alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7 Ml 8020195 &
NEWS FROM... » »

FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION

1325 K Street, N.

FOR RELEASE: ON RECEIPT CONTACT: DAVID FISKE
SHARON SNYDER

(202) 523-4065

FEC RELEASES INDEX OF
1977-78 INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 3, 1978 - The Federal Election Commission today released a report ‘
on independent expenditures made on behalf of U.S. House and Senate candidates during
the 1978 Congressional election cycle.

The Index of Independent Expenditures lists 18 Senate and 51 House candidates for
or against whom independent expenditures have been made. Based upon reports filed as
of October 10, 1978, the total amount of money spent independently to influence federal
elections currently is $104,901. .

An independent expenditure is an expenditure made by a person or group of persons
“For a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate.” The expenditure must be made without any consultation or coordination with
the candidate or his/her campaign committee(s) or staff.

Independent expenditures are reported at the end of the reporting period in which
they are made; with the exception of those made less than 15 days, but more than 24 hours
prior to an election, in which case, they are reportable within 24 hours.

The following is a listing of 10 candidates for or against whom the most money
was spent: .

ATE : OFF! SE/STATE FOR AGAINST TOTAL

= ton (D) House TX/11 9,795 9,795

©. Foley (D) Hcuse WA/05 6,675 6,675
wucheux (D) Hcuse LA/01 6,076
Dusaid M. Fraser (DFL) Senate MN 5,948
Sam A. Nunn, dr. (D) Sanate GA £ 5,470
Abner J. “ikva (D) tiouse IL/10 4,825
Marvin Leath (D) heuse TX/11 0 4,454
Walter D. Huddleston (D) Senate KY . 3,68 3,682
Robert E. Short (DFL) Senate MN 3,156
Bill Frenzel (R) - House MN/03 3,118

The following is a listing of the 10 political committees which have reported the
greatest dollar amounts in independent expenditures:

COMMITTEE FOR AGAINST TOTAL

American Medical PAC “0 42,359
National Conservative PAC 9,729

5th District Political Research Committee

Plaquemines Campaign Fund - Faucheux

NRA Political Victory Fund

Brown Committee for Marvin Leath

Minnesota Gun Owners' Political Victory Fund

Cook County Concerned Citizens 0.

Conservative Caucus 2nd CD of So. Dakota 1;505-° .

Our United Republic PAC T5178

Copies of the Index of Independent Expenditures are available in
Office, Room 401, 1325 K St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20462. ~
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Interlink Electronics, Inc.
Camarillo, California

We hereby consent to incorporation  by reference in the Registration  Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-112034) and Form S-8 (Nos. 033-93066, 333-39371, 333-53870,
333-107174, 333-39371, 333-117831 and 333-127763) of Interlink Electronics, Inc.
of our  reports  dated July 21,  2006,  relating to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  the  adverse   opinion  on  the   effectiveness   of  Interlink
Electronics,  Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting,  which appear in
the Annual Report to  Shareholders,  which is  incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated July 21, 2006  relating to the  financial  statement  schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
---------------------
     BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Los Angeles, California
July 21, 2006
EXHIBIT 4.7




                              AMENDMENT 2002-1
                                     TO
                           SCREAMING MEDIA, INC.
                         2000 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

     WHEREAS,  ScreamingMedia,  Inc. (the "Company") has previously adopted
the ScreamingMedia, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan");

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") has
determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders to amend the Plan as provided herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the Board's authority under Section
19 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

          1. The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:

          The maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved for
          issuance under the Plan shall be 6,000,000 shares (subject to
          adjustment as provided herein).

          2. Section 4(a) of the Plan is amended to insert the following as
a new second and third sentence of such section:

          Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, as of the first
          trading day of each of the Company's fiscal years 2003 through
          2007, there shall be reserved for issuance under the Plan an
          additional number of shares of Common Stock equal to two percent
          (2%) of the number of shares of Common Stock authorized and
          outstanding as of such date; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that with respect
          to each such date, the number of such additional number of shares
          shall not exceed 1,000,000. Following such date as they are
          reserved for issuance under the Plan, such additional shares
          shall be subject to adjustment as provided herein.

     The effective date of this Amendment 2002-1 is April 18, 2002. Except
as herein modified, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

                                   SCREAMINGMEDIA, INC.
                                   By: /s/ Francis Sheehan
                                   Name:  Francis Sheehan
                                   Title: General Counsel & Secretary
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with thefiling of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended September 30,2005 (the “Report”) by American Medical Alert Corp. (“Registrant”), theundersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

 
|   |   /s/ Richard  Rallo         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard Rallo  Chief Financial Officer |

 

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to American Medical Alert Corp. and will be retained by AmericanMedical Alert Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.**

 

----
§ 62.25-15 Safety control systems. ( a ) Minimum safety and trip controls required for specific types of automated vital systems are listed in table 1 to § 62.35-50. Note 1 to paragraph ( a
):
Safety control systems include automatic and manual safety trip controls and automatic safety limit controls.
( b ) Safety trip controls must not operate as a result of failure of the normal electrical power source unless it is determined to be the failsafe state.
( c ) Automatic operation of a safety control must be alarmed in the machinery spaces and at the cognizant remote-control location.
( d ) Local manual safety trip controls must be provided for all main boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines.
( e ) Automatic safety trip control systems must— ( 1 ) Be provided where there is an immediate danger that a failure will result in serious damage, complete breakdown, fire, or explosion;
( 2 ) Require manual reset prior to renewed operation of the equipment; and
( 3 ) Not be provided if safety limit controls provide a safe alternative and trip would result in loss of propulsion.
[CGD 81-030, 53 FR 17838, May 18, 1988, as amended by USCG-2020-0634, 89 FR 50191, June 12, 2024]
§ 560.2 Factors indicating conditions unduly impairing access. For the purpose of this part, factors which would indicate the existence of conditions created by foreign government action or action of a common carrier acting alone or in concert with any person, which unduly impair access of a U.S. flag vessel engaged in or seeking access to ocean trade between foreign ports, include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Imposition upon U.S. flag vessels or upon shippers or consignees using such vessels, of fees, charges, requirements, or restrictions different from those imposed on national-flag or other vessels, or which preclude or tend to preclude U.S. flag vessels from competing in the trade on the same basis as any other vessel.
( b ) Reservation of a substantial portion of the total cargo in the trade to national-flag or other vessels which results in failure to provide reasonable competitive access to cargoes by U.S. flag vessels.
( c ) Use of predatory practices, possibly including but not limited to the use of a vessel or vessels in a particular trade for the purpose of excluding, preventing, or reducing competition by driving another ocean common carrier out of that trade, and closed conferences employing deferred rebates, which unduly impair access of a U.S. flag vessel to the trade.
( d ) Any government or commercial practice that results in, or may result in, unequal and unfair opportunity for U.S. flag vessel access to port or intermodal facilities or services related to the carriage of cargo inland to or from ports in the trade.
( e ) Any other practice which unduly impairs access of a U.S. flag vessel to trade between foreign ports.
[49 FR 45406, Nov. 15, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 8009, 8010, Feb. 18, 1999]
§ 296.32 Reporting requirements. The Contractor shall submit to the Director, Office of Financial Approvals, Maritime Administration, 2nd Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, one of the following reports, including management footnotes where necessary to make a fair financial presentation: ( a ) *Form MA-172:* Not later than 120 days after the close of the Contractor's semiannual accounting period, a Form MA-172 on a semiannual basis, in accordance with 46 CFR 232.6; or
( b ) *Financial Statement:* Not later than 120 days after the close of the Contractor's annual accounting period, an audited financial statement in accordance with 46 CFR 232.6 and the most recent vessel operating cost data submitted as part of its EPA, or if not current year data, a Schedule 310 of the MA-172.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2133-0005) [70 FR 55588, Sept. 22, 2005, as amended at 82 FR 56898, Dec. 1, 2017]
#### The State ex rel. Warren, Appellant, *v.*Warner, Court Administrator, et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Warren v. Warner*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 432.]

(No. 98-1705

Submitted December 15, 1998

Decided February 10, 1999.)

*Frank Warren, pro se.*

*Robert D. Horowitz,*Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Scott R. Peipho,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Warren asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the following reasons, however, we find Warren’s claims to be meritless.

*433First, Warren erroneously based his written records requests to appellees on the FOIA. The FOIA does not apply to state agencies or officers. *State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 582, 669 N.E.2d 835, 838; Sections 551(1) and 552(f), Title 5, U.S.Code.

Second, to the extent that Warren had already been provided some of the requested records, his mandamus claim was moot. *State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537; cf., also, *State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 326, 691 N.E.2d 275, 276, noting that “[o]nly one copy of [a] transcript of [a] criminal trial need be provided to an indigent criminal defendant.”

Third, appellees had no duty under R.C. 149.43 to create documents to meet Warren’s demands. *State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 37, 42, 693 N.E.2d 789, 793; *State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel*(1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 197, 198, 580 N.E.2d 1085, 1086.

Finally, appellees had no duty to transmit copies of the requested records by mail to Warren. *State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Warren’s mandamus action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### The State ex rel. Navistar International Transportation Corporation, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.; Evans, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Navistar Intematl. Transp. Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 115.]

(No. 98-792

Submitted October 12, 1998

Decided December 9, 1998.)

*Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Elizabeth T. Smith*and *Randall W. Mikes,*for appellee.

*Márchese & Monast, Joseph A. Márchese*and *James P. Monast,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the order of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 28.360 Electrical distribution systems. ( a ) Each electrical distribution system which has a neutral bus or conductor must have the neutral bus or conductor grounded.
( b ) A grounded electrical distribution system must have only one connection to ground. This ground connection must be at the switchboard or, on a nonmetallic vessel, at the common ground point.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending December 1, 2007

|Filer                                  | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                 
|-------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|NORTH SIDE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE | * Branch       | The North Side Bank and Trust Company, Cincinnati, OH to establish a branch at West Road and Harrison Avenue, Harrison, OH. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                             | Not available 
|Federal Register:                      | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23-A



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No.33-32805 and No. 33-32970 of Zila, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration 
Statements No. 33-46239, No. 333-06019, No. 333-00645 and No. 333-31651 of 
Zila, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated October 28, 1997 appearing in this
Annual Report of Form 10-K of Zila, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 1997.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

October 28, 1997
§ 47.100 Purpose. ( a ) The purpose of the regulations in this part is to set forth simplified alternative marking schemes for those vessels operating in more than one service. Operating requirements for a given vessel could vary depending on the service, the season of the year, stability requirements, manning requirements and tonnage requirements. The conditions of assignment, restrictions applicable, form of the certificate and the load line marks are described.
#### FRANK RUTHENBECK, PROSECUTOR, v. FIRST CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERGEN COUNTY, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the prosecutor, *Herman Greenstone (Paul Uittenberg,*of counsel).

Eor the respondents, *A. C. Hart.*

Per Curiam.

The prosecutor was convicted of violating an ordinance of the borough of Bergenfield, which ordinance provides that “no person shall utter any loud, profane, indecent, lewd, abuse or offensive language in any public place.”

Twenty-two reasons are urged for reversal, one of which is in substance that the record does not show that there was any violation of any valid ordinance of the borough.

The complaint against the prosecutor was that “he did in the police headquarters of the borough, a public building, in a loud and offensive tone say to the deponent, “you big muttonhead, do you think you are a czar around here ?”

Section 28 of the Borough act of 1897 as amended in 1900, page 401, empowers the borough council to “pass ordinances *970to restrain or punish indecent or -disorderly conduct.” To constitute one a disorderly person in the use of language, under the Disorderly Persons act *(Comp. 8tat., p.*1927), is indicated by section 3 to the effect that “any person loitering in * * * public places * * * who shall indulge in and utter loud, offensive or indecent language shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person.”

We think that the Borough act above quoted, and the ordinance in so far as it was a valid exercise of legislative authority by the council, did not contemplate the use of language of which the prosecutor was found guilty. The person to whom the language was addressed seems to have been a member of the police department, at the time acting as clerk of the court and receiving fines in an office apart from the court room.

A muttonhead as defined by the dictionaries is a dull, heavy and uninteresting person. That the dignity of the clerk may have been ruffled by the language addressed to him is possible, but that it was indecent or disorderly as defined by the legislative power conferred on the borough council we think is not established. It is not every trivial epithet addressed by one person to another, even in the office of the clerk of the recorder’s court and to a police officer doing desk duty there, that constitutes disorderly conduct.

The conviction is set aside.
#### § 50.10-15 Marine inspector or inspector.

The term *marine inspector* or *inspector* means any person from the civilian or military branch of the Coast Guard assigned under the superintendence and direction of an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, or any other person as may be designated for the performance of duties with respect to the inspections, enforcement and the administration of Subtitle II, Title, 46, U.S. Code, Title 46 and Title 33, U.S. Code, and regulations under these statutes.

[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18808, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51200, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2012138EN.01001001.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/10

---

Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-148/12)

(2012/C 138/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways, (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways, (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | impose upon the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2008/110/EC at the daily rate of EUR 148 094,1, payable to the European Union’s own resources account; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2008/110/EC at the daily rate of EUR 148 094,1, payable to the European Union’s own resources account;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 24 December 2010.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 345, p. 62.

---
§ 179.15 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* It is also available for inspection at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-2), Attn: Naval Architecture Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available from the sources listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, + 44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org/ .* ( 1 ) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1974, As Amended (IMO Res. MSC.216(82)), Adopted on 8 December 2006, IBR approved for § 179.212.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78091, Dec. 14, 2010, as amended by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60164, Sept. 30, 2013]