alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33898]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems 
(1205).
    Date & Time: January 14 and January 15, 1998; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rooms 530 and 580 Arlington, 
Virginia 22230.
    Contact Person: Dr. Sunil Saigal, Program Director, Mechanics 
and Materials Programs, Dr. Jorn Larsen-Basse, Program Director, 
Surface Engineering and Tribology Program, Division of Civil and 
Mechanical Systems, Room 545, NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 
22230. 703/306-1361, x 5069 and x 5073.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate research proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 22, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-33898 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.Y.
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, Docket No. 9300

a corporation, and

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

ee a

ORDER ON PREHEARING CONFERENCE

The parties are hereby notified hat the prehearing scheduling conference in the above
referenced matter will be held on February 15, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. in Room 532, Federal ‘Irade
* Commission Building, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C.

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.21, the parties are directed to meet befure the prehearing
scheduling conference to discuss a proposed pretrial scheduling order. The parties will be
provided with a proposed pretrial scheduling order and are directed to be prepared to discuss any
modifications to it at the conference.

ORDERED: => hy aged A
D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Date: February 12, 2002
#### Rene WERTHEIMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sheridan Weinstein, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and JOHNSON, DEWEY M., Associate Judge. , .

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from an adjudication of delinquency for disorderly conduct [Fla.Stat., § 877.03, F.S.A.], we have carefully considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and are of the belief that there does not appear of record competent substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. Accordingly, we reverse the order adjudicating appellant a delin quent.

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7143 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7143

 To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States 
                                 Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2020

Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Ms. Pressley, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
   Espaillat, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Levin of Michigan, and Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States 
                                 Code.

    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 ``Demilitarizing Local Law Enforcement 
Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking section 2576a.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by striking the item relating to section 2576a.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7207 

To prohibit the use of funds for the 2022 and 2026 World Cup until 

the date on which Policy 604–1 of the United States Soccer Federation 

is reinstated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. GAETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds for the 2022 and 2026 World 

Cup until the date on which Policy 604–1 of the United 

States Soccer Federation is reinstated. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2022 

4 AND 2026 WORLD CUP. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Fed6 eral funds may be appropriated or otherwise made avail7 able to provide support for the 2022 and 2026 World Cup, 

8 including support for a host city, a participating State or 

9 local agency, the United States Soccer Federation, the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7207 IH

1 Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean 

2 Association Football (CONCACAF), or the Fe ́de ́ration 

3 Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), until the 

4 date on which Policy 604–1 of the United States Soccer 

5 Federation is reinstated. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUNEEFA ABDULLAH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 55888

D.C. No.

2:15

- cv

- 09581

- SVW

- JPR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 8, 2018 **

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON

, ***

District Judge.

Muneefa Abdullah appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of The

Walt Disney Company in this copyright action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for

the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 8 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After a careful examination of each alleged similarity betw een

The Snow Princess and Frozen , the district court concluded that the two works are

not substantially similar under the extrinsic test as a matter of law. We agree and

therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its well

- reasoned

de cision granting The Walt Disney Company ’s motion to dismiss

. 1

AFFIRMED.

1 For the first time on appeal, Abdullah contends that the witch is the princess’s

subconscious. Even if that were apparent from the text of The Snow Princess

, which it is not, the outcome is the same because it is an ent irely different

expression of the idea of a princess with ice powers than presented in Froze n

. See

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm ’ t Co. , 462 F.3d 1072, 1078

– 79 (9th Cir.

2006) (rejecting appellants’ “attempt to link up” the main characters in the w orks

because the expression of the generic traits of those characters was different).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,614,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,345,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (245,138)
<INVENTORY>                                     55,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,721,481
<PP&E>                                       3,576,345
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,654,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,716,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,627,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       129,319
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,917,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,716,624
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,919,594
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,689,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (22,993)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,680,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,680,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,680,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


NOTE CANCELLATION AGREEMENT


 


This Note
Cancellation Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated as of October 13, 2021, is entered by and between Petra Acquisition,
Inc. (the “Borrower”), and Pine Valley Investments LLC (the “Lender”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower has
issued to the Lender the promissory note attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Note”);


 


WHEREAS, no advances have
been made by the Lender to the Borrower and no amounts are due and outstanding to the Lender pursuant to the Note;


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower and
the Lender desire to cancel the Note and all obligations outstanding in connection with the Note.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing recitals, the mutual promises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


The Borrower and the Lender
hereby agree that, effective as of the date hereof the Note is hereby terminated and cancelled and shall be of no further force and effect.


 


This Agreement and its validity,
enforcement and interpretation shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware (without regard to any principles of conflicts of
laws). Each of the Borrower and the Lender, acting for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby expressly and irrevocably consents
to the exclusive jurisdictions of the state and federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware, for any litigation which may arise out
of or be related to this Agreement. Both the Lender and the Borrower waive personal service of any and all process, and each consents
that all service of process may be made by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to the applicable party at its proper address.
Both the Borrower and the Lender waive any objection based on forum non-conveniens or any objection to venue of any such action. Whenever
a time of day is referred to herein, unless otherwise specified such time shall be the local time of New York, New York. The words “include”
and “including” shall be interpreted as if followed by the words “without limitation.”


 


The execution of this Agreement
may be by actual or facsimile signature. This Agreement replaces all prior and contemporaneous communications, agreements and understandings,
written or oral, with respect to the subject matter set forth herein.


 


[Signature page follows.]


 




     


     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Note Forgiveness & Cancellation Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


 


BORROWER:


 


	PETRA ACQUISITION, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Andreas Typaldos	 
	 Name: 	Andreas Typaldos	 
	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer	 



 


LENDER:


 


	PINE VALLEY INVESTMENTS, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Harry Morad	 
	Name:  	Harry Morad	 
	Title: 	Managing Partner	 



 




    2


    


    


 


Exhibit A


Promissory Note


 


 


 


Exhibit
A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ROBERTO CALDERON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 358 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of October, 2015, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Charles J. Hinkaty, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Laboratories, Inc.;

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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2007




                                                 /S/ CHARLES J. HINKATY
                                                 ----------------------
                                                     Charles J. Hinkaty
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### Walter Harris BOLES, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-876.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 64]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-144-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

December 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 18, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural), 701 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148, 
filed in Docket No. CP98-144-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 
and 157.212(a) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas 
Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.212(a)) seeking NGA Section 7(c) 
certification to retain and operate an existing 3-inch tap and dual 2-
inch meter originally authorized under NGPA Section 311 to deliver gas 
to Land O'Lakes, Inc. in Beaver County, Oklahoma, under the blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-402-000, all as more fully set 
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Natural states that it seeks NGA certification in order that it may 
be used to provide Part 284 Subpart G transportation. Natural's 
proposed quantities to be delivered at the existing point of delivery 
are 1,300 MMBtu/day. Natural states that the end use of gas is for Land 
O'Lakes, Inc. Natural states that it can provide the quantities of 
natural gas without detriment or disadvantage to its peak day and 
annual delivery capacity. Natural notes that the total volume of gas to 
be delivered after the facilities are certificated will not exceed the 
total volume originally capable of being delivered. Natural states that 
the facilities were placed in-service on November 2, 1997. Natural 
contends that it is currently providing interruptible transportation 
service by means of the subject facilities under Rate Schedule ITS.
    Natural asserts that it obtained the appropriate environmental 
clearances from the Oklahoma Historical Society, the United States 
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oklahoma 
Archaeological Survey, and the Department of the Army Corps of 
Engineers for its proposed construction.
    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 Section 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 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. 97-34174 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors
Reinhold Industries, Inc.

The audits referred to in our report dated March 16, 2001,  included the related
financial  statement  schedule as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and for each of
the years in the three year period  ended  December  31,  2000,  included in the
December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reinhold  Industries,  Inc. This
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's  management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule.
In our opinion,  such financial statement schedule,  when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


We consent to the use of our reports included herein.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 12, 2001
EXHIBIT 23.3

[LETTERHEAD OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. APPEARS HERE]

March 11,
2004

Hugoton
Royalty Trust
P.O. Box 830650
Dallas, TX 75283-0650



Gentlemen:

The
firm of Miller and Lents, Ltd., consents to the use of its name and to the use of its report dated March 11, 2004, regarding the Hugoton Royalty Trust Proved Reserves
and Future Net Revenue as of December 31, 2003, in the 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Miller
and Lents, Ltd., has no interests in the Hugoton Royalty Trust or in any affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is not to receive any such interest as payment for such
reports and has no director, officer, or employee otherwise connected with Hugoton Royalty Trust. We are not employed by Hugoton Royalty Trust on a contingent basis.

| |  | Yours very truly,     
| |  | ----------------------
| |  | MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
| |  | By                    

QuickLinks
255 La. 162

#### LAKE PROVIDENCE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc. v. TALLULAH PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 50275.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Lake Providence Equipment Company, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of East Carroll. 228 So.2d 315.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a railroad corporation, Appellant, v. James P. HALL, Appellee.

No. 71-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.