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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 41 

Honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of Tom Mooney, 

president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2007 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of 

Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. 

Whereas Tom Mooney graduated from Antioch College in 

Yellow Springs, Ohio, before becoming a high school government teacher in Cincinnati in 1974; 

Whereas Mr. Mooney became a passionate advocate for teachers and public education; 

Whereas Mr. Mooney served as the president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, as the vice president of 

the American Federation of Teachers, and on the American Federation of Teachers’ executive council; 

Whereas during his 21 years as president of the Cincinnati 

Federation of Teachers, Mr. Mooney worked to establish 

a teacher evaluation system; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 41 IS 

Whereas, in 2000, Mr. Mooney was elected to lead the Ohio 

Federation of Teachers; 

Whereas Mr. Mooney led the Ohio Federation of Teachers, 

which represents more than 20,000 members, including 

public education employees, higher education faculty and 

support staff, and other public employees, for 6 years; 

Whereas during his tenure as president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, Mr. Mooney endeavored to strengthen 

the teaching profession and to improve the working environment for all school employees, while also encouraging 

parental involvement to ensure a high-quality public education for all children; 

Whereas Mr. Mooney was a tireless advocate for Ohio’s public education system and opposed efforts to privatize educational services for limited numbers of children because 

these attempts at privatization came at the expense of 

the vast majority of students who attend public schools 

in the State; 

Whereas, on December 3, 2006, Ohio and the Nation felt a 

great loss with the sudden death of Mr. Mooney; and 

Whereas Mr. Mooney will be remembered as a fearless union 

leader and for his true dedication to improving the quality of public education: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the life and recog2 nizes the achievements of Tom Mooney, who exemplified 

3 dedication to, and true advocacy for, children and public 

4 education, while also gaining a deserved reputation as an 

5 articulate and forceful labor union activist. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of K-Tron International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
B. Cloues, II, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,
Ronald R. Remick, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

RONALD R. REMICK                                      EDWARD B. CLOUES, II
----------------------------------------------        -------------------------
Ronald R. Remick                                      Edward B. Cloues, II
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer        Chairman and Chief
  and Treasurer                                       Executive Officer
Date: May 18, 2004
                                                      Date: May 18, 2004
§ 118.3 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) In this part, portions or the entire text of certain standards and specifications are incorporated by reference as the governing requirements for materials, equipment, tests, or procedures to be followed. These standards and specification requirements specifically referred to in this part are the governing requirements for the subject matters covered, unless specifically limited, modified, or replaced by the regulations.
( b ) These materials are incorporated by reference into this part under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. The Office of the Federal Register publishes a table, “Material Approved for Incorporation by Reference,” which appears in the Finding Aids section of this volume. In that table are found citations to the particular sections of this part where the material is incorporated. To enforce any edition other than the one listed in paragraph (c) of this section, notice of the change must be published in the Federal Register and the material made available. All approved material is available for inspection at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-BRG), Attn: Office of Bridge Programs, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7418, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7418. You may also contact the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* Copies may be obtained from the sources indicated in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this part are:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 Standard Alphabets for Highways Signs, 1966. (Reprinted April 1984).
[CGD 84-022, 51 FR 16313, May 2, 1986] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 118.3, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.403 How can I request to use alternate or excess fire fighting and fire prevention equipment or procedures? ( a ) The operator may request the use of alternate or excess equipment or procedures than those required in this subchapter.
( b ) Upon request, the Sector Commander, or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority, may allow the use of alternate equipment or procedures if the alternatives will: ( 1 ) Accomplish the purposes for the requirement; and
( 2 ) Provide a degree of safety equivalent to or greater than that provided by the requirement.
( c ) The Sector Commander, or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority, may require that the requesting party: ( 1 ) Explain why applying the requirement would be unreasonable or impracticable; or
( 2 ) Submit engineering calculations, tests, or other data to demonstrate how the requested alternative would comply with paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The Sector Commander, or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority, may determine, on a case-by-case basis, that the Commandant (CG-ENG) must approve the use of the alternate equipment or procedure.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39179, July 1, 2013; USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48243, July 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0001099392
<NAME> TXU EUROPE CAPITAL I
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-22-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                            0
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                       0
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                        0
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                            0
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                              0
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                               0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

d0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

137866 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137866 

 COA: 286156 

Wayne CC: 87-002000 

MARC RICHARD JAKAJ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion to correct the presentence report was a successive motion for relief from 

judgment, which is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

 DAVIS, J., not participating. I recuse myself and am not participating because I 

was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 529 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 529

  Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Greater 
                 Philadelphia Association of Realtors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2008

    Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Greater 
                 Philadelphia Association of Realtors.

Whereas the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors, which was 1 of the 3 
        original chapters of the National Association of Realtors, was founded 
        January 10, 1908, in the City of Philadelphia;
Whereas the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors has worked to improve 
        the neighborhoods, business communities, and real estate markets in the 
        City of Philadelphia and its suburbs; and
Whereas the members of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors continue 
        to do excellent work in strengthening the economy of the United States 
        and making the American dream of homeownership a reality: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commemorates the 100th Anniversary of the 
founding of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.50 What are the requirements for a facility spill response plan? ( a ) Each deepwater port which meets the applicability requirements of part 154 subpart F of this chapter must have a facility response plan that is approved by the Sector Commander, or MSU Commander, with COTP and OCMI authority.
( b ) Each natural gas deepwater port must have a natural gas facility emergency plan that meets part 127, subpart B of this chapter.
( c ) The response plan must be submitted to the Sector Commander, or MSU Commander, with COTP and OCMI authority, in writing, not less than 60 days before the deepwater port begins operation.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39181, July 1, 2013]
S(()- | |(}.^()4-(Ki 7

Honorabl e Ra y LaHoo d Secretary o f

Transportario n Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave . S E Washington , D C 2059 0 

## ARTMENTO F ''ZZr^rv : '-r

^ o 

## U ^ 2M 3 Februar y 22,201 1

Re : Tetmiaatio no f

EA S Progra m i n Mcrcedit aAiiport

PODCC , Puert o Ric o Dea r Miste r La i lood : I a mwritin g thes e fe w word s t o le t yo u kno w my concer nabou t th e terminatio no f

th e subsid y gjven t o th e Mercedit aAirpor t i n th e Cit

y o f Ponc e throug hth e Essentia l Ai r Servic e Progra m (EAS) , A s atrade r

i n th e sout hare ao f

th e islan dthi s wil l affec t directl y t o ih e econom y o f th e entir e zone . Th e Airpor t

help s u s a s a n a dho c airport , bu t als o help s th e touris mi n th e south , cast , an d centra l are ao f

th e Island . Mercedit ai s th e fastes t way t o connec t

wit hPuen o Rico' s capital , San Juan . I t i s als o essentia l tha t

schedul e air

service , includin g bot hpassenge r an dcargo , betwee n Ponc e an dSanJua nconrinue . Puert o Ric o ha s auniqu e geographi c characterisric s an dcultura l tie s t o th e Caribbea nan dLati n America . Th e continuit y o f internationa l ai r

service s fro mall th e serviceabl e point s i n th e islan d i s essentia l t o th e cultura l an deconoTni c growt ho f th e region . Th e terminatio no f th e subsid y woul dimpl y th e dismissa l o f th e airpor t

employee s increasin g unemploymen t percentag e i n Puert o Rico . A s a n employe r

an dcitize no f

th e sout hregio no f

Puert o Rico , I urg e tha t Mercedit aAirpor t continu e i n th e EA S platform .

Juli o Rodrigue z BS,REM,CE A Nam e SHAR ECORPORATIO N Compan y P.O . BO X 874 2 PONCE . PUERT O RIC O 00732-874 2 22,201 1

Phone Number 787-290-011 7 Sharecorp89@msn.co m E-Mai l
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W AYNE DOUGLAS M ERKLEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. STATE OF IDAHO; C OR IZON HEALTH SER VIC ES INC ORPOR

ATED, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-35087 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00463-C W D M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho C andy W . Da le , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 *** B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Idaho sta te prisone r W a

y ne Dougla s M e rkle y

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his mo tion for le a ve to proc e e d in form a

pa u pe ris (“ IFP” ) in 

# FIL ED SEP 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** M e rkle y

c onse n te d to proc e e d

be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va rious c onstitutiona

l c la im s a nd c la im s unde r the A m e ric ans with Disa

bilitie s Ac t. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a

buse of disc re tion. Esc obe do v
. Apple b e e s , 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th C ir. 2015). W e re ve rse and re m and. The distric t c ourt de nie d M e rkle y ’ s m o tion to proc e e d IFP be c a use it c onc lude d tha

t M e rkle y did not m ake a

suffic i e nt showing of indige nc y . Howe ve r, the re wa s ina de quate support in the re c o rd to c onc lude tha

t M e rkle y ha d a c c e ss to suffic i e nt funds to pa

y the c ourt c osts a

nd his ba sic ne e ds. Se e id . at 1234 (e xpla ining tha

t a distric t c ourt a

buse s its disc re tion whe n it “ rule s on a n issue without giving a

pa rty an opportunity

to e xpla i n, or without ad e quat e support on the re c ord” ). The re c ord shows tha t M e rkle y re c e ive d a

p proxim ate ly

$130.00 pe r m onth, but doe s not show how m uc h his m o nthly

e xpe nse s we re and wha

t ite m s he purc ha se d at the prison’ s c om m issa ry . Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the judgm e nt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. B e c a use the sc ope of M e rkle y ’ s a ppe a l is limite d to the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of IFP, we do not c o n side r the m e rits of M e rkle y ’ s c la im s. All pe nding re q

u e sts a re de nie d. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 5 - 3 5 0 8 7 2
Yissum
Research Development Company


of
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem


Edmond
Safra Campus,


Givat
Ram, POB 39335


Jerusalem
91390


Israel


 


Re:
Extension of Agreement for rendering of Services


 


We
do hereby refer to the Agreement for the Rendering of Services dated as of June 20, 2005 ("Service Agreement")
and the License Agreement dated November 27, 2002, (the "License Agreement") by and between Yissum Research Development
Company 0f the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ('Yissum") and Morria Biopharmaceuticals ("the Company'').


Unless
the context otherwise requires, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Service Agreement.


The
Company docs hereby request that that Yissum performs the additional tasks and activities set forth on Appendix B hereto ("Additional
Services"). All of such Additional Services shall be included as Services under the Service Agreement, and shall be performed
in accordance with the timetable set forth on Appendix B hereto. In consideration, Morria shall pay to Yissum an additional amount,
of $30,000 (plus VAT) (the "Additional Service Fee") payable within seven days of the signing of this
Letter of Extension.


All
terms and conditions as set out in the Service Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the Additional Service
Fee and the Additional Services.


Your
signature on this copy of the document shall constitute your approval and agreement to all that is written herein.


 


Yours
sincerely,


 


	MORRIA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS PLC.	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ YUVAL COHEN	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By: Yuval Cohen	 	Date: June 19, 2006
	 	 	 
	Title: CEO	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	We hereby agree and approve: 	 	 
	/s/ ELENA CANETTI	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By: Elena Canetti, VP Scientific Services	 	Date: June 4, 2006
	Yissum	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ NAVA SWERSKY SOFER	 	 
	By: Nava Swersky Sofer, CEO	 	 
	Yissum	 	Date:  


 



    	1
§ 778.414 “Approval” of contracts under section 7(f). ( a ) There is no requirement that a contract, to qualify under section 7(f), must be approved by the Secretary of Labor or the Administrator. The question of whether a contract which purports to qualify an employee for exemption under section 7(f) meets the requirements is a matter for determination by the courts. This determination will in all cases depend not merely on the wording of the contract but upon the actual practice of the parties thereunder. It will turn on the question of whether the duties of the employee in fact necessitate irregular hours, whether the rate specified in the contract is a “regular rate”—that is, whether it was designed to be actually operative in determining the employee's compensation—whether the contract was entered into in good faith, whether the guaranty of pay is in fact based on the regular and overtime rates specified in the contract. While the Administrator does have the authority to issue an advisory opinion as to whether or not a pay arrangement accords with the requirements of section 7(f) he can do so only if he has knowledge of these facts.
( b ) As a guide to employers, it may be helpful to describe a fact situation in which the making of a guaranteed salary contract would be appropriate and to set forth the terms of a contract which would comply, in the circumstances described, with the provisions of section 7(f). Example: An employee is employed as an insurance claims adjuster; because of the fact that he must visit claimants and witnesses at their convenience, it is impossible for him or his employer to control the hours which he must work to perform his duties. During the past 6 months his weekly hours of work have varied from a low of 30 hours to a high of 58 hours. His average workweek for the period was 48 hours. In about 80 percent of the workweeks he worked less than 52 hours. It is expected that his hours of work will continue to follow this pattern. The parties agree upon a regular rate of $5 per hour. In order to provide for the employee the security of a regular weekly income the parties further agree to enter into a contract which provides a weekly guaranty of pay. If the applicable maximum hours standard is 40 hours, guaranty of pay for a workweek somewhere between 48 hours (his average week) and 52 would be reasonable. In the circumstances described the following contract would be appropriate. The X Company hereby agrees to employ John Doe as a claims adjuster at a regular hourly rate of pay of $5 per hour for the first 40 hours in any workweek and at the rate of $7.50 per hour for all hours in excess of 40 in any workweek, with a guarantee that John Doe will receive, in any week in which he performs any work for the company, the sum of $275 as total compensation, for all work performed up to and including 50 hours in such workweek.
( c ) The situation described in paragraph (b) of this section is merely an example and nothing herein is intended to imply that contracts which differ from the example will not meet the requirements of section 7(f).
[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 46 FR 7318, Jan. 23, 1981]