alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34169]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) to withdraw its 
May 8, 1997, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, 
located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the accuracy requirements 
of the meteorological instrumentation and supporting Bases. 
Subsequently, by letter dated November 25, 1997, NNECO withdrew the 
amendment request based on its determination that the subject 
instrumentation accuracies can be significantly improved by 
implementing modifications. It is further indicated that the 
modifications will result in improving the overall system accuracy such 
that the existing Technical Specifications for the Millstone Nuclear 
Power Station, Unit No. 2, will be complied with.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1997 
(62 FR 30634). However, by letter dated November 25, 1997, the licensee 
withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated May 8, 1997, and the licensee's letter 
dated November 25, 1997, which withdrew the application for license 
amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room 
located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Community-
Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360, and the 
Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, 
CT 06385.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel G. McDonald, Jr.,
Sr. Project Manager, Special Projects Office--Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-34169 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.11

               AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                         CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.


It is hereby certified that:

          1.     The name of the corporation (the "Corporation") is CRYO-CELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., which is the name under which the Corporation was
originally incorporated; the date of filing of the original Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware is September 11, 1989; and the Certificate of Incorporation was amended
by the filing of a Certificate of Amendment on October 24, 1994.

          2.     The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby
amended by (i) in Paragraph Fourth, increasing the number of shares of Common
Stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue from 15,000,000 shares
to 20,000,000 shares, (ii) in Paragraph Fifth, providing for the classification
of the Board of Directors into three classes, with one class being elected each
year to serve a staggered three-year term.

          3.     The provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation as herein amended are hereby restated and integrated into the single
instrument which is hereinafter set forth, and which is entitled Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Cryo-Cell International, Inc.

          4.     The amendments and the amended restatement of the Certificate
of Incorporation hereinafter certified have been duly adopted by the Board of
Directors and the stockholders of the Corporation in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 228, 242 and 245 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

          5.     The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation, as amended and restated herein, reads as follows:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended April 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Dale R. Black,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1) The AnnualReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 
| Date: July 11,  2008 | /s/  Dale R.  Black |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                      | Dale R. Black                 |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
#### James J. BEASLEY, Petitioner, v. Hon. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-1314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2324 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2324

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ``D. Edwina 
                        Stephens Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. D. EDWINA STEPHENS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``D. Edwina Stephens Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``D. Edwina 
Stephens Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 8, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2324

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ``D. Edwina 
                        Stephens Post Office''.
```
#### Robert Lee ROBINS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-55837.

D.C. No. CY-00-09975-GAF, CR-00-00271-R-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Lee Robins, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his 11-year sentence following a jury trial conviction for attempted second-degree robbery in violation of Cal. Pen.Code §§ 664 and 211. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *805§ 2253, we review de novo, *see Patterson v. Gomez,*223 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2000), *cert, denied sub nom. Terhune v. Patterson,*531 U.S. 1104, 121 S.Ct. 844, 148 L.Ed.2d 723 (2001), and reverse.

Robbins contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his § 2254 motion as untimely. The district court concluded that the state petitions filed by Robins within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one year statute of limitations could not provide the basis for tolling because they presented none of the claims raised in his federal petition. As the government concedes in its answering brief, we have recently ruled otherwise. At the time of its order, the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in *Tillema v. Long,*253 F.3d 494, 502 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (holding that the “AEDPA’s period of limitation is tolled during the pendency of a state application challenging the pertinent judgment, even if the particular application does not include a claim later asserted in the federal habeas petition”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**     The following is the certification required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.     In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Cardiogenesis Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Lanigan, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         */s/Richard P. Lanigan*   Richard P. Lanigan,   *President*   April 30, 2007     The following is the certification required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.     In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Cardiogenesis Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, William R. Abbott, Chief Financial 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:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         */s/William R. Abbott*   William R. Abbott   *Chief Financial Officer*   April 30, 2007
#### Jenny VILLAFANE, Petitioner, v. VISITING NURSES ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents.

No. 40610.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EX-10.30



 EXHIBIT 10.30 

 

					
	 




	  		  	 3050 Bowers Avenue | P.O. Box 58039
 Santa Clara, California 95054, U.S.A.
 Telephone: 408 727 5555

www.appliedmaterials.com


 October 4th, 2013 
 Ms. Holly Bonner 
 Account Director 

134 Rio Robles Drive 
 San Jose, CA 95134 
 Reference: Global Supply Agreement, dated April 21, 2005

 Ms. Bonner: 
 To allow for adequate time to complete negotiations of our existing GSA document, we are amending the Global Supply Agreement between Applied Materials and MKS Instruments to extend the existing term. We
will in good faith work on an evergreen agreement within anticipated completion in the next six (6) months. Unless the GSA is terminated sooner, the term of the GSA will now expire on April 30th, 2014. During that time, either Applied Materials or MKS Instruments
may provide the other company six (6) months written notice terminating the GSA. 
 All other Terms and Conditions of the
Global Supply Agreement remain unchanged. Additionally, any Addendums that expire upon the expiry or termination of the GSA shall also be extended for this additional period, unless terminated earlier as provided in the Addendum or this letter.

  

					
	Sincerely,	  		 	
			
	John A. Casey	  		 	
	 Sr. Commodity Business Manager
	  		 	
			
	 /s/ John A. Casey
	  		 	 10/23/2013

	 Applied Materials
	  		 	 Date

			
	 /s/ John Abrams
	  		 	 10/23/2013

	 MKS Instruments
	  		 	 Date
#### Robert Orville BROWN, Appellant, v. Robert Lee SHAKLEE, Appellee.

No. 70-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 3, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; O. Edgar Williams, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tony GIAMO, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43756.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 24, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 606.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Daxor  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date thereof (the  "Report"),  I, Joseph  Feldschuh,
M.D.,  Chairman  of the  Board,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2) The  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  represents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

/s/Joseph Feldschuh,M.D.
Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003

A signed  original 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.
#### LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a foreign corporation, and Zurich Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Martha PENDER and James (Hensing) Pender, her husband, Appellee.

No. 72-823.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 1972.

Interlocutory appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Thomas E. Sholts, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### In re RULES GOVERNING ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OF RETIRED JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

No. 39859.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as it has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of Florida that additional judicial manpower is necessary at court levels below circuit courts for the prompt dispatch of business therein and to give relief to active judges when ill or disqualified; and that in certain of such courts there exist large and increasing caseloads rendering it physically impossible for the active incumbent judges thereof or available active judges who could be assigned therefor, to promptly dispatch such caseloads speedily and in conformity with the requirements of law, and

Inasmuch as Section 2, Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. provides:

> “Section 2. Administration. — The chief justice of the supreme court is vested with, and shall exercise in accordance with the rules of that court, authority temporarily to assign justices of the supreme court to district courts of appeal and circuit courts, judges of district courts of appeal and circuit judges to the supreme court, district courts of appeal and circuit courts, and judges of other courts, except municipal courts, to judicial service in any court of the same or lesser jurisdiction. *Any retired*justice or *judge may, with his consent, be likewise assigned to judicial service [E.S.],*

it is the opinion of this court that former active judges of all courts below the level of circuit judges who have retired pursuant to the laws of Florida providing retirement compensation and who are receiving compensation thereunder, are retired judges within the contemplation of Section 2, Article V of the State Constitution.

Therefore, it is ordered that, pursuant to Section 2, Article V, Florida Constitution, such retired judges, with their consent, may be assigned by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida to judicial service in any court of the same jurisdiction in which they formerly served as active judges and also in any court of lesser jurisdiction to that in which they formerly served as active judges, except municipal courts; provided, they can comply with and meet all applicable requirements prescribed for retired judges set forth in the order entitled: “In Re: Rules Governing Assignment to Duty of Retired Justices and Judges” filed June 24, 1970, and reported in 236 So.2d 769-770 (Fla.).

It is further ordered that expenses and compensation for the judicial services of such assigned retired judges below circuit judges level shall be paid from appropriate available funds of the county or of the court for which the assignment was made.

This order shall become effective September 9, 1970.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

December 17, 2013

Response to October 24 Comment

Thank you for the letter dated October 24, 2013, which you submitted in connection with 

Polypore International, Inc.’s (“Polypore”) Application for Approval of the Divestiture of 

Microporous (“Application”), filed on September 24, 2013. Pursuant to the order in Docket No. 

9327, Polypore requested prior Commission approval of its proposal to divest Microporous to 

Seven Mile Capital Partners (“Seven Mile”). In your letter, you expressed concerns with a 

divestiture to Seven Mile because you believe it has too many ties to Polypore and would be a 

weak competitor.

In connection with its evaluation of this proposed transaction, the Commission received 

information from numerous sources, including the parties to the transaction and third parties, in 

addition to letters submitted by commenters during the public comment period.

The purpose of the divestiture is to restore competition lost through the transaction. In 

evaluating Polypore’s Application, the Commission analyzed all of the information available to 

it against that standard, including the public comments. In particular, the Commission 

thoroughly reviewed Seven Mile’s finances, investment history, and financial incentives, as well 

as its independence from Polypore. As a result of that analysis, the Commission concluded that 

the proposed divestiture would effectuate the remedial purposes of the order in this case. It has, 

thus, determined to approve the proposed transaction.

It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work on 

antitrust and consumer protection issues, and we appreciate your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wright not participating.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA PROCESSING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 68-351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 3, 1970.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. County Atty., for appellants.

Aaron M. Kanner, Richard Kanner and W. G. Ward, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on February 4, 1969 (218 So.2d 495) affirming the final judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December 3, 1969 and mandate dated January 16, 1970 reversed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on February 20, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed February 4, 1969 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida (229 So.2d 254) is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the final judgment of the Circuit Court granting certiorari to the Florida Processing Company and quashing the order of the Pollution Control Board of Metropolitan Dade County, appealed from herein, is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court for further expedited proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Circuit Court (Rule 3.16(b) F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.
# 2006 Inventory (Summary)

# Discontinued in 2006

# Removed from FMS
#### UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA v. Joe McLAUGHLIN.

No. 45377.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 19, 1969.

Thompson, Alexander & Crews, Jackson, for appellant.

Roland C. Lewis, Jackson, Louie M. Bishop, Waynesboro, for appellee.

JONES, Justice:

Appellee, McLaughlin, sued the appellant Company in the Circuit Court of Wayne County alleging damages to the surface of approximately fifteen acres of land on which the Company drilled a dry hole pursuant to a lease held by it. Judgment was entered for $1,000 in favor of McLaughlin.

The evidence is sufficient to carry the issue of liability to the jury. We do not deem it necessary to set out such evidence.

The judgment for $1,000, however, in our opinion, is not justified by the evidence and is so excessive as to evidence bias and prejudice on the part of the jury. If the appellee, within fifteen days from the date *680the judgment herein becomes final, will enter a remittitur reducing the judgment to $500, the case will be affirmed; otherwise, it will be reversed and remanded for a new trial on the question of damages.

Affirmed on condition of $500 remittitur ; otherwise reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages alone.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY and SMITH, JJ., concur.