alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 23, 2015 

Document Processing Center 

Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Room 54900, One Potomac Yard 

2777 S. Crystal Drive 

Arlington, Virgi nia 22202--1501 

Attention: Mr. Reuben Baris 

Team Leader 25 

MONSANTO ~ 

Subject: MON 78746 Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 524-523; 

Requ est to Voluntarily Ca ncel Registration 

Dear Mr. B<1ris: 

MONSANTO COMPANY 

800 N. LINDBERCH Bl VD . 

Sr LOUIS , MI SSOURI 6)167 

hllp:/ / www.monsanto.com 

MO 787-16 Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 52-1-523, is a p<1ck<1ged mix of the isopropylamine s<1 lt of glyphosa te 

<1nd quizalofop P-ethyl that was g ranted conditiona l registration by the Agency on August 28, 2000. 

Monsanto has never commerciali zed this prod uct <1nd has instead focused on providing newer tools to help 

farmers sust<1inably produce enough food for a growing world. Therefore, in ilccord.mce with the provisions 

set forth at riFRA 6(f)(1) regarding Voluntary Cancellation, Monsa nto requests that the rcg1stmtion of MON 

78746 Herbi cide, EPA Reg . No. 524-523 be canceled. 

Importantly, Monsanto stand s by the sa fety all our products, incl uding MO 787-16 Herbicide, EPA Reg. t o. 

52-l-523. Thb cancelliltio n request is a business decision based on o ur current commercial plans and 

assessment of the marketplace. 

Because this p rod uct was never commercialized, registered for use in any St.1tc in anticipation of il release for 

shipment, or registered fo r any mino r agricultural use, there is no reason to believe that cancellation would 

ad ve rsely nffect minor crop g rowers o r pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, 

according to FIFRA 6(f)(C)(ii), Monsanto requests that the Agency W<li\·e the 180-d<l)' comment period nnd 

rely on a 30-day period followi ng publication of n notice of receipt of this request in the Federal el!i~lcr fo r 

the public to comment. Also, beca use this product was never released into the ch<1nnels of trade,~-~­

provision to ndd ress existing stock is necess<1ry. 

Ii you should have <1ny questions rcgMding this request, p lease contact Dr. James 1 yangulu <1! (202~ 383-

2866, or me directly at (314) 69-1-9035, o r by e lectroni c mnil nt stephen.a.adnms&••monsanto.com. 

Sincerely, 

Regulatory Affairs Mm1ager 

cc: Khue Nguyen I Er ;\ Pesticide Re-eva luation Division 

Dr. ]:1mes 1\:yangulu I Monsanto D.C. Office
No. 62610.

#### Linread Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 281894-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Tutch latches the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Linread Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1939), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

July 28, 1943

No. 48587.

#### Protest 21154-K of Eugene B. Baehr & Sons (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial the respective parties agreed that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of Abstract 47083, which record was incorporated herein. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was therefore sustained.
#### Ann Louisa Gardner and William H. Webb, *Admmistrators, etc., Appellants, v.*Cornelia E. Stevens and others, *Respondents.*

Decree affirmed. Opinion by Brady, J.
Before the Second Division,

May 4, 1961

No. 65575.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 59/31731, 59/31740, and 59/31784 (Galveston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57371.

protest 198885-K (New York).

#### Charmeur Products, Inc., and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ichthyolsulfonate d’ammonium the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *United States*v. *Kachurin Drug Company*(39 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 459), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.71


 


December 31, 2014


 


Stem Cell Cayman Ltd.


c/o Campbells


4th Floor, Scotia Centre


Albert Panton Street


George Town, Grand Cayman


Cayman Islands


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Subscription
Agreements, dated February 10, 2011, November 4, 2011, March 30, 2012 and March 26, 2013 (the “Agreements”), by and
among Stem Cell Cayman Ltd. (“Cayman”), BioRestorative Therapies, Inc. (formerly Stem Cell Assurance, Inc.) (“BioRestorative”)
and Westbury (Bermuda) Ltd. (the “Lender”) with respect to loans made by the Lender to Cayman in the amounts of $1,050,000,
$1,000,000, $1,500,000 and $450,000, respectively (the “Principal Amounts”), evidenced by Promissory Notes, dated February
10, 2011, November 4, 2011, March 30, 2012 and March 27, 2013, as amended, in the respective Principal Amounts (the “Notes”),
which provide, as amended, that the respective Principal Amounts are payable on December 31, 2014 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


The Lender agrees that Cayman and BioRestorative
have performed all of their obligations under the Agreements and the Notes, and the Lender waives any and all defaults by Cayman
and BioRestorative thereunder.


 


The parties agree that the Notes are
hereby amended such that the Maturity Date for the payment of the respective Principal Amounts shall be June 30, 2015. No interest
shall be payable on the Notes.


 


In consideration of the
foregoing, BioRestorative hereby agrees to issue to the Lender four hundred fifty thousand (450,000) shares of common stock of
BioRestorative (the “BioRestorative Shares”). The Lender hereby confirms that the representations and warranties made
by it in the Agreements shall apply with equal force and effect to the BioRestorative Shares.


 


Each Note may only be amended further
by a writing executed by Cayman and the Lender.


 


Except as modified herein, each Note
shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	WESTBURY (BERMUDA) LTD.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	       	 
	 	Name:	 	 
	 	Title:	 	 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


	Agreed:	 
	 	 
	STEM CELL CAYMAN LTD.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	                    	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 
	 	 	 
	BIORESTORATIVE THERAPIES, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:
Table H-11-1. OTC CMAQ Air Quality Model Configuration 

Science Options Configuration Details/Comments 

Model CMAQ Version 4.5 

Horizontal Grid Mesh 36km/12km 

36-km grid 145x102 cells 

12-km grid 172x172 cells 

Vertical Grid Mesh 22 Layers 

Grid Interaction One-way nesting 

Boundary Conditions GEOS-CHEM 

Emissions 

Baseline Emissions 

Processing 

SMOKE (Version 2.1) 

model configuration 

MM5 meteorology input to SMOKE & 

CMAQ 

Sub-grid-scale Plumes No Plume –in-Grid (PinG) 

Chemistry 

Gas Phase Chemistry CBM-IV 

Aerosol Chemistry AE3/ISORROPIA 

Secondary Organic 

Aerosols 

Secondary Organic Aerosol 

Model (SORGAM) 

Aerosol Mass 

Conservation Patch Yes Schell et. al., (2001) 

Cloud Chemistry RADM-type aqueous 

chemistry Includes sub-grid cloud processes 

N2O5 Reaction Probability 0.01-0.001 

Meteorological Processor MCIP Version 3.0 

Horizontal Transport 

Eddy Diffusivity Scheme K-theory with Kh grid size 

dependence Multi-scale Smagorinsky (1963) approach 

Vertical Transport 

Eddy Diffusivity Scheme K-theory 

Diffusivity Lower Limit Kzmin = 1.0 

Planetary Boundary Layer No Patch 

Deposition Scheme M3dry Directly linked to Pleim-Xiu Land Surface 

Model parameters 

Numerics 

Gas Phase Chemistry 

Solver 

Euler Backward Iterative 

(EBI) solver 

Hertel et. Al. (1993) EBI solver ~2x faster 

than MEBI 

Horizontal Advection 

Scheme 

Piecewise Parabolic Method 

(PPM) scheme 

Simulation Periods 2002 

Platform Linux Cluster
No. 56503.

protests 175638-K, etc. (New York).

#### Consumers Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
6940

#### STATE v. PORTER.

Appeal — Larceny. — There being evidence in this ease' tending to support the charge of larceny of cattle and no error of law being alleged, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Before Klugh, J., Georgetown, , 1907.

Affirmed.

Indictment against John Porter for larceny of cattle From sentence on verdict of guilty, defendant appeals.

*451
      *Mr. J. Jenkins*Hucks, for appellant.

Oral argument.

*Solicitor P. T. Hildebrand,*contra,

cites: *Alleged insufficiency of proof in a criminal case cannot be considered by this Court:*13 S. C., 453, 459.

July 7, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The appellant, John Porter, was indicted for the larceny of certain cows alleged to be the property of Magdalene Great. He claimed that the property did not belong to the prosecutrix, but was his own, and that he appropriated the same under a *bona fide*claim of ownership. While there was testimony tending to support such defense, there was also testimony tending to establish the charge in the indictment. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and the defendant appeals from the sentence imposed.

The exceptions, stated briefly, allege as error (1) that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence; (2) that appellant’s possession of the property was not proven to be larcenous; (3) that the jury should have found a verdict of not guilty under the charge and in view of the evidence.

The exceptions do not present any question of law. They do not allege, and it cannot be said that there was absolutely no evidence tending to support the charges. This Court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment except for error of law. The jury was fully instructed as to the law, as applied to the issue presented, and no exception has been taken to any ruling or charge of the Court.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
#### JOHN GRAHAM AND DAVID JONES, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued February 20, 1962

Decided April 2, 1962.

*Mr. Roger E. McGlynn*argued the cause for the plaintiffs-respondents *(Mr. Charles*Franlcel, attorney; *Mr. John Russo,*on the brief).

*Mr. Robert V. Carton*argued the cause for the defendant-appellant *(Mr. Ascenzio R. Albarelli,*City Attorney for the City of Asbury Park, attorney for and of counsel with defendant-appellant).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

We affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Freund in *Graham v. Asbury Park,*69 *N. J. Super.*256 *(App. Div.*1961). Since the parties before us have not raised the issue of mitigation (compare *D’Elia v. Jersey*
      *167
      *City,*57 *N. J. Super.*466 *(App. Div.*1959) with *Miele v. McGuire,*31 *N. J.*339 (1960)) we find no present occasion for dealing with it. See *Lowenstein v. Newark Bd. of Education,*35 *N. J.*94, 124 (1961); *McGrath v. Jersey City,*70 *N. J. Super.*143, 147 *(Law Div.*1961). We do, however, repeat the suggestion made in *De Marco v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County,*21 *N. J.*136, 147 (1956), and more recently in *Miele v. McGuire, supra,*31 *N. J.,*at 351, that the Legislature give consideration to the adoption of a specific enactment dealing comprehensively with the subject and measure of the allowance of back pay to municipal, county and state officers and employees who are suspended pending trial or hearing on indictment or charges and are later acquitted or otherwise vindicated. *Cf. Cal. Gov. Code,*§ 19584; *N. Y. Civil Service Law, McKinney’s Consol. Laws, c.*7, §§ 77, 75(3); *Mullane v. McKenzie,*269 *N. Y.*369, 199 *N. E.*624, 103 *A. L. R.*758 (1936), reargument denied 270 *N. Y.*563, 200 *N. E.*319 (1936).

*For*affirmance—Justices Jacobs, Peancis, Pboctok, . Hall, Schettino and Haneman—6.

*For*reversal—None.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JAMES R. RUDISILL,
Claimant

- Appellee

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

- Appellant

______________________

2020

- 1637

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 16

- 4134, Senior Judge Mary J. Schoelen, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Michael
P. Allen.

______ ________________

SUA SPONTE

______________________

Before M OORE

, Chief Judge

, L OURIE

, D YK

, P ROST

, R EYNA

, T ARANTO

, C HEN

, H UGHES

, S TOLL

, C UNNINGHAM

, and
S TARK

, Circuit Judges

. 1

1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate. Case: 20-1637 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2024RUDISILL v. MCDONOUGH 2

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in James R. Rudisill v. Denis R. McDonough , No. 22

- 888, reversing and remanding to this court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The mandate of thi s court issued on February 6, 2023, is recalled , the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s December 15, 2022, opinion and judgment in Case No. 20

- 1637 are vacated. (2) The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims to award relief to Mr. Rudisill in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment

. The mandate shall issue 14 days from the date of this order.

June 4 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 20-1637 Document: 105 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2024
No. 54115.

#### Kaufmann Dep’t Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 33290-K (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, R. Byron Carlock, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, certifies that
(1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, and its results of operations for the quarters and three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007.



|                   |  |        |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  |        |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.            
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  | Name:  |  | R. Byron Carlock, Jr.                
|                   |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8206 

To ensure that Big Cypress National Preserve may not be designated as 

wilderness or as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida (for himself, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. 

DONALDS, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. BARR, and Mr. 

MILLS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To ensure that Big Cypress National Preserve may not be 

designated as wilderness or as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other 

purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8206 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRE2 SERVE DESIGNATION AS WILDERNESS. 

3 Big Cypress National Preserve may not be designated 

4 as wilderness or as a component of the National Wilder5 ness Preservation System. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent Bales, the Chief
Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the managing owner of The Frontier Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(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 Frontier Fund.



/s/ Brent BalesBrent BalesChief Financial Officer of Equinox FundManagement, LLC, the Managing Ownerof The Frontier FundNovember 19, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or any other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to The Frontier Fund and will be retained by The Frontier Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Concentra
Operating Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Thomas, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March 31, 2005



/s/ Daniel J. ThomasDaniel J. ThomasPresident and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concentra Operating Corporation and will be retained by Concentra Operating Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

 

 

 

SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC.

2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

The following Second Amendment to the M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, effective April 27, 2011 (the "Plan"), was adopted by the Board of Directors of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. on January 26, 2015, subject to approval of the Company’s shareholders. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Plan.

 

The first two sentences of Section 4.1 of the Plan are amended to read as follows:

 

4.1     Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 14, the maximum number of shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 4,275,000 shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 14, 4,275,000 shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be available for issuance pursuant to Incentive Stock Options. 

 

	
 
	
M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ John M. Stephens
	
 



 

 

Date: March 23, 2015
#### David Cromwell, as County Treasurer of the County of Westchester, *Appellant, v.*George W. Davids and Thaddeus Davids, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J., Dyeman, J., not sitting.
No. 50096.

#### Protests 945106-G, etc., of F. Weinstraub & Co. of N. Y., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial the president of the plaintiff corporation testified that certain of the items in question consisted of chalk-white beads composed of glass, identical, except as to size, with collective exhibit 1 in *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), which record was incorporated herein. The merchandise represented by the invoice item numbers enumerated by the plaintiff’s witness was therefore held properly dutiable as claimed.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Craig, Appellant.

Submitted September 30, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*339reargument refused December 13, 1968.

*Floyd A. Rausohenberger, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Robert F. Hawk,*Assistant District Attorney, and *John H. Brydon,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

This appeal curiously enough is from an order of the trial court in a Post Conviction Hearing Act proceeding, granting appellant the right to appeal from his conviction for first degree murder in 1960. Appellant requests that we quash the appeal, apparently on the theory that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to present support for his various claims. The history of this case is very confused, but the following facts seem established: appellant filed an unsuccessful motion for a new trial immediately after his conviction; he never appealed from his conviction; appellant has claimed in the past that he was denied his *Douglas*rights; he has filed several earlier habeas corpus petitions in federal court; he did not allege his *Douglas*claim in the present petition.

Appellant’s counsel seems to base his appeal on a desire to renew his motion for a new trial and present *340evidence which, will supplement the “old and incomplete trial record”. This, of course, is just not possible while there is pending on appeal the review of the denial of a motion for a new trial. At this stage of the proceedings all appellant is entitled to is to have his appeal from the denial of his new trial motion heard. This right the hearing court granted him and noted “that the constitutional issues raised by this Post Conviction petition were litigated in the federal courts”. Thus we must agree with the court below that the only relief available for appellant is “consideration by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of alleged trial errors. ??

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2 Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants Board of Directors and Shareholders
UTEK Corporation We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-91724) pertaining to the UTEK Stock Option
Plan and 2000 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of our report dated
February 19, 2003 (except for Note 12 as to which the date
is March 20, 2003), with respect to the 2002 and 2001
consolidated financial statements, including schedules of
investments, and the 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 selected per share
data and ratios of UTEK corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Tampa, Florida
March 19, 2004