an action for the damages which resulted irrespective of what caused them. He admits that an action for assault and battery would be barred in one year and he admits, for he must do so, that his action w,as not brought within the year, but he says it is the damages that he is after. That is a very naive statement. Of course, lawsuits of this sort are brought for damages, but how the damages can be separated from, the cause which created them is rather mysterious. If there had been no assault, there would not have been any damages, and so the damages must necessarily relate to the assault and the battery. Learned counsel seems to forget that in assault and battery cases and damages resulting from assault and battery, the time when the action must be brought is governed by a special statute and that takes it from under the general statute which he invokes to make his argument.

There are only two rights of action that grow out of an assault and battery case: one is by the State for breaking the peace and dignity of Ohio, which is a criminal action prosecuted in the name of the State; and the other is the right of the injured party to recover for such injuries as he or she — she in this case — received from the assault and battery.

I followed very closely the rather ingenuous argument of the learned counsel and I confess I cannot quite see the point that he is making, but I am satisfied of one thing: that so far as this lawsiut is concerned, if there had not been an assault and battery there would not have been a right to recover, and the right to recover in an assault and battery case depends upon the time within which the action is brought, ,and the statute has been construed in this State many, many times to mean that the action must be brought within one year from the time of the accruing of the cause of action.

There is no direct authority that is cited to us, but there are a few cases that seem to point that way that have been cited to us. We can come to no other conclusion but that this action was for assault and battery, or damages -that resulted from the assault and battery, and the petition is very explicit in setting up that this was a wilful malicious assault, and inasmuch as it was not brought within one year from the time of the assault, — from the time of the accruing of the right of action, — and there being nothing to show that the party was under disability ,and could not bring suit before, the question having been properly raised by a snecial demurrer setting up the statute of limitations, we cannot see how the court could have done other than it did. i

Not finding any error in this record that would warrant us in disturbing the judgment of the court below, the same will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32074-32075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwest Oregon Province Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC) 
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on June 
8, 2000 in Roseburg, Oregon at the Roseburg Bureau of Land Management 
Office at 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. The meeting will begin at 9:00 
a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Forest Service Roadless Initiative; (2) Public Comment; (3) 
Implementation Monitoring; (4) Refinement of Province Dead and Wood 
Policy; and (4) Current issues as perceived by Advisory Committee 
members.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Roger Evenson, Province Advisory Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, 
Roseburg, Oregon 97470, phone (541) 957-3344.


[[Page 32075]]


    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Michael D. Hupp,
Acting Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 00-12738 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### § 18.17 Legal assistance.

The Office of Administrative Law Judges does not appoint representatives, refer parties to representatives, or provide legal assistance.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33398-33399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice #3310]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee will hold a meeting on June 16, 
2000 from 2 pm to 5 pm to obtain public comment on issues to be

[[Page 33399]]

addressed at the July 3-7, 2000 United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meeting of governmental experts on 
the draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage.
    The meeting will be held in the Department of State located at 2201 
C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20520, Room 1105. Interested members of 
the public are invited to attend, up to the capacity of the room. To 
expedite entry into the Department of State, please provide your name, 
social security number, and date of birth to Yvonne Seward (202) 647-
3262, at least one week prior to the meeting. To enter the building you 
must present a photo ID, such as a drivers license or passport. Please 
use the entrance to the Department of State on C Street.
    For further information, please contact Mr. Robert Blumberg, Office 
of Oceans Affairs, telephone (202) 647-4971.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Stephen M. Miller,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 00-12938 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
#### § 301.8 Appearances.

Parties may be heard either in person, by counsel, or by other representatives, as they may respectively elect.
[No. 50103-8-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jack David Mempa, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-08958-3, Donald D. Haley, J., entered February 25, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12607]

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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice of Public Meeting

    The meeting of the Railroad Retirement Board which was to be held 
on May 17, 2000, 9 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor 
of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 
60611, has been canceled.
    The person to contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, 
Secretary to the Board. Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12607 Filed 5-16-00; 9:50 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
```