alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (188)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,554
<PP&E>                                          14,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,358)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,827
<BONDS>                                        105,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,040
<SALES>                                         18,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,052
<CGS>                                           13,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (634)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8689-8690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3403]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION


Public Meeting

AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission.

ACTIONS: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a public 
meeting on March 14, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is for the 
Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on possible 
recommendations regarding the antitrust laws to Congress and the 
President.

DATES: March 14, 2007, 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. Advanced 
registration is required.

ADDRESSES: Morgan Lewis, Main Conference Room, 1111 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director 
& General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone: (202) 
233-0701; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2cbccc4cde2c3cfc18cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3daddd5dcf3d2ded09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>. Mr. Heimert is also the Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO) for the Antitrust Modernization Commission.
    For Registration: For building security purposes, advanced 
registration is

[[Page 8690]]

required. If you wish to attend the Commission meeting, please provide 
your name by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3ded6d6c7daddd4c0f3d2ded09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b9b1b1a0bdbab3a794b5b9b7fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a> or by calling the Commission 
offices at (202) 233-0701. Please register by 12 noon on March 13, 
2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the 
Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on its report and/or 
recommendations to Congress and the President regarding the antitrust 
laws. The Commission may conduct additional business as necessary. 
Materials relating to the meeting will be made available on the 
Commission's Web site (http://www.amc.gov) in advance of the meeting.
    The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization 
Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, Sec.  11054(f), 116 Stat. 
1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., Sec.  
10(a)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.150 (2005).

    Dated: February 22, 2007.

    By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of the Antitrust 
Modernization Commission.

    Approved by Designated Federal Officer:
Andrew J. Heimert,
Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization 
Commission.

[FR Doc. E7-3403 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 67799.

#### Schick X-Ray Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/19233, 60/14596, and 60/8219 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of injectors and parts, in chief value of metal, similar in all materials respects to those the subject of *Schick X-Ray Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 38, C.D. 2358), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4274 

To require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to place on the No Fly 

List individuals who have supported foreign terrorist organizations, encouraged crimes of violence against Jewish persons, or been disciplined 

by an institution of higher education in relation to such conduct. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2024 

Mr. MARSHALL (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to place 

on the No Fly List individuals who have supported foreign terrorist organizations, encouraged crimes of violence against Jewish persons, or been disciplined by an 

institution of higher education in relation to such conduct. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Flights for Terror5 ists Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4274 IS

1 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT ON NO FLY LIST OF INDIVIDUALS WHO 

2 SUPPORT TERRORISTS. 

3 (a) DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDU4 CATION.—In this section, the term ‘‘institution of higher 

5 education’’ has the meaning given the term in section 102 

6 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). 

7 (b) PLACEMENT ON NO FLY LIST.—The Director of 

8 the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall place on the No 

9 Fly List maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center— 

10 (1) any individual who has openly pledged sup11 port for, or espoused allegiance or affiliation to, any 

12 organization that has been designated as a foreign 

13 terrorist organization by the Secretary of State 

14 under section 219 of the Immigration and Nation15 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), including— 

16 (A) the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 

17 (IRGC); 

18 (B) HAMAS; 

19 (C) the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB); 

20 (D) Hizballah; 

21 (E) Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ); 

22 (F) the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF); 

23 (G) the Popular Front for the Liberation 

24 of Palestine (PFLP); 

25 (H) Kata’ib Hizballah (KH); 

26 (I) the Abdallah Azzam Brigades; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4274 IS

1 (J) the al-Ashtar Brigades; 

2 (2) any individual who solicits, commands, in3 duces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade another 

4 person to engage in a crime of violence against a 

5 Jewish person or the Jewish people because of their 

6 race or religion; 

7 (3) any student enrolled at an institution of 

8 higher education who has been the subject of a dis9 ciplinary action by the institution of higher edu10 cation relating to conduct described in paragraph (1) 

11 or (2); and 

12 (4) any professor employed by an institution of 

13 higher education who has been the subject of a dis14 ciplinary action by the institution of higher edu15 cation relating to conduct described in paragraph (1) 

16 or (2). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-57109) ofInternational Aluminum Corporation of our report dated August 22, 2003relating to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report toShareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation byreference of our report dated August 22, 2003 relating to the financialstatement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Los Angeles, California

September 19, 2003

 

----
No. 51679.

#### Protests 121833-K, etc., of H. W. Brown et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Carlson, Michael CTR (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:47 PM

To: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Documented conversation with KSU - Kurt Carraway

Jake, 

Per our discussion earlier, I attempted to contact the Kansas State University Petitioner and left a voicemail for Mr. Mark 

Blanks who is the UAS Program Manager. 

At 1441 hours on 23 June 2015 my call was returned by Mr. Kurt Carraway who is the UAS Flight Operations Manager at 

Kansas State University. 

The subject of the conversation was the petitioner (Kansas State University's Standard Operating Procedures SOP) and 

the fact that the FAA would like to have it as part of their analysis of the petition because it is referenced in the petition.

The result of the conversation is that Mr. Kurt Carraway will send the SOP which is a confidential document to the 

address which Jake Troutman provided them for their other confidential documents. 

That was the end of the conversation. 

Thanks again for your help with this, 

Mike 

Michael Carlson / SAIC 

UAS Subject Matter Expert III - NexGen Initiatives Support Services Contract 

Flight Technologies and Procedures Division - UAS Integration Office 

Email: michael.CTR.carlson@faa.gov

Direct: 202-651-2441
No. 65470.

#### J. M. Sutton Sons & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28733 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Or der Mot SMJ 8-2 1-03 .wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : NO. 02-4488. 

:

v. :

:

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND :

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of __________, 2003, upon consideration of the Summary

Judgment Motion filed by Defendants SLS, Inc., d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical

Technologies and Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc., and any Response thereto; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s claims

against the moving Defendants are dismissed, with prejudice. 

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

J.

Dated: ____________

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 44-3 Filed 08/25/2003 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 6, 2019

a1203 

# Order

Clerk December 6, 2019

159982

WILLIAM McCALLUM,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159982

COA: 346858

Ingham CC: 17

- 000113

- NH

MID

- MICHIGAN PHYSICIANS, PC,

DR. DOUGLAS VANDERJAGT,

WILLIAM CLARK, PA, and

WILLIAM JORDAN, PA,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On ord er of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2019 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-173-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

Number Name Description

Fatal/Proposed

Analytical Type

Applicable SMAF Attribute

/ Domain Value Left Side Label 

96

Discretionary Gross Outlays From New Authority Versus Discretionary Gross Budget Authority

Discretionary gross outlays from new authority (SF 133 line 4010) should not exceed the discretionary gross budget authority (SF 133 line 4000 minus anticipated amounts). If this instance is caused by a reduction of unobligated balances, submit a GTAS override.

Fatal Period # 11/12

Statement Line / Statement Line TAS Status = U

Discretionary gross ofrom new authority

97

Mandatory Gross Outlays From New Authority Versus Mandatory Gross Budget Authority

Mandatory gross outlays from new authority (SF 133 line 4100) should not exceed the mandatory gross budget authority (SF 133 line 4090 minus anticipated amounts). If this instance is caused by a reduction of unobligated balances, submit a GTAS override.

Fatal Period # 10/11/12

Statement Line / Statement Line TAS Status = U

Mandatory gross outlfrom new authority

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Summary Report

Bulletin No. 2019-02 DRAFT VII ESR - 1
EXHIBIT 23.2

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS







We hereby consent to all references to Ryder Scott Company, L.P. in Alliant
Energy Corporation's Form 10-K and to the incorporation by reference into
Alliant Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-41485, 333-46735, 333-51126 and 333-92783) and Form S-3 (Nos.
333-26627, 333-65674 and 333-70964).



                               /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
                               -----------------------------
                                    Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

March 19, 2002
EXHIBIT 99.2





        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
              OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Steven C. Preston, the chief financial officer of The ServiceMaster  Company,
certify that that (i) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended
June 30, 2002, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information  contained in such Form
10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.








                                                   /s/Steven C. Preston
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                                     Steven C. Preston
                                                     August 13, 2002





                                       26
<PAGE>
No. 66802.

#### Heeksuede, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/27315 and 60/27363 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**January 29, 2014**

Mr . Jason Cabot 388 Beale Street, Ap artment 1407 San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mr. Cabot :

This is in response to your September 4 , 2013 letter sent to the public docket (N o. FAA

2013

- 0784 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration to amend § 9 9.7 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. The petition for rulemaking would amend this section by providing that a pilot does not violat e the security instructions issued by the

Administrator pursuant to this section if an individual operat e s within a temporary flight restricted (TFR) area and the exist ence of the TFR was not disclosed to the pilot during a briefing from the F light S tandards S ervice or other authorized source.

You also request a c larification to Flight Data Center ( FDC ) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)

9/5151 1 , which provides notice of t emporary flight restrictions that are implemented for certain sporting events.

When the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements

contained in 14 CFR part 11 . In acco rdance with § 11.73, the FAA uses the following

criteria in making a decision whether to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or security concerns the petition raises; 2) the priority of other FAA issues; and 3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

The FAA has a priority list for rulemaking that addresses many issues that are critical to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public. The FAA must prioritize its

limited ru lemaking resources so as to deliver the most value to the aviation system as a whole. Although the issues raised in your petition may have merit, they do not address an immediate safety concern.

1 NOTAM 9/515 1 contains flight restrictions mandated in section 352 of Public Law 108

- 7, as amended by

section 521 of Public Law 108

- 199, concerning flights in the vicinity of certain sporting events.2

We agree with your assessment that the phrase “effective and champ series races excluding qualifying and pre

- race events” in NOTAM 9/5151 is incomplete and confusing. We have

raised this issue with the appropriate offices and discussions have begun to address the

concern.

For the reason above, we deny your p etition for rulemaking in accordance with § 11.73. Although the FAA has decided to deny the request, your comments and reasons for a rule change will be considered if the agency undertakes future rulemaking in this area

. Accor dingly, Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0784 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Franklin A. Black Deputy Director, Airspace Services
Before the Third Division,

March 27, 1946

No. 50962.

#### Protests 111612-K, etc., of L. E. Kriener-Hopkins (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-4988

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 2011, upon consideration of the motion of Lori

Hamlin and Nancy Mayo for an injunction and/or to hold Mark Jackson in contempt, see

Docket No. 260, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

M. Faith Angell, to which Hamlin and Mayo have not objected, it is hereby ORDERED

that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 264) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED.

2. Lori Hamlin and Nancy Mayo’s motion for an injunction and/or to hold Mark

Jackson in contempt (Docket No. 260) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

POLLAK, J.
EXHIBIT 10.2


AMENDMENT TO THE


KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN












The KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, effective as of July 7, 2012, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended to increase the number of shares of Stock authorized for issuance under the Plan by 3,000,000 shares, effective September 13, 2016, as follows:








		1.	Section 3.1 of the Plan, captioned Basic Limitation, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:










Common Shares issued pursuant to the Plan may be authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.  The aggregate number of Common Shares1 issued under the Plan shall not exceed 3,810,498. Such number consists of (a) 140,391 Common Shares initially reserved under the Plan; (b) 133,371 Common Shares reserved under the Predecessor Plan that were not issued or subject to outstanding awards on the Registration Date plus Common Shares subject to outstanding awards under the Predecessor Plan that subsequently expired or lapsed unexercised, or were forfeited to or repurchased by the Company; (c) an aggregate of 224,236 Common Shares added on the first business day in 2013, 2014, and 2015 pursuant to an automatic share increase provision; (d) an additional 312,500 Common Shares approved by the stockholders at the 2015 Annual Meeting; and (e) an additional 3,000,000 Common Shares approved by the Board on September 13, 2016.  The number of Common Shares that are subject to Stock Awards outstanding at any time under the Plan may not exceed the number of Common Shares that then remain available for issuance under the Plan.  The numerical limitations in this Article 3.1 shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to Article 9.








		2.	Section 3.5(a) of the Plan, captioned Plan Limits, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:










The maximum aggregate number of Common Shares subject to Options and SARs that may be granted under this Plan during any calendar year to any one Participant shall not exceed 1,100,000, except that the Company may grant to a new Employee in the calendar year in which his or her Service as an Employee first commences Options and/or SARs that cover (in the aggregate) up to an additional 1,100,000 Common Shares.








		3.	Except as amended above, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.










[Signature page follows]


 




                                                      

1          For the avoidance of doubt, all share numbers have been adjusted to reflect the 1-for-3.56147 reverse split of the Common Shares effected on January 15, 2013, and the 1-for-8 reverse split of the Common Shares effected on July 13, 2015.


 











 


This Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.


 


 



	 	
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
		
By: 

	
/s/ Cameron Durrant, M.D.

	 
	 	
Name:  

	
Cameron Durrant, M.D.

	 
	 	
Title:

	
Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 	 	 	 





 


 


 


 


 


 


[Signature page to Amendment to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan]