alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
~ruutr nf tq:r luttrb ~tat:rs NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January 3, 1969 

Adjourned December 23, 1969 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Tuesday, April 7, 1970 

PENDING EXECUTIVE BUSINESS 

Calendar No. 21. The nomination of George Harrold Carswell, of Florida, to be an Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court of the United States. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Ordered, That effective on Monday, Apr. 6, 1970 (With the Senate convening in executive sess10n at 10 a.m.), 

further debate on the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 

with the pending question on the motion of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), to recommit the nomination 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, be limited to 3 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator 

from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hruska), or whomever they may designate, 

with the vote coming at 1 o'clock, or following a vote on a motion to table the motion to recommit if such a 

motion should first be offered. Following the above vote or votes the Senate will proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination at 1 o'clock on Apr. 8, 1970, or following the vote on a motion to table the nomination 

should such motion be made, and if the nomination is still before the Senate. 

(Wednesday, Mar. $5, 1970) 

NOMINATIONS 

Date of Calendar Message Name of nominee Office Predecessor 

report No. No. 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

1970 I 

Feb. 27 21 1 George Harrold Carswell, An Associate Justice of Abe Fortas, resigned. 

of Florida. the Supreme Court of [Reported favorably 

the United States. by Mr. Eastland, 

from the Committee 

on the Judiciary, 

together with individual views. (See 

Ex. Rept. 91-14, 

9lst Cong., 2d 

sess.)] 

[NEW REPORT] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Apr. 6 46 106 Fred J. Russell, of California_ Under Secretary of the In- Russell E. Tram. 

terior 

37-022-70-No.163 US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1.970
Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICER
        COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM
        1123)
  RE: 
        **First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust
        2006-AA5**
 We
        the
        undersigned authorized officers, of First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,
        and its
        wholly owned subsidiary, First Tennessee Mortgage Services Inc. (collectively,
        the “Servicer”)  pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, do hereby
        certify that:
 1.            
A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period
        from July 1, 2006 and
        through December 31, 2006 and of the Servicer’s performance under applicable
        servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.
 2.            
To the best of our knowledge,
        based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
        all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
        respects throughout such period.
 First
        Horizon Home Loan Corporation
 By:
        /s/ Kim Yowell
 Date: 
03/01/07
 Name: 
Kim
        Yowell
 Title: 
SVP,
        Servicing Manager
 First
        Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc.
 By:  
/s/
        Terry L. McCoy
 Date: 
03/01/07
 Name: 
Terry
        L. McCoy
 Title: 
Vice
        President
David,

I would like to address the last item first in your request. A 

10 year period is too broad to speculate on. As we have seen in 

the past year, we have seen our sulfur content increase from the 

supplier in a matter of months. Our Coke purchases are handled 

by corporate so I don't have specifics on the contracts but I 

have worked diligently over the past months with both corporate 

and our supplier to assure we don't receive a load of Coke over 

3% sulfur. It is my understanding there is Coke available in 

the range of 2.7%(+/-.2%) but I know this Coke would add 

$10,000,000.00/year to our operating costs and I'm not sure 

corporate would keep our facility open with that increase in 

costs with no return on the investment.

I don't have 10 years of data but I do have 7. It appears the 

facility received one shipment of 3.02% Sulfur in 2005. A few 

other loads at 3.0% over the years.

The range of sulfur over the past year will be a little 

misleading so

 I'll break it down a little. The first half of the 12 

month

 period will include the coke that we received before the 

vendor

 changed suppliers so the sulfur level is lower. The 

last part

 of the 12 months will include the higher sulfur coke. 

Here it

 goes:

 Last 12 months = 2.34% - 2.94%

 7/1/10 thru 1/31/11 = 2.34% - 2.62% (Vendor changed 

supplier

 2/1/11)

 2/1/11 thru 7/1/11 = 2.75% - 2.94%

I hope I made this clear enough to understand. If not or if you 

have any other questions let me know.

Danny Carroll

Rio Tinto Alcan - Sebree Works
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Charles M. Colmey, Appellant.

(Argued March 14, 1907;

decided April 2, 1907.)

*People*v. Colmey, 117 App. Div, 462, affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 8, 1907, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the county of New York, rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree.

*Clarh L. Jordan*and *Charles Lex BrooTee*for appellant.

*William Trrners*Jerome, *District Attorney {E. Crosby Findleberger*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Yann, Wp^ner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
§ 218.12 Timing of project decision. ( a ) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the provisions of this part until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections (see § 218.11(b)(1)).
( b ) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the provisions of this part until all concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed.
( c ) When no objection is filed within the objection filing period (see §§ 218.26 and 218.32): ( 1 ) The reviewing officer must notify the responsible official.
( 2 ) Approval of the proposed project or activity documented in a ROD in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.10, or in a DN may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period.
( d ) When a proposed project or activity is not subject to objection because no timely, specific written comments regarding the proposal were received during a designated opportunity for public comment (see § 218.4), the approval of a proposed project or activity documented in a ROD must be in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.10 and 36 CFR 220.5(g), and the approval of a proposed project or activity documented in a DN must be made in accordance with 36 CFR 220.7(c) and (d).
#### § 25.4 Schedule of rates.

As the conditions of each park differ with respect to the proper charge for the service rendered to the public, the schedule of rates for observance by the licensed guides at each separate park will be submitted to the Director of the National Park Service for approval. The superintendent will prepare itineraries arranged so as best to observe the different features of the battlefield and submit them with recommendations as to schedule of rates to the Director of the National Park Service for approval.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { Convened January 3, 1991 

Adjourned January 3, 1992 

Convened January 3, 1992 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Friday, September 11, 1992 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 

TREATIES 

Calendar Treaty Subject Reported 

No. Doc. No. By 

1 EX. B., Two Related Protocols to the Convention for Feb 5 91 Reported favorably 

95-1 the Unification of Certain Rules Relating by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

to International Carriage by Air, as Foreign Relations, with a 

Amended (Montreal Aviation Protocols No. 3 resolution of advice and 

and 4). consent to ratification 

with provisos. (Printed 

report--Ex. Rept. 102-1 

together with minority 

views). 
2 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

• 

• 

* 

No. No. Bv 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 

PRESIDENT 

695 1011 Wade F. Hom, of Maryland, to be Deputy Jul 1, 92 Mr. Kennedy, 

Director for Demand Reduction, Office of Committee on Labor and 

National Drug Control Policy, vice Herbert Human Resources, without 

D. Kleber, resigned. printed report 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

741 1257 Hugo Pomrehn, of California, to be Under Aug s. 92 Mr. Johnston, 

Secretary of Energy, vice John Chatfield Committee on Energy and 

Tuck, resigned. Natural Resources, without 

printed report 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

785 505 Parker W. Borg, of Minnesota, a Career Aug 12, 92 Mr. Pell, 

Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Committee on Foreign 

Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Relations, with printed 

Ambas.sador Extraordinary and report - Ex.Rept. 102-52. 

Plenipotentiary of the United States of 

America to the Union of Burma (Mvanmar). .. •S1gn1f1es nommee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
#### Percy S. Hildreth, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Hildreth*v. *City of New York,*111 App. Div. 63, affirmed.

(Argued October 29, 1907;

decided November 19, 1907.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 19, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered.

*L. LajUn Kellogg, William D. Leonard*and *Alfred C. Petté*for appellant.

*Francis K*Pendleton, *Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly*and *Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cüllen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: Yann, J.
§ 1149.29 What rights do you have at the hearing? Each party to the hearing has the right to: ( a ) Be represented by a representative;
( b ) Request a pre-hearing conference and participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
( c ) Conduct discovery;
( d ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law which will be made a part of the record;
( e ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( g ) Present arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
( h ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing, as permitted by the ALJ.
§ 902.50 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart implements section 552(b) of title 5 U.S.C., which exempts certain records from public inspection under section 552(a). This subpart applies to records requested under subparts D and E of this part. The Corporation may, however, release a record authorized to be withheld under §§ 902.52 through 902.59 unless it determines that the release of that record would be inconsistent with a purpose of the aforementioned sections. Examples given in §§ 902.52 through 902.59 of records included within a particular statutory exemption are not necessarily illustrative of all types of records covered by the exemption. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record withheld under this subpart shall be provided to a requester, after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subpart.
( b ) This subpart does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated. This subpart is not authority to withhold information from Congress.
Exhibit 10.9

Schedule of Omitted Documents in the Form of Exhibit 10.9, Including Material
Detail in Which Such Documents Differ From Exhibit 10.9

1.        Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 13, 1999, between the
          Registrant and Benjamin Pelton.

2.        Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 13, 1999, between the
          Registrant and Steven Rosen.

        The Form of the documents listed above does not differin material detail
from the form of exhibit 10.9 except with respect to the identity of the
director.
§ 296.9 Terms and conditions of permits. ( a ) In all permits issued, the Federal land manager shall specify: ( 1 ) The nature and extent of work allowed and required under the permit, including the time, duration, scope, location, and purpose of the work;
( 2 ) The name of the individual(s) responsible for conducting the work and, if different, the name of the individual(s) responsible for carrying out the terms and conditions of the permit;
( 3 ) The name of any university, museum, or other scientific or educational institutions in which any collected materials and data shall be deposited; and
( 4 ) Reporting requirements.
( b ) The Federal land manager may specify such terms and conditions as deemed necessary, consistent with this part, to protect public safety and other values and/or resources, to secure work areas, to safeguard other legitimate land uses, and to limit activities incidental to work authorized under a permit.
( c ) The Federal land manager shall include in permits issued for archaeological work on Indian lands such terms and conditions as may be requested by the Indian landowner and the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the lands, and for archaeological work on public lands shall include such terms and conditions as may have been developed pursuant to § 296.7.
( d ) Initiation of work or other activities under the authority of a permit signifies the permittee's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the permit.
( e ) The permittee shall not be released from requirements of a permit until all outstanding obligations have been satisfied, whether or not the term of the permit has expired.
( f ) The permittee may request that the Federal land manager extend or modify a permit.
( g ) The permittee's performance under any permit issued for a period greater than 1 year shall be subject to review by the Federal land manager, at least annually.
§ 1230.16 How does NARA handle allegations of unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction? Upon receiving any credible information that records are at risk of actual, impending, or threatened damage, alienation, or unauthorized destruction, NARA will contact the agency as follows: ( a ) If the threat has not yet resulted in damage, removal, or destruction, NARA will contact the agency by phone promptly and follow up in writing within five business days.
( b ) If records have allegedly been damaged, removed, or destroyed, NARA will notify the agency in writing promptly with a request for a response within 30 days.
§ 51.87 Does the concessioner have an unconditional right to receive the Director's approval of an assignment or encumbrance? No, approvals of assignments or encumbrances are subject to the following determinations by the Director: ( a ) That the purpose of a leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest encumbrance is either to finance the construction of capital improvements under the applicable concession contract in the applicable park area or to finance the purchase of the applicable concession contract. An encumbrance of a leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest may not be made for any other purpose, including, but not limited to, providing collateral for other debt of a concessioner, the parent of a concessioner, or an entity related to a concessioner;
( b ) That the encumbrance does not purport to provide the creditor or assignee any rights beyond those provided by the applicable concession contract, including, but not limited to, any rights to conduct business in a park area except in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicable concession contract;
( c ) That the encumbrance does not purport to permit a creditor or assignee of a creditor, in the event of default or otherwise, to begin operations under the applicable concession contract or through a designated operator unless and until the Director determines that the proposed operator is a qualified person as defined in this part;
( d ) That an assignment or encumbrance does not purport to assign or encumber assets that are not owned by the concessioner, including, without limitation, park area entrance, user day, or similar use allocations made by the Director;
( e ) That the assignment is to a qualified person as defined in this part;
( f ) That the assignment or encumbrance would not have an adverse impact on the protection, conservation or preservation of park resources;
( g ) That the assignment or encumbrance would not have an adverse impact on the provision of necessary and appropriate facilities and services to visitors at reasonable rates and charges; and
( h ) That the terms of the assignment or encumbrance are not likely, directly or indirectly, to reduce an existing or new concessioner's opportunity to earn a reasonable profit over the remaining term of the applicable concession contract, to affect adversely the quality of facilities and services provided by the concessioner, or result in a need for increased rates and charges to the public to maintain the quality of concession facilities and services.
#### § 1206.88 Does the NHPRC have any liability under a grant?

No, NARA and the Commission cannot assume any liability for accidents, illnesses, or claims arising out of any work undertaken with the assistance of the grant.

[71 FR 27624, May 12, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 66319, Oct. 28, 2010]
#### Fannie K. HERTZ, Plaintiff v. Elizabeth N. GRAHAM, individually and doing business as Maine Chance Farm, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 23, 1958.

See, also, 23 F.R.D. 17.

Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for plaintiff; Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., Cyrus R. Vance, Newell G. Alford, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City, for defendant; P. John Picinich, New York City, of counsel.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion for reargument is granted and my original decision insofar as it relates to the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is adhered t<j. My opinion of December 23, 1957 pointed out that Judge Dawson had quoted from the Restatement of the Law of Torts, Section 509, on the liability of a possessor of dangerous animals. In his charge, Judge Dawson stated: “Thus, one who keeps a domestic animal, such as a horse, which he has reason to know has vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability, *although he has exercised due care to prevent it from doing harm to somebody else.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

While it is true that Judge Dawson failed to instruct the jury that contributory negligence would be no bar to recovery on the claim based upon possession of a dangerous animal, I cannot say with certainty after a reading of the entire charge that the theory of submission to the jury was one of negligence alone, for if it were, then I could see no purpose to that portion of Judge Dawson’s charge quoted above. He imputed liability to the keeper of a dangerous animal regardless of due care. It follows, therefore, that the actual basis for the verdict we shall never know since a special verdict was not ordered. Surely, *756in the absence of certainty that there has been an adjudication of a cause of action or an issue in a prior suit, a judge in subsequent litigation should not in a summary proceeding make a definitive finding of res judicata or collateral estoppel and thus foreclose a litigant from his day in court.

Since no prejudice can result to either party by acceding to plaintiff’s request for leave to serve a supplemental reply, I shall upon this re-hearing grant so much of plaintiff’s motion which seeks an order to this effect. Settle order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.6651
<CASH>                                         683,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,101,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                   233,954
<INVENTORY>                                 12,279,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,023,050
<PP&E>                                      20,394,830
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,824,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,398,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,490,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,059
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,000,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,398,917
<SALES>                                     50,494,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,494,703
<CGS>                                       42,569,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               55,488,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,938,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,783,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,783,699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,783,699)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Infinite Services & Solutions, Inc. 

Under Contract No. W52P1J-13-G-0067 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61104 

Mark B. Carter, Esq. 

Taylor English Duma LLP 

Atlanta, GA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 29 August 2017 

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61104, Appeal of Infinite Services & 

Solutions, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals