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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - 48 CFR Chapter 44 
          - [Docket ID FEMA-2006-0033] 
          - RIN 1660-AA46 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a direct final rule that notified the public of its intent to remove the FEMA Acquisition Regulation in its entirety. FEMA did not receive any comments on the rule. Therefore, the rule will go into effect as scheduled. 

# DATES:

The effective date of the direct final rule published March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9445) is confirmed as May 1, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joyce M. Ard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Patriot Plaza Room 201, Washington DC, 20472, (phone) 202-646-3213, (facsimile) 202-646-2928, or (e-mail)                         *joyce.ard@dhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 2, 2007, FEMA published a direct final rule at 72 FR 9445 that notified the public of FEMA's intent to remove the FEMA Acquisition Regulation (FEMAAR) at 48 CFR Chapter 44 in its entirety. The specific language and subsequent clauses are removed as a result of the transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 1, 2003. The Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) created a department-wide acquisition regulation for DHS in 48 CFR Chapter 30, and included FEMA in the list of entities for which the chapter applied, thereby superseding and making 48 CFR Chapter 44 duplicative and unnecessary. FEMA has not received an adverse comment, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, on this rule. Therefore, the rule will go into effect as scheduled. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. 

 [FR Doc. E7-7971 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-49-P
Potentiometric Surface of the Manchester Aquifer, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, 2002

**U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2005-2882** by John A. Robinson, Gregg E. Hileman, and Connor J. Haugh

Text

Contents and List of Illustrations and   Tables

This report also is available as a pdf (6.4   MB). If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, you may view   or print the PDF version of this report. If   you do not have Acrobat Reader, you may download it here. 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, 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.

 July 19, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 19, 2017

153489(92)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 153489

v COA: 309987

Oakland CC: 2011-237303-FH

EARL CANTRELL CARRUTHERS, Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

for filing his answer is GRANTED. The answer submitted on July 14, 2017, is accepted 

for filing.
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                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  Quarterly  Report of  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
H. Globus, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 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.


Date:  August 5, 2005                     /s/ Kenneth H. Globus
                                          --------------------------
                                          Kenneth H. Globus
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016260EN.01000901.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-244/15) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Inheritance tax - Legislation of a Member State providing for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence on condition that the heir is permanently resident in that Member State - Restriction - Justification))

(2016/C 260/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou and V. Karrá, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence, which applies solely to nationals of EU Member States who are resident in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence, which applies solely to nationals of EU Member States who are resident in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

t0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145285

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145285

COA: 309186 

Muskegon CC: 11-060423-FC

DESMOND TERRELL BRIDGEFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2012 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
exv10w7






Exhibit 10.7




SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE DUE 2011




TRM CORPORATION




			
	 	 	 
	No. 3
	 	Issued: April 18, 2008 to LC Capital Master Fund Ltd.
	 
	 	10% Assigned to Cadence Special Holdings II, LLC: May 30, 2008






$1,100,000




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, TRM CORPORATION (the “Company”), hereby promises to pay
to Cadence Special Holdings II, LLC, or registered assigns, the principal sum of ONE MILLION ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS (or so much thereof as shall not have been prepaid) on the
Maturity Date, with interest (computed on the basis of a year of 360 days payable for the actual
number of days elapsed including the first day but excluding the last day) (a) on the unpaid
balance thereof during each Interest Period at the rate per annum equal to the Applicable
Percentage and (b) to the extent permitted by law, upon the occurrence and during the continuation
of an Event of Default, on any principal, interest or Applicable Prepayment Premium, payable on
each Interest Payment Date (or, at the option of the registered holder hereof, on demand), at the
rate per annum from time to time provided for in Section 2.05 of the Securities Purchase Agreement
referred to below.



     Payments of principal of and interest on and any Applicable Prepayment Premium with respect to
this promissory note are to be made in lawful money of the United States of America at such other
place as shall have been designated as provided in the Securities Purchase Agreement referred to
below.



     This promissory note is issued pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of
April 18, 2008 (as from time to time amended, supplemented, amended and restated or otherwise
modified, the “Securities Purchase Agreement”; capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the respective meanings given thereto in the Securities Purchase Agreement),
among the Company, the respective Purchasers named therein and Lampe, Conway & Co., LLC as
Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent for the Purchasers and is entitled to the benefits
thereof.



     This Note is subject to prepayment at the times and on the terms specified in the Securities
Purchase Agreement, but not otherwise.



     If an Event of Default occurs and is continuing, the principal of this Note may be declared or
otherwise become due and payable in the manner, at the price (including any applicable Prepayment
Premium) and with the effect provided in the Securities Purchase Agreement.



 









 





     This Note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties
shall be governed by, the law of the State of New York excluding choice-of-law principles of the
law of such State that would require the application of the laws of a jurisdiction other than such
State.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TRM CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Richard Stern
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Richard Stern 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President & CEO 	 
	 



[Signature Page to Promissory Note]
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 514 

To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of Eugene v. Peter 

Vincent Chabarek. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of 

Eugene v. Peter Vincent Chabarek. 

Whereas, in the case of City of Eugene v. Peter Vincent 

Chabarek, Citation No. 06–05546, pending in Municipal 

Court for the City of Eugene, testimony has been requested from Juine Chada, an employee in the office of 

Senator Ron Wyden; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent an employee of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:29 Jun 17, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR514.ATS SR514

HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

SRES 514 ATS

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Juine Chada is authorized to testify 

2 in the case of City of Eugene v. Peter Vincent Chabarek, 

3 except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 

4 asserted. 

5 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

6 represent Juine Chada in connection with the testimony 

7 authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
No. 50626.

#### Protests 59434-K, etc., of Robert L. Demarest, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 2, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00154

- CR

Andrew Rene ALVAREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0452

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’ s brief was originally due on June 7, 2017

. On June 16, 2017, the Clerk of this Court informed appellant that his brief was late. On June 26, 2017, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief. On June 30, 2017, we granted appellant’s motion and ordered him to file his brief by July 26, 2017. However, appellant has not filed his brief.

We ORDER appellant’s attorney , James Reeves, to file appellant’s brief on or before August 17, 2017 . If appellant’s brief is not filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial

court for an abandonment hearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). Contempt proceedings may also be initiated against appellant’s attorney. Id . 38.8(b)(4).

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of August, 2017

.___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
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 Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 117 
          - [CGD07-06-050] 
          - RIN 1625-AA09 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On April 16, 2007, the Coast Guard published in the                         **Federal Register**                         a final rule that changes the operating regulations governing the Venetian Causeway (West) drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Inadvertently, under                               ( print page 20726)                            the second amendatory instruction, the wrong section number was used in the section heading. This document corrects that incorrect section number.                     

# DATES:

This rule is effective May 16, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6744. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the final rule, published on April 16, 2007, (72 FR 18885), the Coast Guard changed the operating schedule of the Venetian Causeway (West) Drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) Drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL. In the second amendatory instruction, the amendatory instruction directs a revision to § 117.261, however, in the heading to the section being revised, the section number is listed as § 117.287, even though the heading used is that listed for § 117.261 (Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Mary's to Key Largo). This correction fixes the error in the section number listed in the section heading. 

# PART 117—[CORRECTED] 

In FR Doc. E7-7157 published on April 16, 2007, (72 FR 18885), make the following correction. On page 18886, in the third column, change the section heading under amendatory instruction 2 to read as follows: 

§ 117.261 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Steve Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law. 

 [FR Doc. E7-7949 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Case No. 6,473.

#### GLANCY v. MOORE.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.] _
(Reap. Dec. 9782)

#### Gimbel Bros. *v.*United States

Entry No. 773899.

(Decided September 14, 1960)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr an Douh,*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 respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED with respect to the woolen blankets, the subject of the above entitled appeal to reappraisement, that at the time of exportation to the United States of such blankets, such or similar merchandise was freely sold in the principal markets of the country of importa*480tion, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, at $5.54 each, less 2%, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such value for the woolen blankets in question was $5.54 each, less 2 per centum, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000101295
<NAME> UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         551,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,033,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                    38,900
<INVENTORY>                                  1,637,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,488,615
<PP&E>                                       4,136,480
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,647,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,577,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          442,486
<BONDS>                                        448,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       476,289
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,859,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,577,301
<SALES>                                      1,894,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,894,588
<CGS>                                        1,192,057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,192,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                223,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                    84,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            138,473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   138,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
No. 56635.

protests 156316-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags the same in all material respects as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.