alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Template for certification to accompany notice 

Pursuant to subsection (n) of Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, I hereby 

certify that I am [“the Chief Executive Officer” or “a duly authorized designee, as 

defined at 31 C.F.R. § 802.202(b),”] of [the submitting party], which is submitting the 

foregoing Notice, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief subject to the penalties 

provided in section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code:

1. The foregoing Notice fully complies with the requirements of Section 721 of the

Defense Production Act of 1950, 31 C.F.R. Part 802, and any agreement or

condition entered into with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United

States or any member of the Committee; and

2. The foregoing Notice, as it relates to the transaction, the real estate, [the 

submitting party], and [the submitting party's] parents, subsidiaries, and any 

other related entities described in the Notice, is accurate and complete in all 

material respects. [Note: a submitting party that doesn’t have parents, 

affiliates, and/or subsidiaries may omit the inapplicable term(s)]

Signature: __________________________

[include printed name of signer] 

Title: __________________________

Submitter: __________________________ 

[identify the party to the transaction on whose behalf the individual above 

has signed the certification] 

Date: __________________________
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Cornelius Ronald Debe, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 22123B.

Vs. No. 11-19-00263-CR * September 19, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### Ralph L. MULDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 21, 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 Richard P. Zaretsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*871MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation on which appellant was placed subsequent to pleading guilty to a charge of uttering a forged instrument, a third degree felony proscribed by Section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1975). Upon revocation of probation, appellant was sentenced to three years incarceration.

Appellant contends that because the court was limited to a two year maximum sentence under the terms of his negotiated plea that the trial court cannot exceed that sentence upon revocation of probation. The trial court accepted the plea negotiations and, without objection, placed the defendant on probation for a period of three years.

After probation has been revoked, the trial court can “impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation.” Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellant contends the plea negotiations were a restriction on this Statute. We disagree.

We hold that after probation has been revoked a trial court is free to impose any sentence up to the maximum sentence for the crime of which the defendant stands convicted. In this case the appellant was convicted of a third degree felony for which the maximum sentence was five years. Section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1975).

Accepting appellant’s contentions would lead to absurd results. If the original plea negotiations including an understanding that a defendant would be placed on probation, and the court agreed, the court would then be unable to impose any prison sentence in the event probation was subsequently revoked. It cannot be said that the legislature intended to leave society without any recourse against those defendants who receive the benefit of the court’s mercy by being placed on probation and, subsequently, violate the terms thereof.

Appellant, having violated the terms of his probation, cannot now be heard to argue that the State is bound by the terms of an agreement which resulted in the initial imposition of probation.

Appellant’s remaining point having no merit, the conviction and sentence appealed from is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jose R. SUAREZ et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1055.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Carr & Emory, Eugene Spellman, and Denis Dean, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Dawson, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 65.
<PAGE>   1
                HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  EXHIBIT 21.1 - LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HEALTH
                            MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               SUBSIDIARY                                       STATE OF
               ----------                                       --------
                                                              INCORPORATION
                                                              -------------
<S>                                                           <C>
    Accelerated Claims Processing, Inc.                          Delaware
    401 Park Avenue South
    New York, NY  10016


    Quality Medi-Cal Adjudication,                              California
    Incorporated
    10381 Old Placerville Road
    Sacramento, CA  95827


    Health Care microsystems, Inc.                               California
    200 North Sepulveda Boulevard
    El Segundo, CA 90245


    CDR Associates, Inc.                                         Maryland
    9642 Deereco Road
    Timonium, MD  21093


    Quality Standards in Medicine, Inc.                          Delaware
    95 Sawyer Road, 3 University Park
    Waltham, MA  02453


    HSA Managed Care Systems, Inc.                              Delaware
    234 Spring Lake Drive
    Itasca, IL 60143
</TABLE>
#### The TALLAHASSEE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Gerald D. N. BRYANT, Respondent.

No. 42998.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1974.

Leo L. Foster and Julius F. Parker, Jr., Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Truett & Swed-mark, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Ben H. Dickens, Bryant, Dickens, Rumph, Franson & Miller, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., and DREW, Justice Retired, dissent.
**Exhibit 10.4****EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into this 18th day of October 2005, tobe effective as of the date of execution, by and between Christopher Larson (the “Executive”), anindividual, and Cash Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation.**RECITALS**:     A. The Company desires to employ the Executive as the Company’s Executive Vice-President.     B. The Executive desires to be employed by the Company upon the terms and conditions set forthin this Agreement.**AGREEMENTS**:     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, and for other good, fair andvaluable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Company and theExecutive agree:**ARTICLE I**
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2371 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a presumption of 

service connection for certain diseases in veterans who were exposed 

to burn pits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2021 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

presumption of service connection for certain diseases 

in veterans who were exposed to burn pits. 

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 ‘‘Veterans’ Right to 

5 Breathe Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2371 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR CER2 TAIN DISEASES IN VETERANS WHO WERE EX3 POSED TO BURN PITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1112 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(d)(1) For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, 

8 and subject to the provisions of section 1113 of this title, 

9 a disease specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection be10 coming manifest in a burn pit-exposed veteran shall be 

11 considered to have been incurred in or aggravated during 

12 active military, naval, or air service, notwithstanding that 

13 there is no record of evidence of such disease during a 

14 period of such service. 

15 ‘‘(2) The diseases referred to in paragraph (1) of this 

16 subsection are the following: 

17 ‘‘(A) Asthma. 

18 ‘‘(B) Chronic bronchitis. 

19 ‘‘(C) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

20 ‘‘(D) Constrictive bronchiolitis. 

21 ‘‘(E) Emphysema. 

22 ‘‘(F) Granulomatous disease. 

23 ‘‘(G) Interstitial lung disease. 

24 ‘‘(H) Lung cancer. 

25 ‘‘(I) Pneumonia. 

26 ‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2371 IH

1 ‘‘(A) The term ‘burn pit-exposed veteran’ 

2 means a veteran who, on or after January 1, 1990, 

3 served as a member of the Armed Forces in support 

4 of a contingency operation and was based or sta5 tioned at a location where an open air burn pit was 

6 in use. 

7 ‘‘(B) The term ‘open burn pit’ means an area 

8 of land located that— 

9 ‘‘(i) is designated by the Secretary of De10 fense to be used for disposing solid waste by 

11 burning in the outdoor air; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) does not contain a commercially man13 ufactured incinerator or other equipment spe14 cifically designed and manufactured for the 

15 burning of solid waste. 

16 ‘‘(C) The term ‘contingency operation’ has the 

17 meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of 

18 title 10. 

19 ‘‘(D) The term ‘solid waste’ has the meaning 

20 given such term in section 1004(27) of the Solid 

21 Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)).’’. 

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

23 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

24 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.7, notice 
is hereby given that a proposed Settlement Agreement in In re: The 
Railway Reorganization Estate, Inc. F/K/A The Delaware and Hudson 
Railway Co., Case No. 88-342, was lodged on October 27, 1997 in the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
    The Settlement Agreement resolves the United States' claim, 
pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607, for response 
costs incurred and to be incurred by EPA at the Quanta Resources 
Syracuse Superfund Site (``the Site'') in Syracuse, New York. Under the 
Settlement Agreement, which remains subject to Bankruptcy Court 
approval, the United States will receive $15,000 in reimbursement of 
response costs incurred and to be incurred by EPA at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to In re: The Railway Reorganization Estate, Inc., F/K/A The 
Delaware and Hudson Railway Co., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-848E.
    The proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined at the Office of 
the United States Attorney in Wilmington, Delaware, the Region II 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, 
New York; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (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 made payable to the Consent Decree Library in 
the amount of $2.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs).
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental 
and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-30541 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### Charles Patrick ENGLISH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1073.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-108-000]


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

December 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (ETNG), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in Docket 
No. CP98-108-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.216 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 157.205, 157.216) under the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon the Hawkins County Lateral, 
located in Hawkins County, Tennessee, as a delivery point under ETNG's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412-000, pursuant to 
Section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the request that 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    ETNG proposes to abandon the Hawkins County Lateral by sale to the 
Hawkins County Utility District (HCUD). It is stated that the lateral 
consists of 5.18 miles of 6-inch pipeline and appurtenant facilities. 
It is explained that the lateral was installed in 1961 in order to make 
deliveries to HCUD, formerly the Natural Gas Utility District of 
Hawkins County, a municipality engaged in the local distribution of 
natural gas to the public. It is asserted that ETNG and HCUD have 
negotiated a Purchase and Sales Agreement to transfer ownership of the 
lateral from HCUD to ETNG and that no facilities would be removed or 
abandoned in place. It is further asserted that HCUD is the only 
customer served by the facilities and that HCUD has consented to the 
abandonment by sale.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32381 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mrs. Jewell BOUTTE et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 4443.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1973.

Tate & Tate by Paul C. Tate, Mamou, for defendants-appellants.

Reggie & Harrington by Edmund M. Reggie, and Edwards, Stefanski & Bar-ousse by Nolan J. Edwards, Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Louisiana Bank and Trust Company, moved to remand the appeal of the defendant-appellant, Matthew L. Hannagriff, to the trial court in order to try the appellant’s exception of prescription, which exception was filed for the first time in this court after the appeal had been lodged. The appellant has also filed a motion, joining in plaintiff-appellee’s motion to remand the appeal to the trial court for the purpose of trying the exception of prescription. We remand.

Plaintiff-appellee, Louisiana Bank and Trust Company, filed suit against Matthew L. Hannagriff and others, as guarantors on the defaulted obligations of Rex Rice Company. Judgment was rendered in favor of the Louisiana Bank and Trust Company against Matthew L. Hannagriff, and the defendant, Hannagriff, perfected an appeal to this court. The appeal was lodged in this court on September 28, 1973, and on October 24, 1973, the defendant-appellant filed an exception of prescription alleging that the obligations of the defendant was extinguished by the prescription of five years under LSA-C.C. Article 3540.

Article 2163 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

> “The appellate court may consider the peremptory exception filed for the first time in that court, if pleaded prior to a submission of the case for a decision, and if proof of the ground of the exception appears of record.

> “If the ground for the peremptory exception pleaded in the appellate court is prescription, the plaintiff may demand that the case be remanded to the trial court for trial of the exception.”

Under the above-quoted article, the plaintiff has a right to have this appeal remanded to the trial court for the purposes of having a trial on the exception of prescription.

For the reasons assigned, this suit is hereby remanded to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia, for the purpose of having that court try the defendant-appellant’s exception of prescription.

Appeal remanded.
|    |                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Molycorp, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |  |
| /s/ Geoffrey R. Bedford                                  |   |
| Geoffrey R. BedfordPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |
MEMORANDUM

TO:   Docket for Reid Gardner Generating Station: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0148

FROM:   Anita Lee

DATE: May 2, 2013

RE:   Meeting on April 29, 2013 with Nevada Energy (NV Energy) and Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection (NDEP)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Participants:

・ Starla Lacy, Tom Woodworth, Darren Patten, George Shambo, and Tony Garcia (NV Energy)

・ Rob Bamford (NDEP)

・ Amy Zimpfer, Ann Lyons, Niloufar Glosson, Beatrice Wong, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

Date and Location:

・ April 29, 2013; Reid Gardner Generating Station, Moapa, Nevada

Summary:

・ NV Energy provided a tour of the RGGS facility