alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1723]



[[Page 17583]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Serum Industry Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 20, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), International Serum 
Industry Association (``ISIA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: International 
Serum Industry Association, McHenry, MD. The nature and scope of ISIA's 
standards development activities are: to bring together, as members of 
the corporation, companies worldwide that are involved in the 
collection, sale, distribution, and processing of serum, and related 
companies. Serum is used in connection with research, diagnostic 
testing, and the development, sale and distribution of life sciences 
and biopharmaceutical products. The corporation's purpose is to enhance 
the understanding, safety, use and general knowledge of serum and serum 
related products by adopting, promoting and encouraging policies by 
which its members will: (1) Establish common nomenclature and testing 
standards for use within the serum industry; (2) work together to 
address common regulatory issues (e.g. import/export); (3) address 
common concerns about health related issues; (4) develop industry 
quality standards for product and company performance; (5) develop a 
market wide understanding of sourcing and traceability and policies to 
standardize business practices; (6) develop a proactive industry, 
regulatory and world interface to educate, inform and advocate as 
appropriate, acting as a spokesperson for the international serum 
industry in North America and other parts of the world on government 
and public policy issues, especially those impacting worldwide trade; 
(7) develop and implement standards of compliance to ensure that the 
industry is seen by all constituencies as operating at a high level of 
professional ethics; and (8) conduct such other activities, and adopt 
such other policies and practices, which are furtherance of the general 
objective of promoting uniform standards and reliability in the serum 
industry.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-1723 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 400.82 Failure or refusal to accept employability services or employment. ( a ) *Termination of assistance.* When, without good cause, an employable non-exempt recipient of refugee cash assistance under the public/private RCA program or under a publicly-administered RCA program has failed or refused to meet the requirements of § 400.75(a) or has voluntarily quit a job, the State, or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, must terminate assistance in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Notice of intended termination* — ( 1 ) In cases of proposed action to reduce, suspend, or terminate assistance, the State or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, must give timely and adequate notice, in accordance with adverse action procedures required at § 400.54.
( 2 ) The State, or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, must provide written procedures in English and in appropriate languages, in accordance with requirements in § 400.55, for the determination of good cause, the sanctioning of refugees who do not comply with the requirements of the program, and for the filing of appeals by refugees.
( 3 ) In addition to the requirements in § 400.54, the written notice must include— ( i ) An explanation of the reason for the action and the proposed adverse consequences; and
( ii ) Notice of the recipient's right to mediation and a hearing under § 400.83.
( 4 ) A written notice in English and a written translated notice, or a verbal translation of the notice, in accordance with the requirements in § 400.55, must be sent or provided to a refugee at least 10 days before the date upon which the action is to become effective.
( c ) *Sanctions.* ( 1 ) If the sanctioned individual is the only member of the filing unit, the assitance shall be terminated. If the filing unit includes other members, the State shall not take into account the sanctioned individual's needs in determining the filing unit's need for assistance.
( 2 ) The sanction applied in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section shall remain in effect for 3 payment months for the first such failure and 6 payment months for any subsequent such failure.
[54 FR 5477, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 33602, June 28, 1995; 65 FR 15448, Mar. 22, 2000]
#### §§ 84.58-84.59 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. C.A. No. 15-17-LPS 

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

At Wilmington this 21st day of September, 2016. 

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same date, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims (D.I. 13) is 

GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 53) is GRANTED with respect to 

liability and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to remedy. 

3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 58) is DENIED with respect to 

liability and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to remedy. 

4. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint status report, providing their 

position(s) on how this case should now proceed, no later than September 28, 2016. 

HON. LEONARD P. ST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 1:15-cv-00017-LPS Document 63 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1055
# C_2008063EN.01000101.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 63/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.11.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 563/07 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | Madrid |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ayudas para producciones teatrales, musicales y de danza |
| Legal basis | Ley 2/95, de 8 de marzo, de Subvenciones de la Comunidad de Madrid; Ley 38/2003 de 17 de noviembre, General de Subvenciones (Ley Estatal); Orden por la que se establecen las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas a empresas privadas dedicadas a las artes escénicas, a la música y al circo. Convocatoria de ayudas a la actividad teatral para 2007 y 2008; ayudas a la producción coreográfica para 2007 y 2008, y ayudas a la producción musical para el 2007. |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture, Sectoral development, Small and medium-sized enterprises |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 2,4 million
  Overall budget: EUR 2,4 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 23.11.2007-24.11.2008 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Comunidad de Madrid |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.11.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 563/07

Member State

Spain

Region

Madrid

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ayudas para producciones teatrales, musicales y de danza

Legal basis

Ley 2/95, de 8 de marzo, de Subvenciones de la Comunidad de Madrid; Ley 38/2003 de 17 de noviembre, General de Subvenciones (Ley Estatal); Orden por la que se establecen las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas a empresas privadas dedicadas a las artes escénicas, a la música y al circo. Convocatoria de ayudas a la actividad teatral para 2007 y 2008; ayudas a la producción coreográfica para 2007 y 2008, y ayudas a la producción musical para el 2007.

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture, Sectoral development, Small and medium-sized enterprises

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 2,4 million

Overall budget: EUR 2,4 million

Intensity

—

Duration

23.11.2007-24.11.2008

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Comunidad de Madrid

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
**Exhibit 23.2**
**Independent Auditors’ Consent**
The Board of DirectorsPowerCerv Corporation:
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-3960, 333-50621 and333-90827) pertaining to the PowerCerv Corporation 1995 StockOption Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-90825) pertaining to Stock Option Agreements of our report dated January 26, 1998,relating to the consolidated statements of operations,shareholders’ equity, andcash flows of PowerCerv Corporation and subsidiary and related schedule for the year endedDecember 31, 1997, which report appears in theDecember 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K ofPowerCerv Corporation.
         /s/ KPMG LLP
St. Petersburg, FloridaMarch 30, 2000
53
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2672

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dwight William Alexander, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2008 Filed: December 8, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dwight Alexander appeals the 120-m onth sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with in tent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Alexander argues that his crimin al history is overstated; that the court should have imposed a lesser sentence; and that the 120-month statutory minimum sentence is unconstitutional because it does not take into consideration the disparity in sentencing for offenses involving powder cocaine and those involving crack.-2- We reject these arguments. First, the district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward for overstated crimin al history is unreviewable. SeeUnited States v. Betts , 509 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2007). Second, even after Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558, 564 (2007) (district c ourt may reasonably vary under18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to account for 100-to-1 crack to powde r cocaine disparity), the district court could not sentence Alexander below th e 120-month statutory minimum, see id. at 573- 74 (sentencing courts remain bound by statutory minimum sentences); United States v. Jenkins , 537 F.3d 894, 896 (8th Cir. 2008) (even after Kimbrough , district courts are not authorized to sentence below Congressionally mandated statutory minimums). Third, the mandatory minimum sentence under section 841(b)(1)(A) is constitutional. See United States v. Buckley , 525 F.3d 629, 635 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 77 U.S.L.W. 3242 (U.S. Oct. 20, 2008) (No. 08- 6427); United States v. Williams , 474 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

______________________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 148.200 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes special requirements for specific materials. These requirements are in addition to the minimum transportation requirements in Subpart C of this part that are applicable to all materials listed in Table 148.10 of this part.
#### Gertrude M. Leyden, Respondent, *v.*Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Leyden*v. *Brooklyn Heights B. B. Co.,*122 App. Div. 914, affirmed.

(Submitted December 1, 1909;

decided December 17, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered *526December 9, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the defendant’s negligence.

*D. A. Marsh*and *George D. Yeomans*for appellant.

*Frank Herwig*and *J. Brownson Ker*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hisoock and Chase, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1124

CHARLES TISDALE,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HONORABLE BARACK H. OBAMA, personally and in his official 

capacity as President of the United States; DON PALMER, in 

his official capacity as Secretary of the Virginia State 

Board of Elections; THE VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; 

NEIL H. MACBRIDE, in his official capacity as United States 

Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION,

 Defendants - Appellees.

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

MARIO APUZZO,

Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00036-JAG)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 12-1124 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/05/2012 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Charles Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Mario Apuzzo, MARIO APUZZO 

ATTORNEY AT LAW, Jamesburg, New Jersey, Amicus Supporting 

Appellant. David Brett Kolker, Associate General Counsel, 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1124 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/05/2012 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Charles Tisdale appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and 

motion for an injunction. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 

3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012). We deny Tisdale’s 

motions to expedite the appeal and for an injunction, and to 

recuse Judges Davis, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz, and Floyd. We grant 

the motion to file an amicus curiae brief and file it out of 

time. We deny all other pending motions filed by Tisdale. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 12-1124 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/05/2012 Pg: 3 of 3
# Senate Floor Activity - Monday, June 30, 2014

**

----

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Criminal Case No. 14-cr-20500

Plaintiff/Respondent, Civil Action No. 16-cv-12213

Paul D. Borman 

v. United States District Judge

JAMES FREDRICK DUBOSE, R. Steven Whalen 

United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant/Petitioner. 

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING

DEFENDANT/PETITIONER’S MOTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §2255

On August 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report &

Recommendation (ECF #53.) in which he recommended that the Defendant’s Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF

#39.) be DENIED.

In the Report and Recommendation, the parties were advised that any

objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy as provided for in

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2) and that failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. On September 4, 2018,
Defendant/Movant filed a Motion to Extend Time to File Objections to the Report and

Recommendation by thirty days. (ECF #54.) On September 19, 2018, the Court

issued an Order granting this motion saying, “Objections are due thirty days from

receipt of this order.” (ECF #55.) The Court’s order was mailed to Defendant/Movant

on that date. It is now over sixty days since the order was mailed to

Defendant/Movant.

There having been no timely objections filed, the Court

(1) ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(ECF #53.);

(2) DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF #39) 

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 27, 2018

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on

November 27, 2018.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

3
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report
of Pinel Bay Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-K as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),
I, James B. Wiegand, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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.








By:
                /s/ James
      B. WiegandJames
      B. Wiegand
                  President
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Elizabeth Dusenbury *et al.*agt. Benjamin Lehmnier *et al.*

*Special*Term,

*February,*1873.

In an action to set aside a mortgage sale upon the ground of fraud in the manner of making the sale, a *dem/wrrer*to the complaint, interposed upon the ground that the complaint contains no allegation that the plaintiffs tendered back the money realized upon the foreclosure sale, cannot be sustained.

Van Brunt, J.

This is an action to set aside a mortgage sale upon the ground of fraud in the manner of making the sale. ,

A demurrer to the complaint has been interposed, based upon the ground that the complaint contains no allegation that the plaintiffs tendered back the money realized upon the foreclosure sale.

The complaint contains an offer, upon the part of the plaintiffs, to return all the money realized upon the sale, with interest.

The defendants, in support of the demurrer, have cited numerous cases to show that, before an action can be maintained to rescind a contract, it is necessary that the plainxffs should return, or offer to return, all that has been eived under the contract.

pon an examination being made of those cases, it will be 1 that they are all actions at law brought as though the c':ct had been rescinded, and they all say that a party proceed as though the contract has been rescinded 3 has returned, or offered to return, all that has been *418received under the contract, and that that tender must be kept good at the trial.

It is necessary that such a rule should be adopted in actions at law, because, otherwise, the party suing could retain all that he had received under the contract, and recover as though the contract had never existed, and the court would be powerless to compel, by its judgment, restitution.

But in an action in equity the rule is very different. The court has full power to compel all parties to do equity, and can, by its judgment or decree, protect the rights of all.

It is urged, in support of the demurrer, that the plaintiffs have not been able to show any authority to support the position which they seek to maintain. _ This may be because the principle has been considered so well settled that no one has ever before raised the question; and that this is the true reason why such authorities cannot be found, is evidenced by the fact that, although the defendants have cited many authorities to show that tender must be made before suit brought, they are all cases, as I have before said, of actions at law, and they have been entirely unable to find a single case in equity where any such principle has ever been hinted at, much less decided.

The demurrer must be overruled, with costs. Defendants to be at liberty to withdraw demurrer and answer in twenty days.