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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 774

To amend the Small Business Act to change the conditions of participation

and provide an authorization of appropriations for the women’s business

center program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. TALENT, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mrs.

KELLY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. BONO, Mr. PASCRELL, Mrs. CHRISITANCHRISTENSEN, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, and Mr. HINOJOSA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small

Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act to change the conditions

of participation and provide an authorization of appropriations for the women’s business center program.

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 ‘‘Women’s Business

5 Center Amendments Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION.

7 Section 29(c)(1) of the Small Business Act (15

8 U.S.C. 656(c)(1)) is amended—
2

•HR 774 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’

2 after the semicolon at the end; and

3 (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and

4 inserting the following:

5 ‘‘(B) in the third, fourth, and fifth years,

6 1 non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.’’.

7 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

8 Section 29(k)(1) of the Small Business Act (15

9 U.S.C. 656(k)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘8,000,000’’

10 and inserting ‘‘11,000,000’’.

Æ
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

245) OGRC-S0038 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:33 PM Sheet 245 of 259 
P.2 

1-

0£R(L- SOOSf 

DATE: 4/29/91 

NOTE TO: Paul Bohannon 

FROM: Dan Derkics 

RE: April 2, 1991 letter 

Our apologies for the typographical error on your address. 

(What a difference a digit makes!) I can only assume that the 

original is on its way to the US Postal Service's "dead letter" 

office. (There may be a chance that it could be returned to EPA 

by that office; if so, and we locate it, we will be happy to return 

it to you at the correct address). 

Attached is a copy of the letter reproduced from our best 

available copy. For your reference, Dennis Ruddy of my staff 

drafted the response. He may be able to provide additional 

assistance upon his return from vacation next Tuesday (May 7). If 

there is anything else we can do, please don't hesitate to contact 

him at (703) 308-8430. 

Thank you for your patience and, again, our regrets. 

Attachment 

cc: Dennis Ruddy 4h>~e'^'^\
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION

          In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of AMREP  Corporation  (the
     "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  January  31, 2004 as filed
     with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
     "Report"),  each of the  undersigned  does hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18
     U.S.C.   Section  1350,   as  adopted   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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.


Dated:  March 10, 2004                              /s/ Peter M. Pizza
        --------------                              -------------------
                                                    Peter M. Pizza
                                                    Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                                    /s/ James Wall
                                                    --------------
                                                    James Wall*

                                                    /s/ Michael P. Duloc
                                                    --------------------
                                                    Michael P. Duloc*
______________
*The  Registrant  is a  holding  company  which  does  substantially  all of its
business through two wholly-owned  subsidiaries (and their subsidiaries).  Those
wholly-owned  subsidiaries  are AMREP  Southwest  Inc.  ("ASW")  and Kable  News
Company,  Inc. ("Kable").  James Wall is the principal executive officer of ASW,
and Michael P. Duloc is the principal executive officer of Kable. The Registrant
has no chief executive  officer and its only executive  officers are James Wall,
Senior Vice  President and Peter M. Pizza,  Vice  President and Chief  Financial
Officer,  and Michael P. Duloc, who may be deemed an executive officer by reason
of his position with Kable.
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 Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen C. Donnelly,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                            
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The
  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| |                                                                                                                                                            
| | (2) The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | /s/ Stephen
  C. Donnelly
| | Chief
  Financial Officer
| | January 23,
  2006       

---
#### § 101-6.4902 Format of certification required for budget submissions of estimates of obligations in excess of $100,000 for acquisitions of real and related personal property.

Note:

The illustration in [§ 101-6.4902](/on/2024-09-20/title-41/section-101-6.4902) is filed as part of the original document.

[[37 FR 20542](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/37-FR-20542), Sept. 30, 1972]
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

J OSHUA CHARLES CARVER , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 2882 LT Case No. 2020

- 00175

- CFFA STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed Oc tober 3 , 2 022 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Flagler County , Terence R. Perkins , Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D. E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.2 AFFIRMED. See Suarez Albo v. State , 300 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ; s e e also Gordon v. State , 219 So. 3d 189, 197 n.8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“For example, in a homicid e prosecution, the jury is not permitted to consider
any non - homicide lesser

- included offenses (e.g., aggravated battery) even if such lesser

- included offenses are subsumed within and necessarily established by proof of the murder charge, unless there is s ome disputed issue of fact (and some evidence to suppo rt a theory) regarding an intervening cause of death. ”) ; State v. Barritt , 531 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 1988); Martin v. State , 342 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1977) superseded on other grounds by Fl orida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.490; Humphrey v. State , 690 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

LAMBERT , C.J. , EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
#### § 301-74.4 What should cost comparisons include?

Cost comparisons should include, but not be limited to, a determination of adequacy of lodging rooms at the established per diem rates, overall convenience of the conference location, fees, availability of meeting space, equipment, and supplies, and commuting or travel distance of attendees.

[FTR Amdt. No. 89, 65 FR 1327, Jan. 10, 2000, as amended at 86 FR 54631, Oct. 4, 2021]
<PAGE>




                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO
          SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT



     This Second Amendment to the
Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement
made as of February 1, 1998) between
American General Corporation, a Texas
corporation (the "Company") and Robert M.
Devlin (the "Executive"), as first amended
on April 30, 1998 (the "Agreement"), is made
on May 1, 2000.

     1. Section 6.1 of the Agreement is
hereby amended by the addition of the
following sentence at the end of the
definition of Years of Service contained
therein:

     "Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the
     Executive retires on or after the
     attainment of age 62, he shall be
     credited with twenty-eight (28) Years
     of Service."

     3. As amended by this Second Amendment,
the Agreement is hereby specifically
ratified and reaffirmed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed this Second Amendment on May
1, 2000.



             AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION




             By__/S/ GARY D. REDDICK ________
             Name:  Gary D.Reddick
             Title: Executive Vice President



             __/S/ ROBERT M. DEVLIN__________
             Robert M. Devlin
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 21, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: October 28, 2014 Call with the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) 

regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was made by EPA to the Public Service Company of New Mexico on October 

28, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was 

proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES

Participant: Jeanette Pablo

EPA Participant: Terry Johnson
ex_162769.htm


 


Exhibit 10.2


 





 


AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of the 23rd day of September 2019, by and between SpecGx LLC (as successor to Mallinckrodt LLC) (“Mallinckrodt”) and AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“AcelRx”).


 


Recitals


 


WHEREAS, AcelRx and Mallinckrodt are parties to a supply agreement dated June 16, 2017 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Initial Term (as defined in the Agreement) expires on December 31, 2019; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement and make certain other changes as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and sufficient consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


	 	
			1.

				
			The Term (as defined in the Agreement) is extended through December 31, 2022.

			



 


	 	
			2.

				
			The term of the Confidentiality Agreement (as defined in the Agreement) is extended through December 31, 2022.

			



 


	 	
			3.

				
			All other provisions of the Agreement not specifically and expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

			



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.


 


	AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	 	SpecGx LLC 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Anil Dasu	 	By:	/s/ Karen Lasker
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Anil Dasu	 	Name:	Karen Lasker
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	Chief Engineering Officer  	 	Title:	VP Commercial Operations



 


1
36 HR Test Start Date Al Production MCEM TotalMCEM TotalParticulate tons/hr lbs/TAP lbs/hr lbs/TAP 4/22/2013 16.87 0.26 4.39 1.26 4/24/2013 16.87 0.19 3.21 2.27 4/25/2013 16.87 0.18 3.04 2.83 5/7/2013 16.87 0.23 3.88 2.62 Test Average 16.87 0.22 3.71 2.25

4 HR Test Start Date Al Production MCEM TotalMCEM TotalParticulate tons/hr lbs/TAP lbs/hr lbs/TAP 4/23/2013 Run 1 16.87 0.892 15.05 3.096 4/24/2013 Run 2 16.87 0.526 8.87 0.850 4/25/2013 Run 3 16.87 0.568 9.58 0.900 Test Average 16.87 0.662 11.17 1.615

4 Hour Test Start DateGreen Anode Production Particulate Particulate tons/hr lbs/Ton green anodelbs/hr 4/23/2013 Run 1 21.99 0.0160 0.35 4/24/2013 Run 2 24.95 0.0123 0.31 4/24/2013 Run 3 24.42 0.0156 0.38 Test Average 23.79 0.0146 0.35 **Method 315/Method 5 Potline Roofvent**

**Method 315/Method 5 A398's Potline Control System**

**Method 5 Dry Coke Scrubber Paste Plant Control System**Particulate

lbs/hr 21.26 38.29 47.74 44.20 37.96

Particulate lbs/hr 52.23 14.34 15.18 27.25
|   | (a) | The      annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010 of      the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | Information      contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Jacob Inbar                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jacob      Inbar,                                          |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
#### § 109-38.201-50 Registration in foreign countries.

Motor vehicles used in foreign countries are to be registered and carry license tags in accordance with the existing motor vehicle regulations of the country concerned. The person responsible for a motor vehicle in a foreign country shall make inquiry at the United States Embassy, Legation, or Consulate concerning the regulations that apply to registration, licensing, and operation of motor vehicles and shall be guided accordingly.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0500** Docket Number
**2010 -**  **SW -**  **014 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Al ert Service Bulletin No. EC135 - 62A - 021, dated June 23, 2005


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 796 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 796

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
 the amount of receipts attributable to military property which may be 
                treated as exempt foreign trade income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Neal 
of Massachusetts, Mr. Crane, Mr. Weller, Mr. Herger, Mr. Houghton, Mrs. 
    Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Lewis of 
Kentucky, Mr. English, Ms. Dunn, Mr. McKeon, Mr. McInnis, Mr. McCrery, 
 and Mr. Dreier) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
 the amount of receipts attributable to military property which may be 
                treated as exempt foreign trade income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Jobs and Trade Promotion Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MILITARY 
              PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TREATED AS EXEMPT FOREIGN TRADE 
              INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 923 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining exempt foreign trade income) is amended 
by striking paragraph (5) and by redesignating paragraph (6) as 
paragraph (5).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 109-27.5104-3 [Reserved]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 <ARTICLE>         5
 <LEGEND>
 This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
 consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 1996
 (unaudited) and the consolidated statement of income for the nine months
 ended September 30, 1996, (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by
 reference to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>      1
                   
 <S>                         <C>        <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1996
 <PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1996
 <CASH>                                        6,683
 <SECURITIES>                                    -0-
 <RECEIVABLES>                                   -0-
 <ALLOWANCES>                                    -0-
 <INVENTORY>                                     -0-
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                              6,683
 <PP&E>                                          -0-
 <DEPRECIATION>                                  -0-
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              313,126
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       254,212
 <BONDS>                                         -0-
 <COMMON>                                    314,080
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           -0-
 <PREFERRED>                                     -0-
 <OTHER-SE>                                 <255,166>
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                313,126
 <SALES>                                     185,555
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                            185,555
 <CGS>                                           -0-
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                   -0-
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                            177,993
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                -0-
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              -0-
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 -0-
 <INCOME-TAX>                                    -0-
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                             -0-
 <DISCONTINUED>                                7,562
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                 -0-
 <CHANGES>                                       -0-
 <NET-INCOME>                                  7,562
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
#### Commonwealth v. Delk.

(Decided September 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court.

Bail — Forfeiture of Bond. — Where the defendant, who is on bail, fails to answer and the attorney for the Commonwealth thereupon ■ moves the court to forfeit the bond and issue summons against the sureties, it is the duty of the .court under sections 93 and 94 . of the criminal code to grant the request.

W. N. FLIPPIN, Commonwealth’s Attorney 28th Judicial District, and M. M. LOGAN, Attorney General, for appellant.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Reversing.

This appeal is prosecuted from the following order of the Pulaski circuit court:

“This day this cause came on for trial and the defendant being under bond in the sum of $100.00 for his appearance with W. H. Warren and W. C. Pike as his sureties, and having been called and failing to answer, the attorney for the Commonwealth moved the court that the bond of the defendant be forfeited and that summons issue against said sureties returnable to the' next term of this court to show why judgment could not be rendered against them upon said forfeiture, and the court being advised, overruled said motion, to which ruling of the court the- Commonwealth excepts and prays an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is granted.”

The criminal code, in section 93, provides that “If the defendant fail to appear for trial or judgment, or at any other time when his presence in court may be lawfully required, or to surrender himself-in execution of the judgment, the court must direct the fact to be *264entered on the record, and thereupon the bail bond, or the money deposited in lieu ,cf bail, is forfeited.”

Under this section of the code when the defendant, who is under bond for his appearance, fails to appear when the cause comes on for trial, it is the duty of the court, on motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth, to have entered on the record the fact of the failure to appear and to have entered an order forfeiting the bail bond, and thereupon summons should issue against the bail as provided in section 94 of the criminal code. Why the court refused, under the circumstances shown in the order, to forfeit the bond and direct the issual of summons against the sureties, does not appear, but on the showing made by the record before ns the action of the circuit court in overruling the motions made by the attorney for the Commonwealth was error.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, with directions to the lower court to proceed in conformity with the provisions of the code indicated.