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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP99-301-152] 

      ( print page 13104)    
Take notice that on March 9, 2007 subject to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 154 of the Regulations of the Commission, and the Offer of Settlement, Stipulation and Agreement (“Settlement”) approved in the above-referenced docket, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing and approval, copies of Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 190A to include in its Tariff to become effective April 1, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5020 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 13.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Annual Report of Anthony Clark  International  Insurance
Brokers Ltd.  (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Primo Podorieszach,  the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 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.


                                        /s/ Primo Podorieszach
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Primo Podorieszach
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        October 17, 2005



                                      -1-

<PAGE>



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Annual Report of Anthony Clark  International  Insurance
Brokers Ltd.  (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Mahesh  Bhatia,  the Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                                        /s/ Mahesh Bhatia
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mahesh Bhatia
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        October 17, 2005






                                      -2-
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8259 

To amend the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 to expand the 

boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2024 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 

to expand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. 

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 ‘‘Joshua Tree National 

5 Park Expansion Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK. 

7 Section 402 of the California Desert Protection Act 

8 of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa–22) is amended, in the first 

9 sentence, by inserting after ‘‘October 1991 or prior,’’ the 

10 following: ‘‘and including the approximately 17,842 acres 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8259 IH

1 of land depicted on the map entitled ‘Proposed Joshua 

2 Tree National Park Expansion’ and dated April 29, 

3 2024,’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 8570)

#### Universal Sales Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 882197.

(Decided April 20, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise herein consists of monosodium glutamate known as Ajinomoto and imported in drums from Japan. On or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, either for home consumption or for export to the United States, but at that time was freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption as defined in section 402 (e), Tariff Act of 1930, at the price of $114.62 per drum, including the cost of drums at $5 each.

> 2) Upon this stipulation this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts I find the United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $114.62 per drum, including the cost of drums at $5 each.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 63133.

#### J. W. Tarver *v.*United States,

protest 58/15957 (Savannah).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that it was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.O. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00287-CV

SHERRY DENSMORE, THOMAS J.

LOUGHREY JR., ROBERT C. HANKINS

II, AND MATTHEW L. GALLITON,

Appellants

V.

J. HORACE MCCARLEY, DEBBY 

MCCARLEY, AND LONESTAR 

DOODLES, LLC, Appellees

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from 

County Court at Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV-16-1104)

March 19, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s final judgment. It is ordered that the final judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed. 

This court taxes all costs incurred related to this appeal against appellants

Sherry Densmore, Thomas J. Loughrey Jr., Robert C. Hankins II, and Matthew L. 

Galliton, for which let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
No. 51064.

#### Protests 93097-K, etc., of Acierno Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substances on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2]4*percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to the Beggiano cheese the subject of *Mattia Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389). The protests were sustained to this extent.
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

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MERIDIAN PROJECT SYSTEMS, INC., NO. CIV.S-04-2728 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

HARDIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court on February 17, 2006, for

hearing on plaintiff Meridian Project Systems, Inc.’s (Meridian)

motion to compel production of software. Scott W. Pink appeared on

behalf of plaintiff Meridian. Chris Gibson appeared on behalf of

defendants Computer Methods International Corporation (CMIC) and

Hardin Construction Company LLC (Hardin).

Having considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02728-FCD-DAD Document 148 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

26

2

reasons set forth on the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted;

2. Defendant CMIC shall make available for inspection at

its facilities in Toronto, Ontario, Canada the 2001, 2002 and 2004.2

versions of its software as those products initially were made

commercially available to CMIC’s customers and to the extent those

versions exist in any fashion or location;

3. Such inspection shall occur within thirty (30) days of

the hearing on the motion to compel; and

4. Plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonably conduct such

inspection alone in a manner such as to preserve the confidentiality

concerns of plaintiff discussed on the record during the hearing.

DATED: February 22, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\meridian2728.021706

Case 2:04-cv-02728-FCD-DAD Document 148 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Local.com Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) [language omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47086] for the registrant and
have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 7, 2007
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### LOUIS H. LINOWITZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID JOSEPHSON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, AND BRIGANTINE BEACH HOTEL CORP., DEFENDANT.

*Mr. David Josephson in propria persona.*

*Mr. George Warren*and *Mr. I/emuel H. Blaclcburn, Jr.*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
ex10-88.htm


Exhibit 10.66

 

 

EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

 

This Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture (“Extension”) is by and between the individual or entity named on an executed counterpart of the signature page hereto (each such signatory is referred to as “Holder”) and OmniComm Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and is entered into as of the day the last Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 

WHEREAS, Maker has delivered to each Holder that certain 12% Convertible Debenture Series 08-04 of the Maker (“Convertible Debenture”) dated December 16, 2008 in the aggregate to all Holder in the principal of $4,475,000. 

 

WHEREAS, the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debentures, as that term is defined in the Convertible Debenture, is January 1, 2016, and all principal and interest due thereunder remain unpaid as of the date hereof.

 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Maturity Date.

 

WHEREAS, each holder has all requisite power, authority, and capacity to enter into this Extension and to extend the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debenture.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, each Holder and the Maker hereby agree as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.



 

	 	
2.
	
Extension of Maturity Date. The Maturity Date is hereby extended to April 01, 2017.



 

	 	
3.
	
No Other Changes. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Convertible Debenture remain in full force and effect.



 

	 	
4.
	
Warrants Extension. Maker hereby agrees to extend the expiration date on the Warrants issued in connection with the Convertible Debenture on December 16, 2008, which were originally expected to expire on January 01, 2016. The new expiration date is April 01, 2017.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture is executed as of the day and date the last Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 


	
 
	
OmniComm Systems, Inc. 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Thomas E. Vickers
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Thomas E. Vickers 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 
	
 




 

[HOLDERS SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 

[EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE SIGNATURE PAGE]

 


 

 




 


  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned represents that it has caused this extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture and Warrants to be duly executed on its behalf (if an entity, by one of its officers thereunto duly authorized) as of the date written below.



 


	
 
	
HOLDER: 
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Cornelis F. Wit	 
	 	Printed Name of Holder	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Cornelis F. Wit
	
 

	
 
	
(Signature of Holder or Authorized Person) 
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Printed Name and Title if Authorized Person	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	January 31, 2015	 
	 	Date
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

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

COUNCIL,

NO. CIV. S-04-2583 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

GAIL NORTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Local Rule 56-260(a) requires that each motion for summary

judgment be accompanied by a statement of undisputed facts which

“shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts

relied upon in support of the motion.” The plaintiff’s Statement

of Undisputed Facts which was submitted on September 12, 2005 fails

to do this. Accordingly, plaintiffs are directed to RESUBMIT the

statement of undisputed facts in the manner required by the local

rules. Each individual fact should be separately enumerated and

////

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 40 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
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

26

1Plaintiffs should contact the chambers of the undersigned if

any additional clarification is needed. 

2

the appropriate citation should be provided.1

Plaintiffs shall re-file the separate statement of undisputed

facts by October 4, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 29, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 40 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 62616.

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 126185-K (New York),

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. 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.
Consumer Federation of America • 1620 Eye St, NW, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20006 • (202) 387-6121 

www.consumerfed.org

March 3, 2015

Chairman Elliot Kaye

Sent via email

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

4330 East West Highway

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear Chairman Kaye,

I am writing to clarify statements that I made in response to questions at the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission’s Recreational Off- Highway Vehicle Hearing on January 7, 2015.

During the question and answer period, I was asked about the process through which the 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) standard for recreational off-highway 

vehicles (ROVs) is written. I was asked about whether I saw the negative comments that 

individuals may have filed in response to an open comment period. I stand by my testimony that 

I had not seen those comments. I now understand that these comments are available through a 

portal that I have used in the past to submit my comments regarding the standard. Most 

importantly, however, this entire discussion unfortunately misses the main point of the dialogue 

at the hearing.

At the hearing, I further stated that while ROHVA’s standard complies with ANSI’s rules, it is 

problematic in numerous ways. That is the important point that I was making then, and is the 

point that I would like to reiterate now.

The standards process for the ROHVA standard is neither transparent nor collaborative. The 

draft standard is written by ROHVA, through a process that I am not familiar with and then 

shared with a canvass list ROHVA compiles. There are no meetings and no phone calls to 

discuss the standard, and there is no meaningful opportunity for involvement before the draft 

standard is shared, as far as I am aware. Essentially the process provides “a take it or leave it” 

opportunity for the canvass participants. I have been filing comments for years. I receive 

responses that essentially object to my comments and request that I withdraw my negative

comments. This process, including this canvass method, also does not encourage consumer 

participation. Instead, it reinforces a sense of futility with the process and results in standards 

that fail to address key hazards.

I believe that if the voluntary standards process for ROVs were more collaborative and more 

transparent then the resulting standard would better address the hazards posed by ROVs to 

operators and passengers.

Sincerely,
Consumer Federation of America • 1620 Eye St, NW, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20006 • (202) 387-6121 

www.consumerfed.org

Rachel Weintraub

Legislative Director and General Counsel

Consumer Federation of America