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 

          - [FEMA-1689-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-1689-DR), dated March 13, 2007, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 20, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 13, 2007: 

Kings, Madera, and Merced Counties for Disaster Unemployment Assistance and Food Commodities. 

Stanislaus County for Disaster Unemployment Assistance. 

All counties within the State of California are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E7-8512 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Douglas D. Cole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity
Learning 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 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)) 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)   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; and
          c)    disclosed in this report any change in internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
     likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
     financial reporting;

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officer 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
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; and
          b)   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:     November 19, 2003

     /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
     ------------------------------
     Douglas D. Cole
     Chief Executive Officer
**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 this Annual Report of 3AM Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the quarter ended May 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Gee, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

  

(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.  

 

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

 

Date: September 13, 2019
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27




                                             February 17, 2000



William D. Hoffman, M.D.
407 Autumn Lane
Carlisle, MA 01741

Dear Bill:

In light of the fact that you are taking a new position as Director of Cardiac
Surgical Critical Care at MGH and have chosen to resign your position at
Biopure, as we discussed, you are entitled to 4,000 shares of your January 19,
1998 options at $12.80 pre-split, which are vested, provided you exercise within
three months of termination. You will forfeit the option for the remaining 4,000
shares and your option for 68,000 shares granted on August 4, 1999, because they
have not vested.

However, if you agree to the Ongoing Responsibilities list attached and remain
as a consultant to Biopure then we are pleased to keep in effect your
non-qualified stock option granted August 4, 1999 for 24,800 shares at $12.00
per share. Your option will be amended, if necessary, to reflect your status as
a consultant and to provide a vesting schedule to be:

<TABLE>
<S>                        <C>
         First year        6,200
         Second year       6,200
         Third year        6,200
         Fourth year       6,200
</TABLE>

I look forward to working with you and wish you the very best in your new
position.

                                            Yours truly,


                                            /s/ Paul A. Looney
                                            ------------------
                                            Paul A. Looney
                                            President, COO

ACCEPTED:



/s/ William D. Hoffman, M.D.
----------------------------
William D. Hoffman, M.D.


<PAGE>   2






                            ONGOING RESPONSIBILITIES



-        Becomes a member of our newly formed Medical Advisory Board

-        Remains full time until May 15, 2000 (May 1, 2000 is earliest date of
         resignation.) Enrollment of 115 should be finished.

-        Be available on an as needed basis for medical advice and possible
         presentations.

-        Any issues with 114 and 115 trials, such as SAE or AE, IDMC or consults
         with the FDA until after approval.

-        If needed for travel to South Africa or FDA for critical reviews he
         would be available.

-        Consultant / Future clinical trial protocols

-        Input and review of educational programs for use of Hemopure

-        Available evenings if necessary to review trials 114 and 115
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANK MARRERO and IDA MARRERO,

Appellants,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORP.,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-606

[February 20, 2020]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE18-007706 (08).

Geoffrey B. Marks of Billbrough & Marks, P.A., Coral Gables, for 

appellants.

Scot Samis of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. 

Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 122 

Recognizing the historic efforts of the Republic of Kazakhstan to reduce 

the threat of weapons of mass destruction through cooperation in the 

Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and celebrating the 

10th anniversary of the removal of all nuclear weapons from the territory 

of Kazakhstan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2005 

Mr. LUGAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the historic efforts of the Republic of 

Kazakhstan to reduce the threat of weapons of mass 

destruction through cooperation in the Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and celebrating the 

10th anniversary of the removal of all nuclear weapons 

from the territory of Kazakhstan.

Whereas at the time of the collapse of the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics in December 1991, 1,410 nuclear 

warheads on heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles, airlaunched cruise missiles, and heavy bombers were located 

within the Republic of Kazakhstan; 

Whereas, on July 2, 1992, the parliament of Kazakhstan approved and made Kazakhstan a party to the Treaty on 
2

•SRES 122 IS

the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive 

Arms, with annexes, protocols and memorandum of understanding, signed at Moscow July 31, 1991, and entered into force December 5, 1994 (commonly known as 

the ‘‘START Treaty’’); 

Whereas, on February 14, 1995, Kazakhstan formally acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 

Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 

1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’’); 

Whereas, on December 13, 1993, the Government of 

Kazakhstan signed the Safe and Secure Dismantlement 

Act (SSD) and its 5 implementing agreements with the 

United States, and became eligible to receive 

$85,000,000 in assistance under the Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; 

Whereas the decision of the people and the Government of 

Kazakhstan to transfer all nuclear weapons from the territory of Kazakhstan to the control of the Russian Federation allowed Kazakhstan to become a non-nuclearweapon State Party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

Treaty; 

Whereas the continuing efforts of the Government of 

Kazakhstan to pursue cooperative efforts with the United 

States and other countries to secure, eliminate, destroy, 

or interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction 

and their means of delivery provides a model for such efforts; and 

Whereas, in April 1995, the Government of Kazakhstan formally transferred the last nuclear warhead from the terri-
3

•SRES 122 IS

tory of Kazakhstan to the territory of the Russian Federation: Now, therefore be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends, on the occasion 

2 of the 10th anniversary of the removal of the last nuclear 

3 warhead from the territory of Kazakhstan, the people and 

4 the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan for their 

5 historic decision to rid Kazakhstan of nuclear weapons.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.25

Agreement (to Provide Materials and Services)

This Agreement is between Union Carbide Corporation ("UCC") and Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources Inc. ("DHRI"). Under this Agreement DHRI has agreed to
provide UCC with feedstocks, monomers, fuels, and logistics and other services as follows:







37

---













38

---















39

---





| |  | DHRI                                                                                                      |  | UCC                                                                   |  | 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources Inc.
Houston Dow Center
400 Sam Houston Parkway South
Houston, Texas 77253 |  | Union Carbide Corporation
39 Old Ridgebury Rd.
Danbury, CT 06817-0001 |  | 
| |  | Attn: Executive Vice President                                                                            |  | Attn: Treasurer                                                       |  | 



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

|UCC: UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION |  | DHRI: DOW HYDROCARBONS AND RESOURCES INC.
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|By:                            |  |                                          
|Title:                         |  |                                          

40

---

QuickLinks
# C_2016090EN.01001701.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2016 — Biofa v Commission

(Case T-746/15 R)

((Interim measures - Plant protection product - Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 090/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, F. Moro and P. Ondrüsek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 11.0



July 9, 1999


United Refining Company
15 Bradley Street
Warren, Pennsylvania  16365

Gentlemen:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 1999 pursuant to Item 601 of
Regulation S-K.

Note 2 of the notes to the interim condensed financial statements of United
Refining Company (the "Company"), describes a change in the method of accounting
for turnaround costs. Turnaround costs, which consist of complete shutdown and
inspection of significant units of the refinery at intervals of three or more
years for necessary repairs and replacement, were estimated during the units'
operating cycles and were charged against income currently. Turnaround costs
will now be capitalized as incurred and amortized over the period between
turnarounds. Management has advised us that the change is necessary because it
has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to reasonably estimate the
amount of turnaround costs which will be incurred due to the numerous and
ever-changing environmental rules and regulations which impact their facilities.
Management has also advised us that they believe the new method is preferable
because (1) the costs extend the life of the assets which comprise the refinery;
(2) the change will result in a better matching of revenues and expenses; and
(3) the change is consistent with industry practices. Although there are no
authoritative criteria for determining a "preferable" method in the
circumstances, we conclude that the change in the method of accounting for
turnaround costs is to an acceptable alternative method, which based on
management's business judgement to make this change for the reasons cited above,
is preferable in the circumstances. We have not conducted an audit in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards of any financial statements of the
Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to August 31, 1998, and
therefore we do not express any opinion on any financial statements of United
Refining Company subsequent to that date.


/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
--------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP
New York, New York
# C_2016454EN.01002401.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)

(Case T-407/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology - Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws - Relative grounds for refusal - No similarity of the signs - No likelihood of confusion - No connection between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 454/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and P. Ivanov, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1028/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Hot-Can Intellectual Property.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---
#### Gary E. RADI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. James MACDONALD, Warden; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Crossroads Correctional Center, C.C.A., et al, Defendant.

No. 04-35786.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*806Gary E. Radi, Shelby, MT, pro se.

J. Daniel Hoven, Esq., Kimberly L. Towe, Sara B. Stanton, Chad E. Adams, Esq., Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven, Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Gary E. Radi, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing at a private prison under contract with the State of Montana. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994)(per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Radi failed to establish a due process violation because he did not have a liberty interest in being free from solitary confinement. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000). Furthermore, the decision of the disciplinary officers was not an ultimate decision affecting the length of Radi’s sentence, and under such circumstances, private contractors are not precluded from conducting disciplinary hearings under Montana state law. *See*Mont. Code Ann. § 53-30-608(3)(c).

Although prisoners are entitled to a fair and impartial decision-maker at disciplinary hearings, *Edwards v. Balisok,*520 U.S. 641, 647, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997), Radi has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate bias. Ac*807cordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that there was no due process violation with respect to Radi’s allegation that he was deprived of an impartial decision-maker at his hearing.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Radi’s repeated motions for appointment of counsel because he failed to show “exceptional circumstances.” *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.