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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 329 

Congratulating Southern Illinois University Edwardsville as it celebrates its 

50th anniversary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. OBAMA) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Southern Illinois University Edwardsville as 

it celebrates its 50th anniversary. 

Whereas Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) 

will celebrate its 50th anniversary with a year-long celebration, beginning September 24, 2007; 

Whereas SIUE has grown from 1,776 students to nearly 

13,500 students from 101 Illinois counties, 43 other 

States, and 46 Nations; 

Whereas SIUE has conferred more than 90,000 degrees in 

its history and has more than 75,000 alumni; 

Whereas the SIUE School of Dental Medicine is rated among 

the top dental schools in the Nation and provides more 

than $50,000 in free oral health care to children annually 

through Give Kids a Smile Day; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 329 ATS 

Whereas the SIUE East St. Louis Center is dedicated to improving the lives of families and individuals in East St. 

Louis and surrounding urban communities; 

Whereas the University finished 4th nationally in the United 

States Sports Academy Directors’ Cup among National 

Collegiate Athletic Association Division II schools in 

2006; 

Whereas SIUE contributes roughly $356,000,000 to the regional economy, and more than 37,000 alumni live in the 

region and contribute to the economy; 

Whereas SIUE is the home of University Park, an applied research and technology park located on the SIUE campus 

that is home to the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research 

Center and the Biotechnology Laboratory Incubator: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate congratulates Southern Il2 linois University Edwardsville (SIUE) on its 50th anniver3 sary, and wishes SIUE success in its continued service to 

4 the Nation as a center of educational advancement in 

5 Southern Illinois. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement of Gencor Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 for the registration of 3,556,000 ($.10 par value) shares ofits common stock issuable pursuant to its 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Stock Option Agreements and 1997 Stock Option Plan (SEC File Number 333-61769) and in the related prospectus of our report dated November 24, 2003 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Gencor Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003. 

 

 

 

 

/s/ MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A. 

 

 

 

 

**MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A.**

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

 

Orlando, Florida 

 

December 22, 2003 

 

24
#### § 779.319 A retail or service establishment must be open to general public.

The location of the retail or service establishment, whether in an industrial plant, an office building, a railroad depot, or a government park, etc., will make no difference in the application of the exemption and such an establishment will be exempt if it meets the tests of the exemption. Generally, however, an establishment, wherever located, will not be considered a retail or service establishment within the meaning of the Act, if it is not ordinarily available to the general consuming public. An establishment, however, does not have to be actually frequented by the general public in the sense that the public must actually visit it and make purchases of goods or services on the premises in order to be considered as available and open to the general public. A refrigerator repair service shop, for example, is available and open to the general public even if it receives all its orders on the telephone and performs all of its repair services on the premises of its customers.
§ 789.0 Introductory statement. ( a ) Section 12(a) and section 15(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938[1] (hereinafter referred to as the (Act) contain certain prohibitions against putting into interstate or foreign commerce any goods ineligible for shipment (commonly called “hot goods”), in the production of which the child-labor or wage-hour standards of the Act were not observed. These sections were amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949[2] to provide, among other things, protection against these “hot goods” prohibitions with respect to purchasers “who acquired such goods for value without notice of such violation” if they did so “in good faith in reliance on” a specified “written assurance.”
( b ) These amendments to the Act relating to purchasers in good faith and written assurances are for the protection of purchasers. The Act does not provide that a purchaser must secure such an assurance or that a supplier must give it. The amendments confer no express authority for the Department of Labor to require the use of these assurances or to prescribe their form or content. Whether any particular written assurance affords the statutory protection to a purchaser who acquires his goods in good faith and for value without notice of an applicable violation, is left for determination by the courts. Opinions issued by the Department of Labor on this question are advisory only and represent simply the Department's best judgment as to what the courts may hold.
( c ) The interpretations contained in this general statement are confined to the statutory protection accorded these purchasers in section 12(a) and section 15(a)(1) of the Act. These interpretations, with respect to this protection of purchasers, indicate the construction of the law which the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division[3] believe to be correct and which will guide them in the performance of their administrative duties under the Act unless and until they are otherwise directed by authoritative decisions of the courts or conclude, upon re-examination of an interpretation, that it is incorrect.
[15 FR 5047, Aug. 5, 1950, as amended at 21 FR 1450, Mar. 6, 1956] Footnotes -
789.0
[1] Pub. L. 718, 75th Cong., 3d sess. (52 Stat. 1060), as amended by the Act of June 26, 1940 (Pub. Res. No. 88, 76th Cong., 3d sess., 54 Stat. 616); by Reorganization Plan No. 2 (60 Stat. 616); by Reorganization Plan No. 2 (60 Stat. 1095), effective July 16, 1946; by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, approved May 14, 1947 (61 Stat. 84); by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949, approved October 26, 1949 (Pub. L. 393, 81st Cong., 1st sess., 63 Stat. 910); by Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950 (15 FR 3174), effective May 24, 1950; and by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1955, approved August 12, 1955 (Pub. L. 381, 84th Cong., 1st sess., C. 867, 69 Stat. 711).
[2] Pub. L. 393, 81st Cong., 1st sess. 963 Stat. 910.
[3] The functions of the Secretary and the Administrator under the Act are delineated in 13 FR 2195, 12 FR 6971, and 15 FR 3290.
##### 



Exhibit 15.1

October 30, 2002

Alexanders Inc. and subsidiaries
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York

Attention of: Mr. Richard West, Chairman of the Audit Committee

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Alexanders Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended
September 30, 2002 and 2001, as indicated in our report dated October 30, 2002;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, is
incorporated by reference in Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No.
33-62779 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
#### Davis & Walker v. Walker.

(Decided June 16, 1915.)

Appeal from Muhlenberg Circuit Court.

T. O. JONES for appellant.

PETRIE & STANDARD and C. A. DENNY for appellee.'

Response by

Judge Turner

to Petition por Rehearing.

For original opinion see 163 Ky., 442.

The petition for rehearing herein deals only with the criticism of counsel contained in the opinion.

Accepting as true the statement of counsel in the petition that before the filing of the pleading asserting the claim of the heirs-at-law, the Home Mission Board had abandoned its claim under Walker’s will, and that this fact was known to the lower court and to all litigants and attorneys involved, and treating these statements as a supplement to the record, we, without hesitation, withdraw any criticism of counsel.

The petition for rehearing is overruled.
§ 127.305 Operations Manual. Each *Operations Manual* must contain— ( a ) A description of the transfer system including mooring areas, transfer connections, control rooms, and diagrams of the piping and electrical systems;
( b ) The duties of each person assigned for transfer operations;
( c ) The maximum relief valve setting or maximum allowable working pressure of the transfer system;
( d ) The facility telephone numbers of facility supervisors, persons in charge of shoreside transfer operations, personnel on watch in the marine transfer area for LNG, and security personnel;
( e ) A description of the security systems for the marine transfer area for LNG;
( f ) The procedures for— ( 1 ) Transfer operations including gauging, cool down, pumping, venting, and shutdown;
( 2 ) Transfer operations start-up and shutdown;
( 3 ) Security violations; and
( 4 ) The communications systems; and
( g ) A description of the training programs established under § 127.503.
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995]
SECTION 32.0

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                        /s/ Harold Duncan
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Harold Duncan
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ George J. Smith
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        George J. Smith
                                        Treasurer

Dated: November 12, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 25, 2011, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 4, 2011, 76 FR 25375, Rhodes Technologies, 498 
Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled 
substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668)......................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for conversion and sale to dosage form manufacturers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Rhodes Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance 
with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as 
a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed.

     Dated: August 10, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-21080 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

**(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF**

**TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**)

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Dragon Pharmaceutical Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form 10-QSB") that, to the best of their knowledge: 

 

(1)           the Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| Dated: :  November 13, 2006 |   | /s/ Yanlin Han               Yanlin HanChief Executive Officer |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                                                                                      |
| Dated: :  November 13, 2006 |   | /s/ Garry Wong              Garry WongChief Financial Officer       |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6591
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY LEE MCRAE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-37; CA-04-16-5-F) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lee McRae, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Lee McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McRae has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010. 2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

§ 1.01-60 Delegations for issuance of bridge permits. ( a ) The Commandant delegates to the Deputy Commandant for Operations (CG-DCO), the authority to issue the following permits for the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of bridges across navigable waters of the United States: ( 1 ) Those that require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*) and all implementing regulations, orders, and instructions.
( 2 ) Those that require a Presidential permit and approval under the International Bridge Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 535).
( 3 ) Those that require the amendment of an existing permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
( 4 ) Those that raise substantial unresolved controversy involving the public, or are objected to by Federal, State, or local government agencies.
( 5 ) Those authorized by the Commandant upon the appeal of a district commander's decision denying a permit.
( b ) The Commandant delegates to each Coast Guard District Commander, with the reservation that this authority shall not be further redelegated, the authority to issue all permits for the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of bridges across navigable waters of the United States other than those specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD 80-099, 46 FR 38353, July 27, 1981; 46 FR 42268, Aug. 20, 1981, as amended by CGD 88-052, 53 FR 25119, July 1, 1988; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33662, June 28, 1996; CGD 97-023, 62 FR 33361, June 19, 1997; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 49410, Aug. 13, 2010; USCG-2011-0257, 76 FR 31833, June 2, 2011]
#### § 530.201 Conflict with State law.

No certificate will be issued pursuant to § 530.101 of subpart B above authorizing the employment of homeworkers in an industry in a State where the Governor (or authorized representative) has advised the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division in writing that the employment of homeworkers in such industry, as defined in paragraphs (f) through (k) of § 530.1, is illegal by virtue of a State labor standards or health and safety law.
56 of 56
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 386 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 386

To authorize testimony and legal representation in State of Nebraska v. 
                             Pamir J. Safi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony and legal representation in State of Nebraska v. 
                             Pamir J. Safi.

Whereas, in the case of State of Nebraska v. Pamir J. Safi, No. CR05-87, pending 
        in Nebraska District Court for Lancaster County in Lincoln, Nebraska, 
        testimony has been requested from Dorothy Anderson and Blayne Garth 
        Glissman, Jr., former employees in the office of Senator Chuck Hagel;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Dorothy Anderson and Blayne Garth Glissman, Jr. are 
authorized to testify in the case of State of Nebraska v. Pamir J. 
Safi, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Dorothy Anderson and Blayne Garth Glissman, Jr. in connection with the 
testimony authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```