alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated February 5, 2007 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on February 12, 2007, (72 FR 6579), Mallinckrodt Inc., 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
SchedulePhenylacetone (8501)
IICoca Leaves (9040)
IIOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw (9650)
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: May 14, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-9635 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.

                             SPECIAL INCENTIVE PLAN

PURPOSE: To create an incentive plan designed to reward achievement of the Three
Year Strategic Plan.

PARTICIPANTS: Executive Officers and other employees as determined by the
Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors
("Committee").

PLAN DESIGN:

     A.   10% of base pay and bonus at par for achieving pre-determined sales
          target in calendar year 2010.

     B.   10% of base pay and bonus at par for achieving pre-determined EPS
          target in calendar year 2010.

     C.   An additional 10% of base pay and bonus at par for achieving both
          targets. Therefore, the incentive for hitting both targets is 30% of
          base pay and bonus at par.

     D.   In addition to the Special Incentive Plan awards, the Company will set
          aside an amount not to exceed $500,000 for awards to non-participants
          in the Special Incentive Plan, whose efforts, at the recommendation of
          management and upon approval of the Committee, are deemed to have had
          a significant effect on the achievement of Strategic Plan targets.


GUIDELINES:

     1.   This Special Incentive Plan is designed without a sliding scale, but
          the Committee may award a lesser amount for achievement slightly below
          targets.

     2.   The loss of sales as a result of a divestiture will result in a
          reduction of the sales goal but not the EPS goal.

     3.   Base Pay and Bonus at par for purposes of calculating the target award
          will be set on the basis of the three year average of base pay and
          bonus at par for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

     4.   The 2010 EPS calculation will include anticipated awards under this
          Special Incentive Plan.

     5.   Awards earned under this Special Incentive Plan, if any, will be
          approved by the Committee and paid on or about March 15, 2011.

     6.   Participants must be active employees at the time of payment. There
          will be no partial payments based on service during the period covered
          under this Special Incentive Plan if a participant leaves, for any
          reason, prior to the time of payment.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act),
I, Robert W. Harvey, President of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:

      (a)   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
            ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
            Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: May 7, 2004                            /s/ Robert W. Harvey
                                             --------------------
                                               Robert W. Harvey
                                                   President
**-  Pacific West  
-  Western Regional Rsch. Ctr. (Albany, Ca) 
-  Processed Foods Research 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**Value Added Processes for Dry Peas and Lentils
**Location: Processed Foods Research**
**2007 Annual Report**
**1a.Objectives (from AD-416)**													Develop healthy, nutritious and convenient value-added snack-type products from lentils and dry peas using extrusion technology.						
**1b.Approach  (from AD-416)**													Optimize processing extrusion parameters of moisture, temperature and screw speeds and formulations with selected food ingredients to develop expanded, healthy and tasteful pulse legume-based extruded snack-type products. Documents Trust with WSU. Log 28113.						
**3.Progress Report**													This report serves to document research conducted under a Reimbursable agreement between ARS and Washington State University.  Additional details of the research may be found in 5325-41000-050-00D, Characterization and Control of Nutritional and Sensory Properties of Raw and Processed Grains, Legumes, and Vegetables.
Large scale taste testing of value-added expanded extrudates from lentils and other pulses was performed at national fairs and meetings, in cooperation with Washington State University.  Results of these studies will provide the basis for successful commercial introduction of these types of products into the marketplace.  Additionally, human studies to evaluate the glycemic index of the developed products and a national marketing survey are being conducted.  

    Project TeamBerrios, Jose  
Project Annual Reports FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 
Related National Programs Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products(306)  							Last Modified: 03/24/2010 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
No. 5868.

#### ELIAS T. JONES vs. F. W. POSTLETHWAITE.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of -fact.

Appeal from the Civil District 'Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division ££C,” No. 101,701. Hon E. K. Skinner, Judge.

W. A. Hahns, for plaintiff and appellee.

H. W. Robinson, for appellant.

. E. M. Stafford, Merrick, Lewis, Gensler & Schwartz, attorneys.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit for rent against a tenant and the surety on his lease, one Louis E. Chaplain.

The latter pleads a discharge, alleging that plaintiff, after the abandonment of the premises by the tenant (Postlethwaite), took possession thereof and leased them to a new tenant, to-wit, one Chas. A. Wagner. In the alternative he alleges that said Wagner took possession of the premises and agreed to assume the rent for the unexpired term, now sued for, and he calls said Wagner in warranty.

The evidence is conclusive, and the trial judge so found, that plaintiff did not lease the premises anew to Wagner, or do anything else to the prejudice of his rights against Chaplain as surety. It does appear, however, that, as between Wagner and Chaplain and one Frank S'. Einstein, a friend of the latter, there was some sort of agreement by which one John McGrath was to take possession of *17the premises, a barroom, and continue the business for the remaining time of the lease, which he did. But the nature of that agreement is not made clear by the evidence, and the trial judge properly nonsuited the call in warranty.

Opinion and decree, Nov. 24, 1913.

Rehearing refused, December 22, 1913.

Judgment- affirmed.
#### Willie SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2790.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 21, 1999.

*521James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

HARRIS, J.

The issue in this case is whether, under *Brown v. State, 719*So.2d 882 (Fla.1998), the court erred in not accepting the defendant’s stipulation that he was a convicted felon rather than revealing his prior conviction to the jury.

First, it does not appear the issue is preserved. Although defense counsel indicated a willingness to stipulate, a stipulation was not proffered. Nor was there any indication that the defendant personally agreed to the stipulation. Finally, there were no objections made when the certified copies of the prior convictions were received in evidence and shown to the jury-

Further, even if error, the error was harmless in this case. *Brown*is premised on the belief that unfair prejudice might result if the jury knows the details of the defendant’s previous record. Here, Sanders, along with an accomplice, while being chased from the scene of a bank robbery, crashed his vehicle into the wall of a supermarket, jumped from the vehicle with hundred dollar bills all around him, and left behind a firearm and dye pack on the passenger floorboard of his vehicle. Sanders was identified by the teller as being the one who carried the firearm. Based on this evidence, we find that the introduction of Sanders’ prior record, beyond a reasonable doubt, did not affect the jury verdict in this case.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.3
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF

                              COINTEL LEASING, INC.

                Under Section 402 of the Business Corporation Law

                IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

                FIRST:     The name of the corporation is: COINTEL LEASING, INC.

                SECOND: The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any
                lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized
                pursuant to the Business Corporation Law of the State of New
                York. The Corporation is not to engage in any act or activity
                requiring any consents or approvals by law without such consent
                or approval first being obtained.

                      For the accomplishment of the aforesaid purposes, and in
    furtherance thereof, the Corporation shall have, and may exercise, all of
    the powers conferred by the Business Corporation Law upon corporations
    formed thereunder, subject to any limitations contained in Article 2 of said
    law or in accordance with the provisions of any other statute of the State
    of New York.

                      THIRD):  The number of shares which the corporation shall
    have the authority to issue is 200 without par value.

                      FOURTH:  The principal office of the corporation is to be
    located in the County of Oswego, State of New York.

                      FIFTH: The Secretary of State is designated as the agent
    of the corporation upon whom process against the corporation may be served.
    The post office address within the State of New York to which the Secretary
    of State shall mail a copy of any process against the corporation served
    upon him is:

                                        c/o Rivette & Rivette, P.C.
                                              1501 Milton Avenue
                                              Solvay, New York _ 13209

    The undersigned incorporator is of the age of eighteen years or older.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been subscribed this 13th day of
    March, 1995 by the undersigned who affirms that the statements made herein
    are true under the penalties of
perjury

     /s/ MARK Anspacher                 155 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12210
     -----------------------------      --------------------------------------
     MARK ANSPACHER, Incorporator       Address


                                       46
Exhibit 99.1 

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 Rubicon Minerals Corporation (the"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David W. Adamson, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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.    

 
   "*David W. Adamson*"                                                       David W. Adamson                 President, Chief Executive Officer and                 Director                 June 30, 2003
 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.B


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
of FVNB Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-75029 on Form S-8 of FVNB Corp. filed on March 25, 1999, of our report dated
January 22, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FVNB Corp. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report is
included in this December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of FVNB Corp.

/s/  Arthur Andersen LLP

Houston, Texas
March 29, 1999
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 141 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the Coverdell 

education savings accounts to allow home school education expenses, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the Coverdell education savings accounts to allow home 

school education expenses, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF HOME SCHOOL EXPENSES AS 

4 QUALIFIED EDUCATION EXPENSES FOR PUR5 POSES OF A COVERDELL EDUCATION SAV6 INGS ACCOUNT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 530(b) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add9 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 141 IS

1 ‘‘(C) PRIVATE SCHOOL.—For purposes of 

2 this section, the term ‘private school’ includes 

3 any home school that meets the requirements of 

4 State law applicable to such home schools, 

5 whether or not such school is deemed a private 

6 school for purposes of State law.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 December 31, 2010. 

10 SEC. 2. COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT CON11 TRIBUTIONS INDEXED TO INFLATION. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 530 of 

13 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

14 at the end the following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—In the 

16 case of a taxable year beginning in a calendar year 

17 after 2010, the dollar amount in paragraph 

18 (1)(A)(iii) shall be increased by an amount equal 

19 to— 

20 ‘‘(A) such amount, multiplied by 

21 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter22 mined under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar 

23 year by substituting ‘calendar year 2009’ for 

24 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

25 thereof.’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 141 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2010. 

4 SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF EDUCATION SAVINGS INCENTIVES 

5 MADE PERMANENT. 

6 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

7 Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

10 the amendments made by section 401.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 96-7617.

#### Trobaugh *v.*Iowa.

Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.
#### Robert Lee BICKHAM, et al. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al and Beloit Corporation.

No. 99-CC-0009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 6, 1999.

In re Beloit Corporation; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 70,760, 72, 154, 72,986; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 98CW-2093.

Denied. Relator may re-raise their position on appeal in the event of an adverse judgment.

MARCUS, J., not on panel.
#### Morris Berman, Plaintiff, *v.*Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 25, 1966.

*Morris Berman,*plaintiff in person. *J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel (George H. Parker*of counsel), for defendants.

Mitchell D. Schweitzer, J.

Defendants, the Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, move, pursuant to CPLR 3211, for dismissal of the complaint for legal insufficiency.

In the complaint, plaintiff seeks $100,000 damages, based upon the defendants’ “ culpable negligence ”, and treble that amount, based upon defendants’ malice, in designating a church as a voting and registration place. Plaintiff asserts that such a designation and its impact upon him, as an adherent of a different religion, caused him to fail to register in a party of his choice during the registration period prior to the November, 1964 election. However, he did, according to his complaint, vote in that election, but claims that he was upset during that, period. He claims that the designation constituted a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and State; a deprivation of his right to freely vote, unhampered by surrounding circumstances which affected his thinking and actions.

Plaintiff does not assert in his complaint, or specify in the papers submitted on this motion, the basis for the damages he claims he sustained. Inconsistency is revealed in his claim that the said designation of a church in effect prohibited his registration in a party, but did not prohibit his voting at the general election. Further, no basis apparently exists for his assertion that the defendants were guilty of culpable negligence or malice. Finally, and most compelling, is the fact that section 66 of the Election Law mentions churches as among those specific places *714where registration and voting may be conducted (see, also, 11 Op. State Compt. [1955], 172).

While there may be, at least arguably, a basis for the claim of violation of the principle of separation of church and State, in defendants’ actions, the instant action does not appear couched in terms proper to raise the question. Even were this court to consider that matter, it, as a court of original jurisdiction, would not assume the unconstitutionality of the law attacked.

The motion is accordingly granted and the complaint dismissed.