alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 294 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 294

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand access to 
    capital for rural-area small businesses, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Expanding Access to Capital for 
Rural Job Creators Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR RURAL-AREA SMALL BUSINESSES.

    Section 4(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78d(j)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4)(C), by inserting ``rural-area small 
        businesses,'' after ``women-owned small businesses,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (6)(B)(iii), by inserting ``rural-area 
        small businesses,'' after ``women-owned small businesses,''.

            Passed the Senate September 7, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 294

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand access to 
    capital for rural-area small businesses, and for other purposes.
```
#### Phillip JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 30, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Larry S. Weaver, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

This case is similar to *Mims*v. *State,*352 So.2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), in that appellant’s defense to drug possession charges was that he had no knowledge that the illegal drugs were in a satchel possessed by him and containing his barber tools. De*431spite a request, no instruction was given requiring knowledge on appellant’s part. The jury specifically asked the court if appellant would be guilty if he had no knowledge that the drugs were in his satchel. The judge declined to answer the question except to tell the jury that the case must be decided on the instructions and evidence already submitted. Guilty verdicts were ultimately returned. As in *Mims,*I believe it was reversible error to refuse an instruction on knowledge. *Frank v. State,*199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3820 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-024-AD

Helicopter Model: Various Restricted Category Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 607 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the M/R blade, and prevent failure 

of the M/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

• Cleaning and performing all inspections of a set of M/R blades (2 per

helicopter) would require a total of 1⁄2 work-hour. No parts would be needed. At an 

estimated 24 inspections a year, the cost would be $1,032 per helicopter and $626,424 for 

the U.S. fleet. 

• Replacing an M/R blade would require 12 work hours and parts would cost 

$90,656, for a total cost of $91,676 per blade. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Charles Harrison
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HSH NORDBANK AG,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5125

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00899-SGB, Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Winston-Salem, NC, argued for plaintiffappellant. Also represented by CHAD DWIGHT HANSEN; 

DAVID COVENTRY SMITH, Washington, DC.

 DAVID ALAN LEVITT, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN C. MIZER; MARCUS H. CHONG 
 

TIM, Office of General Counsel, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 7, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Searched for **https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.83.1
                                                                 ---------------

                        AMENDED MANAGEMENT RETENTION PLAN

Synbiotics Corporation is implementing a "management retention plan" designed to
encourage you to remain am employee of the Company between now and the potential
sale of the Animal Health Business. The Management Retention Plan consists of a
cash or stock bonus and special treatment of outstanding stock options and
restricted stock. This Management Retention Plan does not alter or affect
existing Synbiotics employee benefit plans, the Special Payment Plan or existing
employee agreements.

To qualify for the Management Retention Plan, you must be an active employee,
who is employed on the day of the sale of the Animal Health Business, provided
that you have not notified the Company of your intent to resign your employment
with Synbiotics. This Management Retention Plan does not apply to:

1)  Employees who voluntarily leave the Company prior to the sale of the Animal
    Health Business

2)  Employees whose employment is terminated prior to the sale of the Animal
    Health Business

3)  Employees of W3COMMERCE

4)  Active employees who are offered and accept continued employment with the
    Company following the sale of the Animal Health Business.

Cash Bonus

A cash bonus payment (or you can elect to receive the cash bonus in stock - see
below) will be made on the day following the sale of the Animal Health Business.
The bonus payment will depend on the ultimate sales price of the Animal Health
Business and will be paid as a percentage of annual base salary ("the
Percentage"). In no event will the Percentage payment be less than 37.5% of an
employee's annual base salary and there is no maximum percentage. The Percentage
will be calculated as 1.25 times the sales price of the Animal Health Business.

Examples:

    If the sales price of the Animal Health Business were $35 million, then 35
times 1.25 would yield a Percentage of 43.75%. You would receive a cash bonus of
43.75% of your annual salary.

<PAGE>

     If the sales price of the Animal Health Business were $60 million then 60
times 1.25 would yield a Percentage of 75%. You would receive a cash bonus of
75% of your annual salary.

Restricted Stock and Stock Options

All of your unvested restricted stock and stock options will become fully vested
on the day following the sale of the Animal Health Business and you will receive
two years following the sale of the Animal Health Business to exercise any
unexercised stock options.

/s/ Kenneth M. Cohen
----------------------
Kenneth M. Cohen
President and CEO
Synbiotics Corporation

I have read the above Management Retention Plan.
Acknowledged and accepted:

/s/ Robert D. Buchanan
----------------------
Robert D. Buchanan

January 24, 2001
----------------------
Date
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2870 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow certain activities 

to be conducted with respect to sturgeon held in captivity or in a 

controlled environment in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow 

certain activities to be conducted with respect to sturgeon 

held in captivity or in a controlled environment in the 

United States, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sturgeon Conservation 

5 and Sustainability Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2870 IS

1 SEC. 2. STURGEON HELD IN CAPTIVITY OR CONTROLLED 

2 ENVIRONMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 Section 9(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(3) STURGEON.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a)(1) and sec8 tion 7(a)(2) shall not apply to— 

9 ‘‘(i) a sturgeon farmed in the United 

10 States that is legally held in captivity or in a 

11 controlled environment as of the date of enact12 ment of this paragraph, until such time as the 

13 sturgeon is intentionally returned to a wild 

14 state; or 

15 ‘‘(ii) progeny of a sturgeon described in 

16 clause (i), until such time as the progeny is in17 tentionally returned to a wild state. 

18 ‘‘(B) DEMONSTRATION; REQUIREMENTS.— 

19 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any person holding 

20 any sturgeon or progeny described in subpara21 graph (A) shall— 

22 ‘‘(I) be able to demonstrate that the 

23 sturgeon or progeny qualifies as a sturgeon 

24 or progeny, as applicable, described in that 

25 subparagraph; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2870 IS

1 ‘‘(II) maintain and submit to the Sec2 retary, on request of the Secretary, such 

3 inventories, documentation, and records as 

4 the Secretary may, by regulation, require 

5 as being reasonably appropriate to carry 

6 out the purposes of this paragraph. 

7 ‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—Requirements de8 scribed in clause (i)(II) shall not unnecessarily 

9 duplicate the requirements of other rules and 

10 regulations promulgated by the Secretary under 

11 this Act.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,091,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,764,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (94,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,960,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,333,860
<PP&E>                                       6,958,733
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,928,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,740,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,152,030
<BONDS>                                         91,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,328
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,918,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,740,647
<SALES>                                     41,456,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,456,542
<CGS>                                       17,243,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,243,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,064,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (30,708)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,002,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,371,046
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (368,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.





Date:
      May 4, 2010
              /s/Douglas M.
      VanOortDouglas
      M. VanOortChairman
      and Chief ExecutiveOfficerDate:
      May 4, 2010
              /s/George
      CardozaGeorge
      CardozaChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      May 4, 2010
              /s/Jerome J.
      DvonchJerome
      J. DvonchDirector
      of Finance and Principal AccountingOfficer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing. 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 required by Section 906, 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.
#### Willie James SETZLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40481.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 203.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26054]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2228]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Docketed Proceedings

September 25, 1997.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's docketed proceeding listed in this public notice and 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.106. The full text of these documents are 
available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions 
must be filed on or before October 9, 1997, and replies to oppositions 
on or before October 20, 1997. The Commission is hereby waiving the 
filing deadlines established in accordance with 47 CFR Section 1.106 
(g) and (h). However, all other requirements established in 47 CFR 
Section 1.106 are applicable. In addition, this proceeding will 
continue to be a non-restricted proceeding in which ex parte 
presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed in conformance 
with Commission ex parte rules. See Sections 1.1202 and 1.1206(a) of 
the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1206(a)).
    Subject: Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-Region, 
InterLATA Services In Michigan (CC Docket No. 97-137).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.


Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-26054 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 2/17/03 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 95-9448

_______________ D. C. Docket No. 1:95-CV-1157-RHH

PRODIGY CENTERS/ATLANTA NO. 1 L.P.; PRODIGY CENTERS NO. 2 L.P., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus
T-C ASSOCIATES, LTD., etc., Defendant-Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

______________________________ (July 29, 1998)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In this case, the government and T-C Associates (“TCA”) assert liens on a distribution to Prodigy Child Development2 Centers (“PCDC”) from a limited partnership. Although TCA obtained a judgment against PCDC before the government recorded its tax lien in 1993, the government argues that TCA’s judgment lien did not attach to PCDC’s partnership interest until TCA obtained a charging order in 1994, because PCDC’s partnership interest was a “chose in action.” After determining that the issue of whether the partnership interest was a chose in action was dispositive of this appeal but unsettled as a matter of Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia: DOES A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTE A CHOSE IN ACTION? Prodigy Centers/Atlanta No. 1 L.P. v. T-C Assoc., Ltd. , 127 F.3d 1021, 1024 (11th Cir. 1997). In answer, the Supreme Court of Georgia has decided that “a ‘partnership interest’ is a chose in action.” Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assoc. , No. S98Q0326, __ S.E.2d __, __ (Ga. June 8, 1998). Since judgment liens3 generally do not attach to choses in action under Georgia law absent a collateral charging order to garnishment, see, e.g. , id. at __ n. 3, the government is correct that TCA’s lien did not attach until 1994, well after the government recorded its own lien. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for TCA and REMAND with in structions that the district court enter summary judgment for the government.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52128-52129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26447]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 21, 1997.

[[Page 52129]]

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Stuart A. Cashin, Jr., Duluth, Georgia; to retain voting shares 
of Embry Bankshares, Inc., Duluth, Georgia, and thereby indirectly 
retain share of Embry National Bank, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 1, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-26447 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F