alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.223 Petition for reconsideration. ( a ) Any person aggrieved by a determination under § 107.221 may file a petition for reconsideration. The petition must be filed with the Chief Counsel, in the same manner specified for filing an application in § 107.215(b), within 20 days of publication of the determination in the Federal Register.
( b ) The petition must contain a concise statement of the basis for seeking review, including any specific factual or legal error alleged. If the petition requests consideration of information that was not previously made available to the Chief Counsel, the petition must include the reasons why such information was not previously made available.
( c ) The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to each person who participated, either as an applicant or commenter, in the waiver of preemption proceeding, accompanied by a statement that the person may submit comments concerning the petition to the Chief Counsel within 20 days. The petition filed with the Chief Counsel must contain a certification that the petitioner has complied with this paragraph and include the names and addresses of all persons to whom a copy of the petition was sent. Late-filed comments are considered so far as practicable.
( d ) The Chief Counsel will publish the decision on the petition for reconsideration or notice of the decision in the Federal Register, at which time the decision on the petition for reconsideration becomes a final agency action.
[Amdt. 107-25, 57 FR 20429, May 13, 1992, as amended by Amdt. 107-38, 61 FR 21099, May 9, 1996; 71 FR 30068, May 25, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,143,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  412,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      40,808,464
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,889,055)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,996,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     25,356,989
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,996,783
<SALES>                                      4,663,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,973,740
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,268,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,263,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,441,409
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,441,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.

                    You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

[FR Doc. 07-3138

Billing code 4710-10
#### WALTER D. GREEN, Appellant, *v.*THE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF CANANDAIGUA, Respondents.

*Costs*— *when a claim of title to real property a/i~ises upon the pleadings*— *Code of Civil Procedure, see.*3298.

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, entered in Ontario county, directing a retaxation of the plaintiff’s bill of costs, and that the same be struck out and disallowed.

The court at General Term said: “ This action was brought to recover damages which the plaintiff claims to have sustained by reason of the overflow and discharge of a sewer upon the lands of the plaintiff. Upon the trial the plaintiff recovered a verdict of six cents damages. The question presented is as to his right to recover costs. Section 3228 of the Code provides: ‘ The plaintiff is entitled to costs, of course, upon the rendering of a final judgment in his favor in either of the following actions: First. An action triable *307by a jury, * * * in which a claim of title to real property arises upon the pleadings, or is certified to have come in question; upon the trial.’ It will be observed from the language quoted, thatthei’e are two cases provided for. One in which the claim of title to real property arises upon the pleadings; the other where it is certified, to have come in question upon the trial. No certificate is filed in this ease, and we have only to inquire as to whether a claim of title arises upon the pleadings. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate described therein; that the defendant constructed a covered sewer in and through the village, into which flows the surface water from the streets of the village, with other highly offensive deleterious matter, and that the entire contents of the sewer are thrown upon the premises of the plaintiff, causing a nuisance and damaging his property, by which he has suffered great damage. The answer admits that the defendant is a municipal corporation, denies all the other allegations of the complaint, and sets up a defense that the alleged sewer is a natural water course, and that the village has used it for upwards of thirty years, and claims title adverse to the plaintiff. The case of *Kelly*v. *The New York and Manhattan JBeaeh Hallway Company*(reported in 81 N. V., 233), was an action for trespass upon lands. The complaint alleged title and possession in the plaintiff. The defendant unlawfully entered upon the lands and deposited thereon large quantities of earth, sand and rubbish, for which the plaintiff claimed damages. The answer, among other things, specifically alleged that the plaintiff wás not and is not the owner in fee or in possession of the premises. In that case it was held that the title to real estate arose upon the pleadings, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs, notwithstanding he had not recovered the amount of fifty dollars. This case appears to us to be in point and controlling upon the question.” * * *

*K. C. Beeman,*for the appellant.

*Chas. H.*Paddock, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Hardin, J., concurred; Smith, P. J.f, not voting.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 99.2(iv)


[CHASE LOGO]
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation
3415 Vision Drive
Columbus, OH  43219
1-800-848-9136 Customer Service
1-800-582-0542 TDD / Text Telephone

                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                      CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION
                    MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE 2001-S4


Pursuant to Section 5.25 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated August 1,
2001 between Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation, Depositor, Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corporation, Servicer and Citibank, N.A., Trustee, Chase Manhattan
Mortgage Corporation hereby provides the following Officers' Certificate:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of performance under the related Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been made; and

(ii) to the best of such Servicing Officer's knowledge, based on such review,
the Servicer has performed and fulfilled its duties, responsibilities and
obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year,
or, if there has been a default in the fulfillment of any such duties,
responsibilities or obligations, specifying each such default known to such
Servicing Officer and the nature and status thereof,




/s/ Lucy P. Gambino                         /s/ Susan Christman
---------------------------                 -----------------------------------
Lucy P. Gambino                             Susan Christman
Vice President                              Assistant Treasurer





Certified March 6, 2002

31B
[Civ. No. 15293.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

Sept. 4, 1946.]

#### THE PHOTOCHART et al., Respondents, v. LORENZO DEL RICCIO, Appellant.

B. E. Ahlport and Caryl Warner for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondents.

WILSON, J.

By an agreement in writing dated June 25, 1941, appellant, as licensor, granted to respondents an exclusive license to use a patented device known as “photo-chart” or “photochart camera” for photographing the results or finishes of horse races and other forms of racing for a period of 17 years, upon the payment of royalties in the amounts stated in the agreement. Appellant agreed that he would not compete with respondents for a period of five years after the date of the agreement.

In their complaint, which was filed on October 11, 1945, respondents alleged that appellant was doing and threatening to do various acts which, in violation of the agreement, would be in competition with respondents’ activities in the use of the device at race tracks throughout the world.

Upon respondents’ application, and after a hearing at which affidavits were presented by both parties, the court issued a preliminary injunction on November 16, 1945, restraining ap*907pellant “pending the final determination of this action” from doing any of the acts complained of by respondents, from which order defendant has appealed. No brief has been filed nor appearance made upon this appeal by respondents.

Since, by the terms of the agreement, appellant was not prohibited from competing with respondents after June 25, 1946, the order enjoining the acts detailed in the complaint for the indefinite period until “the final determination” of the action was beyond the power of the court. The term during which respondents were entitled to be safeguarded against competition having expired they are no longer entitled to the protection of the order.

The order granting the preliminary injunction is reversed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

This Amendment (the “Second Amendment”) is made as of May 24th, 2011 by and between
Mabtech AB, whose registered office is at Augustendalsvägen 19, SE-131 28, Nacka Strand, Sweden, hereinafter referred to as “Seller” or “Mabtech” and Oxford lmmunotec Limited, whose registered office is at 94C
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4RY, UK, hereinafter referred to as “Buyer” or “OI”. 
 WHEREAS: 

 

	 	A.	The parties entered in to a manufacturing agreement dated 26th August 2003 (the “Original Manufacturing Agreement”), which was amended as of 1st January 2010 (singly the “First Amendment” and collectively with the Original Manufacturing Agreement, the “Manufacturing Agreement”). 


 

	 	B.	The parties have agreed to extend the term of the Manufacturing Agreement for an additional period. 

 NOW,
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Definitions 

  

	 	1.1	The terms defined in the Manufacturing Agreement shall have the same meaning in this Amendment, unless otherwise expressly agreed in this Amendment. 


 

	 	2.	Amendments 

  

	 	2.1	Section 17 of the Manufacturing Agreement is hereby replaced with the following wording: 


“This Agreement shall remain in effect through 31st December 2016 provided that
this Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time by giving immediate written notice to the other in the event of: 
  

	 	(i)	A breach of any of its material terms by the other party and such breach not having been remedied with 60 (sixty) days of receiving written notice to do so; 


 

	 	(ii)	The liquidation or insolvency of or the filing of bankruptcy proceedings by the other except as part of a bona fide scheme for reconstitution or amalgamation; or 


 

	 	(iii)	Either party ceasing to trade”. 

  

	 	2.2	A new section, Section 19 is added to the Manufacturing Agreement, as follows: 


“Section 19: Neither party to this Manufacturing Agreement shall have the right to assign or transfer any obligations or benefit under
this Manufacturing Agreement without the written consent of the other, save that either party may at its option assign the benefit or 







 
obligations to any of its Affiliates or to any corporation or other entity with which such party may merge or consolidate, and/or to any corporation or other entity to which such party may
transfer all or substantially all of such party’s assets”. 
  

	 	3.	Miscellaneous 

  

	 	3.1	This Amendment shall constitute an integrated part of the Manufacturing Agreement and all the other provisions not amended in this Amendment shall remain effective. 


 

	 	3.2	This Amendment shall become effective upon its execution by both parties. 

 This Amendment has been executed in
two (2) copies, of which each party has taken one. 
  

									
	MABTECH AB	  	OXFORD IMMUNOTEC LIMITED	  	
					
	By:	  	/s/ Staffan Paulie	  	By:	  	/s/Peter Wrighton-
Smith	  	
					
	Name:	  	Staffan Paulie	  	Name:	  	Dr. Peter Wrighton-
Smith	  	
					
	Title:	  	CEO	  	Title:	  	CEO	  	
					
	Date:	  	June 7, 2011	  	Date:	  	25th May 2011	  	


  
 Page 2 of 2
98-1910.

#### Van Auken Properties, Inc. v. Tracy.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-R-1595. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal ¡from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
§ 76.15-15 Piping. ( a ) The piping, valves, and fittings shall have a bursting pressure of not less than 6,000 p.s.i.
( b ) All piping, in nominal sizes not over 3 ⁄ 4 inch, shall be at least Schedule 40 (standard weight), and in nominal sizes over 3 ⁄ 4 inch, shall be at least Schedule 80 (extra heavy).
( c ) All piping, valves, and fittings of ferrous materials shall be protected inside and outside against corrosion unless specifically approved otherwise by the Commandant.
( d ) A pressure relief valve or equivalent set to relieve between 2,400 and 2,800 p.s.i. shall be installed in the distributing manifold or such other location as to protect the piping in the event that all branch line shut-off valves are closed.
( e ) All dead end lines shall extend at least 2 inches beyond the last orifice and shall be closed with cap or plug.
( f ) All piping, valves, and fittings shall be securely supported, and where necessary, protected against injury.
( g ) Drains and dirt traps shall be fitted where necessary to prevent the accumulation of dirt or moisture. Drains and dirt traps shall be located in accessible locations where possible.
( h ) Piping shall be used for no other purpose except that it may be incorporated with the fire detecting system.
( i ) Piping passing through living quarters shall not be fitted with drains or other openings within such spaces.
( j ) Installation test requirements: ( 1 ) Upon completion of the piping installation, and before the cylinders are connected, a pressure test shall be applied as set forth in this paragraph. Only carbon dioxide or other inert gas shall be used for this test.
( 2 ) The piping from the cylinders to the stop valves in the manifold shall be subjected to a pressure of 1,000 p.s.i. With no additional gas being introduced to the system, it shall be demonstrated that the leakage of the system is such as not to permit a pressure drop of more than 150 p.s.i. per minute for a 2-minute period.
( 3 ) The individual branch lines to the various spaces protected shall be subjected to a test similar to that described in the preceding paragraph with the exception that the pressure used shall be 600 p.s.i. in lieu of 1,000 p.s.i. For the purpose of this test, the distribution piping shall be capped within the space protected at the first joint ahead of the nozzles.
( 4 ) In lieu of the tests prescribed in the preceding paragraphs in this section, small independent systems protecting spaces such as emergency generator rooms, lamp lockers, etc., may be tested by blowing out the piping with air at a pressure of at least 100 p.s.i.
Exhibit
10.10


REGEN
BIO PHARMA INC.


A
wholly owned subsidiary of Bio matrix Scientific Group, Inc.


 


 


May 16,
2012


 


Dr. David
James Graham White


The Schulic
School of Medicine


University
of Western Ontario


The Siebens
Drake Centre


1400 Western
Road


London Ontario


Canada N6G
2V4


 


Dear Dr.
White


 


This letter
is a follow up to our previous discussion about the Scientific Advisory Board for Regen BioPharma, Inc (a wholly owned subsidiary
of Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.).


 


The function
of the Scientific Advisory Board is to review research directions that Regen BioPharma, Inc.  may undertake, determining
those projects which may lead to future developments/advancements in the field of stem cell therapy. Other areas may be pursued
as well, with advice from this advisory board.


 


You will
receive 200,000 shares of Bio Matrix Common Stock as consideration for participating in telephonic calls/conference calls and
serving on Regen BioPharma, Inc.’s Scientific Advisory Board. The frequency and timing of such calls will be established
on a mutually agreeable basis.


 


It is anticipated
that members of the Scientific Advisory Board will potentially serve as primary research consultants to the Company as such projects
are undertaken. Compensation for such projects will be either at the rate of $500 per hour or negotiated separately on a case-by-case
basis between the Company and the researcher.


 


Thank You
for your consideration


 


   /s/ David
R. Koos                                      


David R.
Koos


Chairman
and CEO


 




 


P.S.: Please
sign this letter in your acceptance and fax back to me at 619-330-2328. Any usage of your name in any press releases will be submitted
to you for review and comment before being released to the public.


 


   /s/ Dr.
David James Graham White          


Dr. David
James Graham White


(date: 5/20/2012)
§ 1017.5 Hearing procedures. ( a ) Upon the Administrative Law Judge's determination of an employee's compliance with §§ 1017.4(b)(8) or 1017.4(c)(7) of this part, whichever is applicable, he/she shall set the time, date, and location for the hearing, paying due consideration to convenience to the employee.
( b ) All significant matters discussed at the hearing shall be documented, although a verbatim transcript of the hearing shall not be made.
( c ) The Administrative Law Judge may exclude any evidence he/she deems irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.
( d ) Any party to a hearing under these regulations is entitled to present his or her case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( e ) The Board has the initial burden of proof as to the existence and amount of the debt.
( f ) The employee requesting the hearing shall bear the ultimate burden of proof.
( g ) The evidence presented by the employee must prove that no debt exists or cast sufficient doubt that reasonable minds could differ as to the existence or amount of the debt.
( h ) Where the employee files a petition for a hearing contesting the offset schedule imposed by the Board, the Administrative Law Judge shall take into consideration all relevant factors as to the employee's financial situation in determining whether said offset schedule should be altered.
( i ) Any party to a hearing under these regulations is entitled to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel, as well as to appear in person or by or with counsel.
( j ) The Administrative Law Judge shall issue a final written decision at the earliest practicable date, but not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition requesting the hearing, as stated in § 1017.4(b)(10) or § 1017.4(c)(9) of this part, whichever is applicable.
<PAGE>
                    [Letterhead of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu]

                                                                 Exhibit 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-73954, 333-27761, 333-58466, and 333-76940 of Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. on
Form S-8 and on Registration Statements No. 333-58468 of Nam Tai Electronics,
Inc. on Form F-3, of our report dated March 15, 2002, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2002.


/s/  Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Hong Kong
February 28, 2003
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending November 27, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
Appendix B 

EPA Guidance Document 

“Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas”