alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,856.

#### UNITED STATES v. COOKENDORFER.

[5 Cranch. C. C. 113.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1837.

Recognizance—Forfeiture—How Remitted.

After the term in which a recognizance has-, been forfeited, in a criminal case, the court cannot remit the forfeiture: but. the president of the United States can. under the act of congress-of the 17th of June, 1812 [2 Stat. 752],

Sciro facias on a recognizance dated January 12th, 1S35, in the sum of $1,000, to be-paid if Francis Dixon should not appear on the 13th of January, 1835. or should depart from the court without its leave. The recognizance was respited till March term.. IS35. and from that term till November term,. 1535. when Dixon was called, and, not appearing, his default, and that of liis surety,, the defendant [Thomas Cookendorfer], were-entered of record, and this scire facias was-issued thereon returnable to March term, 1536. A new capias was also issued against Dixon, returnable to the same term, and was returned non est. Neither the scire facias; nor the recognizance states the offence with, which Dixon was charged, or for which he-was arrested; nor does it appear upon the-record in this case.

Mr. Dandridge. for defendant,

moved the-court to discharge the parties, principal and. bail, from the obligation of this recognizance; and contended that this court has the-same power to remit the forfeiture that the-court of exchequer has in England. The-ground of the motion is that since the forfeiture. the indictment, for the offences with-which Dixon was charged, has been quashed1 by the court for the reasons stated in U. S. *619v. Cooly [Case No. 14,859], at March term, 1830, which fact was conceded by the district attorney.

Mr. Dandridge.

cited Davidson v. Taylor, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] (304; Rex v. Tomb. 10 Mod. 278; Belither v. *Gibbs, 4 Burrows, 2118; Rex r. Spencer, 1 Wils. 315; 3 Petersd. Abr. 251. 356; Act Md. 1782, c. 42, § 2; Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. [34 U. S.] 35S. See, also. 1 Chit. Cr. Law. 300-303.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(MORSELL. Circuit .Tudge,

contra) was of opinion that after the term in which a recognizance has been forfeited, in a criminal case, they have no power to remit the forfeiture, and overruled Mr. Dan-dridge’s motion, but recommended the case to the consideration of the president of the United States, who made this indorsement on the petition: “The indictment having been quashed, the recognizance ought not to be ■ enforced. On that sole ground the remission is directed on payment of costs. M. V. B.”
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 752 

Honoring the life and expressing condolences of the House of Representatives 

on the passing of the Honorable Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., former United 

States Congressman. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 2007 

Mr. MCCRERY (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BAKER, 

Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. JINDAL, and Mr. MELANCON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and expressing condolences of the House 

of Representatives on the passing of the Honorable Joe 

D. Waggonner, Jr., former United States Congressman. 

Whereas Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. was born on September 7, 

1918, near Plain Dealing, Louisiana; 

Whereas Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. graduated from Plain Dealing High School and Louisiana Tech University; 

Whereas Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. was a distinguished veteran 

who served in the United States Navy during— 

(1) World War II, attaining the rank of lieutenant 

commander; and 

(2) the Korean war; 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 752 IH 

Whereas Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. was elected to serve in the 

House of Representatives through a special election in 

1961 and served for nine terms; 

Whereas during his tenure in the House of Representatives, 

Congressman Waggonner served on several important 

congressional committees, including the Committee on 

Science and Astronautics, the Committee on House Administration, and the Committee on Ways and Means; 

Whereas during his 18 years of service as a member of Congress, Congressman Waggonner worked to improve conditions in northwest Louisiana, including by— 

(1) playing an instrumental role in planning for and 

securing funding for Interstate Route 49; 

(2) securing funding for the Bert Kouns Industrial 

Loop and the Inner Loop Expressway in the vicinity of 

Shreveport, Louisiana; and 

(3) working to develop the Red River for navigation; 

and 

Whereas Congressman Waggonner remained active in public 

service after his retirement from the House of Representatives in 1979, including by serving as— 

(1) Chairman and President Emeritus of the Greater Bossier Economic Foundation; and 

(2) a member of President Reagan’s National Commission on Social Security Reform: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors the life and accomplishments of the 

3 Honorable Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., former United 

4 States Congressman; and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 752 IH 

1 (2) expresses its condolences to his family and 

2 the people of the State of Louisiana at his passing. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69671-69672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Integrated Photonics Institute for 
Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American 
Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 1, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Integrated

[[Page 69672]]

Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the 
name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics 
(``AIM Photonics'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 
Laurel, MD; Nonlinear Materials Corporation (dba NLM Photonics), 
Seattle, WA; and Trustees of Boston University, Boston, MA, have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 10, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38533).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22247 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 4.1
Number                                                                    Shares





               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
                             NUOASIS LAUGHLIN, INC.
                     AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE 100,000,000 SHARES

75,000,000 COMMON SHARES                             25,000,000 PREFERRED SHARES
PAR VALUE $0.001 EACH                                      PAR VALUE $0.001 EACH


This Certifies that                                              is the owner of

                                            fully paid and non-assessable Shares

                      of the Common Shares of NUOASIS LAUGLIN, INC.transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly
authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

      In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the
Corporation this                      day of                   A.D.





SECRETARY                                                              PRESIDENT
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 255 Filed 06/05/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 255 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 255 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 3
No. 57462.

#### B. Shackman & Co. and S. Stern Henry & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 156705-K, 165260-K, and 165538-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chinaware miniature tea sets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *B. Shackman & Co.*and *S. Stern Henry*& *Co.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 298, C. D. 1426), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMOTREX CORPORATION'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 3,1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                 86,087
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          20,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,200
<INVENTORY>                                            15,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      245,512
<PP&E>                                                 58,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                         14,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        419,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  40,370
<BONDS>                                               185,777
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  196
<OTHER-SE>                                            119,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          419,909
<SALES>                                                31,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       50,080
<CGS>                                                  20,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          44,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        4,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      4,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (17,172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              652
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (17,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         (3,776)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (21,579)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.16)


</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MAUDO L. FOFANA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1775-RSM

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, all papers and exhibits

in support and in opposition to that petition, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge

Theiler.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01775-RSM Document 33 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 11
                             THERMOTREX CORPORATION

                        Computation of Earnings per Share


                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  December 28,   December 30,
                                                          1996           1995
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Computation of Primary
     Earnings per Share:

   Net Income (a)                                 $ 2,763,000    $14,172,000
                                                  -----------    -----------
   Shares:
     Weighted average shares
       outstanding                                 19,180,949     19,037,141
     Add: Shares issuable from
          assumed exercise of
          options (as determined
          by the application of
          the treasury stock
          method)                                           -        609,086
                                                  -----------    -----------
     Weighted average shares
       outstanding, as
       adjusted (b)                                19,180,949     19,646,227
                                                  -----------    -----------
   Primary Earnings per
     Share (a) / (b)                              $       .14    $       .72
                                                  ===========    ===========
Subject: Conference Call Meeting with Doe Run Company

Date: April 5, 2011

Participants:

Joseph Stolle, Shell Engineering (Consultant)

The Doe Run Company

Bern Johnson

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

U.S. EPA, Region 7

Richard Daye

Dr. Dave Guinnup

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mark Morris

Sharon Nizich

Darcie Smith

Michael Stewart

Veronica Hanzel

RTI International

Mike Laney

Summary:

A conference call was held by risk assessment staff from EPA, The Doe Run Company (Doe 

Run) and the Missouri DNR to discuss in more detail the EPA methods and data used in 

estimating lead impacts from Doe Run in support of the Primary Lead RTR proposal.

Dave Guinnup from EPA provided an overview of what was done in the residual risk modeling 

effort prior to proposal using the Human Exposure Model (HEM) and post processing necessary 

to determine 3-month rolling average concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS. Dr. 

Guinnup indicated that the input files used and a complete description of the methodologies were 

included in the docket. Those files included emissions and source data from the 2008 

Information Collection Request (ICR) response, a description of the site-specific 1998 

meteorological data, and fence line receptor information. 

Dr. Guinnup indicated that a preliminary review of recent information provided by Doe Run 

indicates that the likely source of discrepancy between the EPA RTR modeling results and those 

from the SIP modeling performed by the State and Doe Run was that the 2 model runs used 

different facility fence line information (i.e., the highest receptor location identified in the RTR 

modeling appears to be inside the current property boundary). Other aspects of the modeling 

exercise were discussed including terrain, model run options, and defaults.

 

Doe Run asked if EPA could extend the comment deadline beyond April 19, 2011, to allow Doe 

Run to complete their review of the modeling and provide useful comments. EPA stated that 

they were reviewing this request.

To assist Doe Run in conducting their own modeling, EPA agreed to provide (to Doe Run, the 

State and Region 7) an AERMOD input file with the same input data used to conduct the RTR 

HEM modeling, as well as the 1998 site-specific meteorological file. These files will also be 
added to the docket. EPA requested that a new shape file or at minimum, an updated table of 

fence line coordinates be provided along with any source or emissions data corrections so that 

EPA could consider those data in performing any additional assessment in support of the final 

rule.
# Official Journal L 323/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 323 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6413 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 323

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6413 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | UN Regulation No 141 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to their Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS) (2021/1463) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

UN Regulation No 141 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to their Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS) (2021/1463)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1735

CASSANDRA HARLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUBURBAN HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA03-1694-JFM) Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederic M. Brandes, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant. Teresa Burke Wright, JACKSON LEWIS, L.L.P., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court noted that Harley referred to Title VII in her complaint, but did not allege a claim thereunder. Nevertheless, the elements required to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination are the same under Title VII and § 1981. SeeThompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co. , 312 F.3d 645, 649 n.1 (4th Cir. 2002); Hawkins v. Pepsico, Inc. , 203 F.3d 274, 278 (4th Cir. 2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Cassandra Harley (“Harley”) appeals the order of the district court granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her claim of employment discrimination filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Harley v. Suburban Hosp. Inc. , No. CA-03-1694- JFM (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Fourth Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and
Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services
 st Community Blood
Center, Osteotech, Inc.
 RECITALS
    1.
    
    Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to revise the
fee for each unit of donor Bone Tissue ****** provided by CTS to OTI as
follows.
 Effective Date
    
    Fee7/1/2007
    
    
    $******3/1/2008
    
    
    $******3/1/2009
    
    
    $******3/1/2010
    
    
    $******
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Osteotech, Inc.
    
    
    
    Community Blood Center
d/b/a Community Tissue ServicesBy:
    
    
    
    /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Julia M. BeldenName:
    
    Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Julia M. BeldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    








    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
No. 67589.

#### Advance Brokers, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13565, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish blocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.