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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (1198).                    

*Date/Time:*                         August 25, 2000; 8 am-5 pm.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 Fairfax, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Senior Science Advisor, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), National Science Foundation, Suite 875, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1683.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning EPSCoR Infrastructure Improvement proposals submitted to the NSF EPSCoR program for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reasons for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information                               ( print page 41103)                            concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-16784  Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### ANGIE C. HILL *v.*WILLIAM COX.

*Dog. Certified Execution.*

1. A certified execution may Re allowed not only for a wilful and malicious *act,*Rut for a wilful and malicious *neglect;*Renee, a certificate was properly awarded against the defendant in an action on the case to recover for injuries caused Ry his dog, he, knowing him to Re a dangerous animal, suffered him to run at large.

2. The awarding a certificate is ordinarily a matter of *discretion,*when the action is such that it *may*Re allowed, and the facts such as *legally warrant*it.

Case, to recover for personal injuries caused by the defendant’s dog. Heard by the court, September Term, 1881, Veazey, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion.

*D. E.*Nicholson, for the plaintiff.

*J. C. Baker,*for the defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

The only question reserved in this case is, whether the certificate that the cause of action arose from the wilful and malicious act, or neglect of the defendant, was properly allowed.

I. When the action is such, that a certificate *may*be allowed, the awarding a certificate by the court which tried the facts, is ordinarily a matter of *discretion,*upon the exercise of which no error can be predicated. When the facts specially reported are such as *legally warrant*a certificate, this court will not, on exceptions, disturb the order of the County Court, whether the certificate be allowed, or refused.

II. The court found that the dog- that occasioned the injury “ was a large, cross, ferocious, and *dangerous*animal; and that *628defendant kept him knowing that he was a dangerous animal to be allowed to run at large.” A wrong that is *purposely*done, is *wilfully*done ; and if a man intentionally deals a blow upon his neighbor, the law intends that the act was “ wilful and malicious.” The statute includes with “wilful and malicious” acts, “ *neglects.”*One could hardly conceive of a more wilful and malicious neglect, than the omission to restrain a ferocious and dangerous dog, which the owner and keeper knows was dangerous, and prone to bite and mutilate women and children that came in his way. “ Such a dog (to use the language of an English judge), should have been hanged, when his propensity first became known, and not be allowed to endanger the king’s subjects.”

The judgment of the County Court, and certificate, are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,030
<INVENTORY>                                     40,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,304
<PP&E>                                          82,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,389
<BONDS>                                         36,805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     26,156
<COMMON>                                         5,230
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,455
<SALES>                                        108,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,672
<CGS>                                           76,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,453
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
#### WARREN S. SILLCOCKS and JOSHUA S. COOLEY, Appellants, *v.*THE MAYOR, Etc., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

*Common emnoil of New York*— gold *badges for membws— Contract for, ultra m'es.*

The common council of the city of New York had, in 1870, no authority, either express or implied, to direct the purchase of gold badges for the members of the common council as insignia of office.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered upon tbe dismissal of tbe complaint at tbe Circuit.

Tbe action was brought to recover tbe price of forty-nine gold medals, at $100 apiece, furnished to tbe members of tbe common council of tbe city of New York in 1870, in pursuance of a resolution of tbe common council directing their purchase by tbe clerk. Tbe complaint was dismissed at tbe Circuit upon tbe ground that no contract therefor bad been awarded upon proposals invited by public advertisement, and no previous appropriation covering, tbe expense of tbe purchase was proved.

*Joh/n H. Strahan,*for tbe appellants.

*D. J. Dean,*for the respondent.

*432Beady, J.:

Notwithstanding the able argument of the appellant’s counsel, we think the judgment entered herein must be affirmed. The powers possessed by the common council are those conferred by charters and special laws, and expressed or implied. It does not appear that a gold badge was necessary in order to enable a member of the common council to perform his official functions, and the expense incurred for that purpose was *ultra vires,*and, therefore, entailed no liability upon the defendants.

No provision having been made by express enactment, for such a purchase, its necessity alone could warrant a resolution to procure it.

The contracts of a municipal corporation for an object not essentially necessary, and not comprehended by, nor within the power of the municipality itself to make, cannot be enforced. *(Hodges*v. *Buffalo,*2 Den., 110*; Gamble*v. *Watkins*14 N. Y. S. C. R., 448.)

If it were otherwise, then personal expenditures under the guise of corporate necessities could be made for a variety of purposes, having in fact no relation to the municipality or the discharge of the duty of any of its members.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
# Comments on: 17-2467: UVA PATENT FOUNDATION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
Regulatory Announcement

Yellow Marker 2012 Transition 

Guidance 

Q: Will all locomotive and marine diesel fuel containing less than 500 ppm sulfur 

(500 ppm LM diesel fuel), which also contains 0.10 milligram per liter or more of 

solvent yellow 124 marker (SY-124) on or after June 1, 2012, be deemed heating oil 

and be prohibited from use in any motor vehicle or nonroad diesel engine (including 

locomotive, or marine diesel engines)? 

A: The nonroad diesel regulations at 40 CFR 80.510(f) state that on or after 

June 1, 2012, “[a]ny diesel fuel that contains greater than or equal to 0.10 milligram 

per liter of [SY-124] shall be deemed to be heating oil and shall be prohibited from 

use in any motor vehicle or nonroad diesel engine (including locomotive, or marine 

diesel engines).” The preamble in the nonroad diesel rule, however, makes clear that 

EPA intended to allow 500 ppm LM diesel fuel to contain greater than 0.10 milligram 

per liter of SY-124 after June 1, 2012. The nonroad diesel regulations at 40 CFR 

80.510(f) are not consistent with the preamble and fail to provide a transition schedule 

with respect to the SY-124 requirements for 500 ppm LM diesel fuel. 

Compliance with the regulations as written could force substantial quantities of 

marked 500 ppm LM diesel fuel to be removed from wholesale purchaser consumer 

and fuel supplier storage tanks and then trucked to either a heating oil market or to a 

refinery for reprocessing. This would result in increased compliance costs to industry, 

increased trucking emissions, and potential disruptions to the supply of LM diesel 

fuel. Therefore, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) intends to amend the 

regulations to allow 500 ppm LM diesel fuel to contain greater than 0.10 milligram 

per liter of SY-124 through November 30, 2012. Beginning December 1, 2012, 500 

ppm LM diesel fuel at all locations will be required to contain no more than 0.10 

milligram per liter of SY-124, consistent with the original intent of the nonroad 

diesel rule preamble. 

The EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has exercised its 

enforcement discretion as a bridge to OAR’s rulemaking, and will not pursue 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

EPA-420-F-12-031 

June 2012 
Regulatory Announcement

enforcement for violations of 40 CFR 80.510(f) for fuel marked with more than 0.10 milligram 

per liter of SY-124 and designated as 500 ppm sulfur LM diesel fuel that was introduced into the 

fuel distribution system prior to June 1, 2012. The enforcement discretion will remain in effect 

until either (1) 11:59 P.M. EST, November 30, 2012, or (2) the effective date of the final rule 

governing SY-124 marker in 500 ppm LM diesel fuel. 

A copy of the letter granting enforcement discretion as a bridge to OAR’s rulemaking can be 

found at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/details.cfm?CAT_ID= 

&SUB_ID=95&templatePage=10&title=Clean%20Air%20Act%20Mobile%20 

Source%20Policies%20and%20Guidance 

2
No. 11-9558.

#### Farris *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
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 on Form 10- Q
of Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30 , 2011 (the "Report"),
Praveen Nair, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|DATE: AUGUST 22nd, 2011 /S/ PRAVEEN NAIR ----------------------- PRAVEEN NAIR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within
the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2019-1566: Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lipocine, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rDvsFbM105\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-2019-1566-clarus-therapeutics-inc-v-lipocine-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2019-1566: Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lipocine, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-2019-1566-clarus-therapeutics-inc-v-lipocine-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=rDvsFbM105\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2019-1566: Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lipocine, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"rDvsFbM105\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lipocine, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2019-1566 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                       COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         3,879
<SECURITIES>                                   4,270
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (105)
<INVENTORY>                                    3,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,937
<PP&E>                                         23,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (14,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,074
<BONDS>                                        10,358
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,769
<COMMON>                                       20
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,005
<SALES>                                        20,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,055
<CGS>                                          14,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (73)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (408)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.21


</TABLE>
#### § 61-300.20 How will DOL determine whether a contractor or subcontractor is complying with the requirements of this part?

During the course of a compliance evaluation, OFCCP may determine whether a contractor or subcontractor has submitted its VETS-4212 Report(s) as required by this part.
DYNACARE INC.

                                   EXHIBIT 23



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



         We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Dynacare Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2001, except as to Note 21, which
is as of March 1, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Dynacare Inc. included herein.

         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Dynacare
Inc. listed in Item 14 of the Form 10-K. This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                                        /s/ ERNST AND YOUNG LLP
Toronto, Canada
March 12,  2001                                           Chartered Accountants
248P99-3

#### State v. Howard Cleveland, Jr.

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Rowan County

Dismissed
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

The Board of Directors

Mossimo, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-10071) on Form S-8 of Mossimo,Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Mossimo, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and therelated consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended  December 31, 2005, which report appears inthe December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mossimo, Inc.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Los Angeles, California |
| March 31, 2006          |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.85 Suspension of operator licenses.

Whenever grounds exist for suspension of an operator license, as provided in section 303(m) of the Communications Act, the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with respect to amateur and commercial radio operator licenses, may issue an order suspending the operator license. No order of suspension of any operator's license shall take effect until 15 days' notice in writing of the cause for the proposed suspension has been given to the operator licensee, who may make written application to the Commission at any time within the said 15 days for a hearing upon such order. The notice to the operator licensee shall not be effective until actually received by him, and from that time he shall have 15 days in which to email the said application. In the event that conditions prevent emailing of the application before the expiration of the 15-day period, the application shall then be emailed as soon as possible thereafter, accompanied by a satisfactory explanation of the delay. Upon receipt by the Commission of such application for hearing, said order of suspension shall be designated for hearing by the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and said suspension shall be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of said hearing, the Commission may affirm, modify, or revoke said order of suspension. If the license is ordered suspended, the operator shall send his operator license to the Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in Washington, DC, on or before the effective date of the order, or, if the effective date has passed at the time notice is received, the license shall be sent to the Commission forthwith.

[85 FR 85529, Dec. 29, 2020]