alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5248-5249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2665]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, As 
Amended

    In accordance with Department of Justice policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 
notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action 
entitled United States and State of New Jersey versus Irving I. Ellis, 
Civil Action No. 93-1661 (GEB) (D.N.J.), was lodged on January 16, 1997 
with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 
The proposed consent decree resolves the claims by the United States 
and the State of New Jersey under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection against the defendant, Irving I. Ellis. These claims are for 
recovery of response costs

[[Page 5249]]

incurred and to be incurred by the United States and the State of New 
Jersey in connection with the Ellis Property Superfund Site (``Site'') 
in Burlington County, New Jersey.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, Mr. Ellis, the 
owner of the Site, will sell the Site after its remediation and pay 43 
percent of the proceeds of the sale to the United States and 17 percent 
of the proceeds to the State of New Jersey in reimbursement of response 
costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States and State of New Jersey versus Irving I. Ellis, Civil 
Action No. 93-1661 (GEB), DOJ Ref. No. 90-11-3-1140.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102; the 
Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 
New York, New York 10007-1866; and the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, telephone (202) 624-
0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In requesting a copy, 
please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount 
of $7.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) made payable to Consent 
Decree Library.
Joel Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-2665 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### In the Matter of American League for a Free Palestine, Inc., Judgment Creditor, against Tyre Shipping Co., Inc., Judgment Debtor.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 2, 1952.

*Bennet, House & Couts*for judgment creditor.

*Joseph H. Stein*for judgment debtor.

Di Falco, J.

Ralph Goldman, Director of the Division of Professional and Technical Personnel of the Israel Consulate in this city, has appeared for examination as a witness in supplementary proceedings in response to a subpoena duces tecum caused to be served by the judgment creditor. Objections have been raised by the witness to certain questions on the ground that they relate to matters, in relation to which he had been acting in an official capacity, and he was instructed by the Consul that he was not to divulge any information obtained in his official capacity. "While a consular officer is not exempt from being called as a witness he may not be required to testify concerning the contents of the consular archives nor to divulge information, which has come to him in his official capacity (see IV Hackworth, Digest of International Law, § 437, p. 753 *et seq.,*and 5 Moore, International Law Digest, § 714, pp. 84, 85). The objections are sustained and the witness is not required to answer such questions.

*832(Supplemental opinion, September 16, 1952.)

Since my memorandum decision rendered herein on September 2, 1952, the unusual and interesting features of this application and of the applicable law involved have continued to claim my interest and attention to further research. In his supplemental or reply brief counsel for the judgment creditor states that the records concerning which the witness is proposed to be questioned are the corporate records of the judgment debtor, a New York corporation, which have been deposited in the consulate. He urges that where a Government steps into the market place and interests itself in the affairs of a commercial corporation, it accepts the responsibilities of the market place and makes itself accountable just as any other merchant. Section 10 of the Stock Corporation Law provides that the stock book of every stock corporation shall be open daily, during at least three business hours, for inspection by any judgment creditor of the corporation. If this application were one to direct the production of the stock books pursuant to said section 10, I would have no hesitancy now in granting such relief to the extent only of allowing an examination solely of the contents of the corporate books. However, that is not before me. I therefore adhere to my original determination, without prejudice, however, to such application by the judgment creditor as it may be advised to make in accordance with section 10 of the Stock Corporation Law.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.3.2    
  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
  


        THIS AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED November 1, 2000 ("the Amendment") is made and entered
into this 6th day of November, 2001 by and between SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc., a California Corporation (referred herein as the "Corporation") and Michael F. Crowley II (the "Employee"). 



        WHEREAS,
the Corporation previously entered into an employment agreement on November 1, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement"); 


        AND
WHEREAS, the Corporation hereby wishes to amend and extend the Employment Agreement as specified herein; 


        AND
WHEREAS the Employee wishes to have the Employment Agreement amended and extended as specified herein; 


        Now
Therefore, the following extension and amendments to the Employment Agreement are hereby agreed to by the Corporation: 



	1.
	The
Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through September 25, 2004.



	2.
	Effective
September 25, 2001, the base compensation shall be increased to $175,000 per year. 




        All
other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain effective throughout the extended term of this Amendment. 



	EMPLOYEE	 	SERACARE LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
	

/s/  MICHAEL F. CROWLEY, JR.      
 Michael F. Crowley, Jr.	
 	

/s/  BARRY D. PLOST      
 Barry D. Plost

Chairman & CEO











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.3.2


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
**GAO-10-721T**                      Published: May 12, 2010. Publicly Released: May 12, 2010.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This testimony discusses our work regarding foreign firms with commercial interests in Iran's energy sector. In March 2010, we issued a report identifying 41 foreign firms that have commercial activity in Iran's energy sector. The report released today identifies which of the 41 foreign firms also have U.S. government contracts.

## Full Report

Full Report (11 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Government Operations

ContractsDefense procurementDomestic crude oilEnergyEnergy industryFederal fundsFederal lawFederal procurementForeign corporationsForeign governmentsForeign policiesFuel gas industryGasolineIndustryInvestmentsNatural gasPetroleum explorationPetroleum industryPetroleum productsProcurement recordsSanctions
255 La. 811

#### Mrs. Rita Gay Bazajou HUG v. Jasper J. HUG.

No. 50423.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: Rita Gay Bazajou Hug applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 230 S,o.2d 333.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.

LEVY, J., does not participate.
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 Tullys Coffee Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2004 (the Report), I, Anthony J. Gioia, 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, 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 Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    ANTHONY J.
GIOIA              
|Anthony J. Gioia                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|June 28, 2004
From: JEhrig@eckertseamans.com To: Finamore, Robert (OST) Subject: CAL Cargo application Date: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:32:21 AM

Hi Bob, It was a pleasure speaking with you. As per our conversation, CAL Cargo hereby withdraws its request for additional authority or rights made available to Israeli carriers by future bilateral agreements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards,

Jim James G. Ehrig, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202 659 6672 Fax : 202 659 6699 email: jehrig@eckertseamans.com
#### CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. ABC LIQUORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1037.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 00-1016 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Technical Cooperation 

 Agreements Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Amending the Memorandum of 

Understanding of October 24, 1995 

Signed at London October 16, 2000 

Signed at Banff October 15, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MULTILATERAL 

 

 Defense: Technical Cooperation 

 Agreements amending the memorandum of 

 understanding of October 24, 1995. 

 Signed at London October 16, 2000; 

 Entered into force October 16, 2000. 

 Signed at Banff October 15, 2005; 

 Entered into force October 15, 2005.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leo Dean WELSH, Appellee.

No. M-74.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

*176Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, Florida, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida has appealed a final judgment dismissing the information filed against appellee herein and discharging him from custody because of the State’s failure or refusal to divulge the name of its confidential informant whose information was used in part as a basis for procuring a search warrant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of the decision of this court in the companion case of State of Florida v. James Eugene Matney, Leo Schuty a/k/a Leo Dean Welsh, and Susan Lind Hyers a/k/a Susan F. Matney, Case No. M-82, opinion filed this date, 236 So.2d 166.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-41800, 333-66265, 333-15795 and 333-67492) on Form S-8 of Atlantic Coast
Airlines Holdings, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 2004, except as to
Notes 1(f) and 13, which are as of February 14, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December
31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc.

KPMG LLP

McLean, VA
February 17, 2004
Exhibit 23









 




 




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




 




 




 




We hereby consent to the incorporation by

reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-10775, No.

33-642, No. 33-1532 and No. 33-96684) and Forms S-8 (No. 33-96686, No.

333-44897, and No. 333-76943) of our report dated February 1, 2002, relating to

the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Monterey Pasta Company,

which appear in this Form 10-K.




 




 




BDO Seidman, LLP




 




San Francisco, California




February 4, 2002
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL HOME PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 2, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6516

RON DEMETURIS CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM STAFFORD, Major; RANDALL RAY, Captain;RAYMOND EVANS, Lieutenant; GEORGE COLE, Lieutenant; RICHIE MOFFAT, Officer; JEFF AUSTIN, Officer; BRUCE CRAIG, Officer; MELODY NORTON, R.N., Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-511-2-MU) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron Demeturis Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In his informal brief to this court, Campbell suggests that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of the challenged incident, a fact that was not stated in his complaint. However, even if he was a pretrial detainee, the district court properly denied relief. See Taylor v. McDuffie , 155 F.3d 479, 483 (4th Cir. 1998) (excessive force), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3541 (U.S. Mar. 1, 1999) (No. 98-7454); Hill v. Nicodemus , 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992) (medical care). 2 PER CURIAM: Ron Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Campbell v. Stafford, No. CA-99-511-2- MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 00-6507.

#### Leche *v.*Tanou, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 6, 2001, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25191]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment Corporation, Board of Directors.

TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, September 25, 1997.

PLACE: USEC Corporate Headquarters, 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20817.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    <bullet> Review of commercial, operational and financial issues of 
the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Arnold, 301-564-3354.

    Dated: September 17, 1997.
William H. Timbers, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25191 Filed 9-18-97; 11:26 am]
BILLING CODE 8720-01-M
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-11-0548

SAT Date: 9/16/2011

Print Date: 10/3/2011

Related cases:

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

2 2 1 Hyd Pdt 

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl

Keywords:

 Keywords: ONCO; MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-11-0548

FATE: Estimations for hydrolysis product amine MW 578 C36H43N5O2

log Kow = 7.71 (E)

log Koc = 7.99 (E)

log Fish BCF = 3.78 (E)

log Fish BAF = 0.83 (E)

PMN Substance: Liquid with MP = 14 C (M)

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis Half-life ≤ min

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd PDt 90 via sorption 

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P2B2

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Expect poor absorption via all routes (pchem); expected 

to react, especially in the lung. Concern for oncogenicity based on 

Mn = 400, 70% <500, 90% <1000]; mutagenicity based on respiratory and dermal 

sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based on the isocyanate moiety.

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic value *

algal _ chronic value *

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; 

SAR chemical class = isocyanate; MW 630; liquid with mp = 14 C (M); S = reacts with water 

at 20 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal 

concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs neutral organic chemicals

SAR Class isocyanate

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2