alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 5, 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”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. (“PXI Systems”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were                           ( print page 69673)                        filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Guangzhou VPS Technology Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

Also, Millimeter Wave Systems, LLC, Amherst, MA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.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 PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems 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 March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 6, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 2023 (88 FR 16460).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-22258 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          65,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,196
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 293,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          467,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,973,799
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,468,377)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   293,674
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,594
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  353,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (175,497)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (175,497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (175,497)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 115

Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response to the President’s

call for a national dialogue on race.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. JOHNSON) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response

to the President’s call for a national dialogue on race.

Whereas the President has called for a national dialogue on

race;

Whereas an appropriate way to meet the President’s challenge is to establish a National Day of Unity when all

Americans can celebrate their common heritage and

shared destiny;

Whereas such a day would be a means to build a bridge that

would finally cross the racial and other divides of our Nation and to achieve the unity our Nation desires and

needs; and

Whereas no particular day can close all divisions within our

Nation, but by coming together on a National Day of
2

•SRES 115 IS

Unity, we can focus the dialogue the President seeks, and

that the Nation needs: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That a National Day of Unity should be

2 established in order to facilitate a national dialogue to en3 courage Americans to renew their commitment to liberty

4 and justice for all and to celebrate our unity.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., a
company duly formed under the laws of Colorado (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(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.



November 14, 2008                      /s/ Mark A. Smith
                                       Mark A. Smith
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HUBER SABALSA-ZARATE,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-220M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 4, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant is a native and citizen of Mexico. There is no information available

regarding any family ties to this community or to the Western District of Washington.

(2) A detainer has been placed on defendant by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement.

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, due to the immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

Case 2:06-cr-00151-MJP Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00151-MJP Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 8,247. •

#### LENOX et al. v. WILSON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 170.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1804.2

Conflict of Laws — Notes and Bills — Lex Loci Contractus. •

The indorser at Alexandria, of a foreign bill of exchange, to a merchant in New York, is only liable for damages according to the law in force in Alexandria.

[See Bank of Illinois v. Brady, Case No. 888.]

[NOTE. This case, upon error, in the supreme court, was reversed, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion of the court, in which he held that under the Virginia statute the charges of protest constituted an essential part of the debt, and should be set out in amount in the declaration. The declaration in this case declared for the charges of protest, but did not give the amount. Upon this ground — that the declaration does not state the demand with certainty — the judgment was reversed. 1 Cranch (5 U. S.) 194.]

Mr. Simms, for plaintiff.

E. J. Lee and C. Lee, for defendant

2

 [Reversed in 1 Cranch (5 U. S.) 194.]

This was an action by the holder against the indorser of a- foreign bill of exchange, indorsed by the defendant' [William Wilson], in Alexandria (where the damages fixed by law áre ten per cent.), to the plaintiff [Lenox & Maitland), who resided in New. York, where the damages were fixed by law at twenty per cent. The jury gave their verdict for the New York damages.

A motion by the defendant for a new trial, on the ground of excessive damages, was overruled by THE COURT, on the plaintiffs’ releasing the difference, which was about 444 dollars.
Exhibit 10.2 


 


mPhase Technologies, Inc.


688 New Dorp Lane,


Staten Island, New York 10306-4933


 


April 3, 2018


 


Scepter Commodities, LLC


9841 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 390


Gaithersburg, MD 20878


 


Attention: Anshu Bhatnagar


 


Re:       Amendment
No. 2 to Letter of Intent (“LOI”)


 


Dear Anshu:


 


This Amendment No. 2 (the
“Amendment”) to our LOI Intent dated December 29, 2017, as amended on February 15, 2018, hereby amends the LOI as follows:


 


1.       The
date on or before which we, mPhase Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) will complete its outstanding reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) shall be April 30, 2018


 


2.       All
other terms shall remain intact.


 


  


 


THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK


SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW


 



    	 		 



     


    




 


Please indicate your acceptance of the terms outlined in this Amendment.


 


Sincerely,


 


	/s/ Martin Smiley	 


Martin Smiley


CFO and General Counsel of mPhase Technologies, Inc.


on behalf of the Sellers.


 


	/s/ Ronald Durando	 	ACCEPED AND AGREED TO
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Anshu Bhatnagar
	 	 	 
	Ronald Durando	 	Anshu Bhatnagar
	President and CEO	 	Scepter Commodities LLC
	mPhase Technologies, Inc.
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) FINDINGS AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF 

JUDGMENT- 1 

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 

Two Union Square, Suite 4100 (98101-2380) 

Mail Address: P.O. Box 21926 

Seattle, Washington 98111-3926 

(206) 628-6600 

 1864131.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Hon. Franklin D. Burgess 

June 13, 2006 

WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

JESSICA ANDERSON, CRYSTAL 

ARMSTRONG a/k/a CRYSTAL GENDRON, 

IVELICE CRUZ, LEEANNA GALLOWAY, 

SHANIKA MOORE, CHERYL SOUTH, 

PAMELA VAN NESS, LOUANNE 

WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, ETON EDUCATION, INC., a 

Washington corporation d/b/a BRYMAN 

COLLEGE, TIMOTHY ALLEN and GARY 

McMILLION, Washington State residents, 

 Defendants. 

NO. CV06-5157FDB 

FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) FINDINGS AND 

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 

June 13, 2006

CLERK’S ACTION REQUIRED 

 

 THIS MATTER having come on before the Honorable Franklin D. Burgess on 

Defendants Timothy Allen and Gary McMillion’s Request for Entry of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) 

Findings and Judgment, and the Court having considered the pleadings submitted herein, now, 

therefore: 

Case 3:06-cv-05157-FDB Document 35 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 2
FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) FINDINGS AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF 

JUDGMENT- 2 

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 

Two Union Square, Suite 4100 (98101-2380) 

Mail Address: P.O. Box 21926 

Seattle, Washington 98111-3926 

(206) 628-6600 

 1864131.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Defendants’ Request 

is proper and it is further, 

 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there is no just reason for delay of 

entry of final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Timothy Allen and 

Gary McMillion with prejudice; and is it further 

 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Clerk of Court is expressly 

directed to enter a Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Timothy Allen 

and Gary McMillion with prejudice. 

 DONE this 16th day of June 2006. 

 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented By: 

s/Gregory D. Shelton, WSBA #36530

Gregory D. Shelton, WSBA #36530 

Lisa C. Williams, WSBA #35446 

Attorneys for Defendants Corinthian College 

WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 

601 Union Street, Suite 4100 

Seattle, WA 98101-2380 

Telephone: (206) 628-6600 

Fax: (206) 628-6611 

Email: gshelton@wkg.com 

Case 3:06-cv-05157-FDB Document 35 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10545)

#### Hurricane Import Co. (PM) *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 29924; 31473.

(Decided June 24, 1963)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “R” and initialed CE (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner G. Fleischman (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by entry 31473.

2. That as so limited the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *TJniteti, States*v. *GitMn Go.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

3. That at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were equal to the appraised values, less the amounts on the invoices marked “B” in green ink by the Examiner; and that at the time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation.

4. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption before the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

5. That the above-entitled appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On tbe agreed facts and consistent witli the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise *296in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1952 ed. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the amounts on the invoices marked “B” in green ink by the customs examiner. As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries, the appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CALPUFF Modeling Files for AEP Flint Creek

EPA identified a discrepancy in the visibility modeling results presented by AEP and reran the
model for the 2003 model year . The 2003 visibility impact at Can ey Creek for the LNB/OFA
control scenario was adjusted to reflect the results of the EPA model run

Due to the file size of the CALPUFF modeling files, they are not available from the electronic docket. These files are available upon request. Please email your request to: Michael Feldman ( feldman.michael@epa.gov ) or call 214

- 665

- 7200

Thank you
H. Res. 677 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 26, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against the joint resolution and against its consideration are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

The joint resolution shall be considered as read. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 

52 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation 

of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further con- 
2 

•HRES 677 EH 

sideration of the joint resolution to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

SEC. 3. House Resolution 659 is laid upon the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 58717.

protest 126467-K/753 (Chicago).

#### Philip Blum & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *B. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.