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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

____________________________________

)

In the Matter of )

)

California Naturel, Inc., ) Docket No. 9370

a corporation, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S INITIAL STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s Order dated June 1, 2016, Complaint 

Counsel submits its Initial Status Report. Complaint Counsel has been unable to speak with the 

Respondent’s principal, John Bernard Duler, to discuss this Initial Status Report, despite having 

left two voicemails for Mr. Duler on both his business line and his mobile phone.

Complaint Counsel spoke with Mr. Duler on May 19, 2016 regarding possible settlement 

of this matter. During this telephone call, Complaint Counsel and Mr. Duler reached agreement 

on settlement terms. On May 20, 2016, Complaint Counsel forwarded to Mr. Duler a proposed 

consent agreement and a draft joint motion to withdraw this matter from adjudication. 

Complaint Counsel has not heard from Respondent since we forwarded the documents despite 

several efforts to reach Mr. Duler. We plan to file the joint motion as soon as Respondent signs 

and returns the motion and consent agreement.

Dated: June 3, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert M. Frisby

Robert M. Frisby (202) 326-2098

John Andrew Singer (202) 326-3234

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

06 03 2016

582869
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

2

Mailstop CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580
Notice of Electronic Service

I hereby certify that on June 03, 2016, I filed an electronic copy of the foregoing Complaint Counsel's Initial

Status Report, with:

D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 110

Washington, DC, 20580

Donald Clark

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 172

Washington, DC, 20580

I hereby certify that on June 03, 2016, I served via E-Service an electronic copy of the foregoing Complaint

Counsel's Initial Status Report, upon:

Robert Frisby

Attorney

Federal Trade Commission

rfrisby@ftc.gov

Complaint

John Singer

Attorney

Federal Trade Commission

jsinger@ftc.gov

Complaint

I hereby certify that on June 03, 2016, I served via other means, as provided in 4.4(b) of the foregoing

Complaint Counsel's Initial Status Report, upon:

john bernard duler

president

california natural

jbduler@californianaturel.com

Respondent

Robert Frisby

Attorney
NACEPT Charges and Deliverables

May 19, 2011
NACEPT Workforce Workgroup

1

st Advice Letter January 2011 • Scientific and Technical Competencies Needed 

to Meet Tomorrow's Challenges

2

nd Advice Letter May 2011 • Strategies for Recruiting and Retaining Scientific 

and Technical Expertise

• Leadership Capabilities and Culture for One EPA

3

rd Advice Letter September 

2011

• Strategies to Attract and Retain Superior 

Executive Leadership Talent

• Ensuring Diversity

Final Report December 

2011

• Overarching thoughts and recommendations on 

workforce charge topics 
NACEPT Vulnerable Populations 

Workgroup Charge

EPA requests advice from NACEPT about how to ensure the development and 

deployment of technologies that EPA, states, and regulated entities can use to 

identify, measure, and reduce environmental risks faced by vulnerable 

populations.

1. What is currently known about major environmental and related 

health risks faced by vulnerable populations?

2. What technologies are most useful (i.e., accessible, affordable, 

understandable, easy to implement) in monitoring, communicating 

and reducing these risks, in particular, specific technologies that are 

now emerging as “game changers”?

3. How can EPA identify and address the barriers to the development and 

deployment of such technologies?
NACEPT Vulnerable Populations 

Workgroup Timeline

May 19-20, 

2011

Agreement on case studies to be included in 

report

September 

2011

Complete draft for review by NACEPT

December 

2011

Final report approved by NACEPT and 

transmitted to EPA Administrator
#### Charles Lee JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43231.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 269 So.2d 783.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
258 La. 363

#### Vernon A. FOSTER et al. v. Raymond L. SMITH (Air Vent Awning, Inc., Garnishee).

No. 51323.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Vernon A. Foster and Jo Ann Foster applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 244 So.2d 899.

Writ denied. There is no error of law in the judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,086
<SECURITIES>                                    38,788
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,995
<PP&E>                                          25,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,083
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,588
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,799
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,158
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51004

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE HERNANDEZ-GARAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-01-CR-38-ALL

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

November 8, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Rene Hernandez-Garay (Hernandez) pleaded guilty,

conditionally, to possession with intent to distribute marijuana

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a 33-

month term of imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the denial

of his pre-trial motion to suppress. He contends solely that the

Border Patrol agents did not have reasonable suspicion to stop

the vehicle he was driving. 
No. 01-51004

-2-

“In reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to

suppress, the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for

clear error, and its legal conclusions, including whether there

was reasonable suspicion for a stop, are reviewed de novo.” 

United States v. Espinosa-Alvarado, 302 F.3d 304, 305 n.1 (5th

Cir. 2002).

This court recently addressed the same facts and legal

arguments, based upon the same lower court rulings and testimony,

in the case of Hernandez’s co-defendant, Cesar Adrian EspinosaAlvarado (Espinosa). Id. at 306-07. There, we determined that

the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the

vehicle in which Hernandez was the driver and Espinosa was the

passenger and that the district court did not err in denying

Espinosa’s motion to suppress. Espinosa, 302 F.3d at 306-07; see

United States v. Arvizu, 122 S. Ct. 744, 750-51 (2002). There is

no factual or legal basis for reaching a different result in the

instant case. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

hereby AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 770 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make student loans 

dischargeable. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. KATKO (for himself, Mrs. DINGELL, and Mr. LOWENTHAL) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make student 

loans dischargeable. 

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 ‘‘Discharge Student 

5 Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO DISCHARGE. 

7 Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by striking paragraph (8); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 770 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through 

2 (14B) as paragraphs (8) through (14A), respec3 tively. 

4 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

5 Title 11, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in section 704(c)(1)(C)(iv)(I) by striking 

7 ‘‘(14A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(14)’’; 

8 (2) in section 1106(c)(1)(C)(iv)(I) by striking 

9 ‘‘(14A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(14)’’; 

10 (3) in section 1202(c)(1)(C)(iv)(I) by striking 

11 ‘‘(14A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(14)’’; and 

12 (4) in section 1328(a)(2) by striking ‘‘(8), or 

13 (9)’’ and inserting ‘‘or (8)’’. 

14 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

15 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub16 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

17 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

18 Act. 

19 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend20 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 

21 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code 

22 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.47

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO REPUBLIC BANK BUILDING LEASE

9600 BROWNSBORO ROAD

JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY

 

This Fourth Amendment to Lease dated as of January 15, 2014, with an effective date as of August 1, 2014, is made to the Republic Bank Building Lease dated August 1, 1999, as amended, between Jaytee Properties, a Kentucky general partnership, now known as Jaytee-Springhurst, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Landlord” and Republic Bank & Trust Company, hereinafter referred to as the “Tenant”.  As parties hereto, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree to further modify and amend their original Lease Agreement, as amended, as hereafter set forth.

 

Landlord and Tenant agree that the following terms of the Lease, as amended, shall be further amended to extend the Term of the Lease for an additional five years and to add an additional five-year option exercisable at Tenant’s election.  The extended term shall be a five-year term beginning on August 1, 2014, extending to July 31, 2019, with one five- year option to renew at the same rental rate plus an adjustment for a CPI increase as averaged over the herein extended term.  Rent shall be increased during the extended term by the most recent five-year average CPI increase to be calculated at the end of the current five-year term and continue in accordance with the terms of that original lease, as amended, referenced herein, except as otherwise provided under this Fourth Amendment.  More specifically, the Lease, as amended, shall be further amended as follows:

 

ARTICLE II, TERM, is hereby amended to include the following:

The Term shall be extended from August 1, 2014 and shall terminate on July 31, 2019, unless further extended.  Tenant shall have one option to renew the Lease for an additional five-year period.  Tenant shall notify Landlord of Tenant’s intent to exercise this option herein provided within 90 days of the expiration of the most recent five-year term.

 

ARTICLE III.  RENT AND OPERATING EXPENSES, is hereby amended to include the following:

SECTION 1.  Tenant shall pay to Landlord, at Landlord’s office in the Building or at such place as Landlord may from time to time designate, as monthly rental for the Premises from August 1, 2014 through July 31, 2019, the sum of $21,592.00 per month, plus additional rent equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers during the most recent five-year term.  Notwithstanding, no rate increase shall exceed 15% during the extended term or the option period compared to the prior five-year term Rent.  Tenant shall be responsible for the cost of Tenant Improvements, if applicable, and accepts the space as is.

 

The terms and provisions of the original lease, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect except as modified and amended herein.

 

 

	
REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST   COMPANY
    	
 
    	
JAYTEE-SPRINGHURST,   LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
BY:
    	
/s/   Kevin Sipes
    	
 
    	
BY: 
    	
/s/   Steven E. Trager
#### John SYKES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43227.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 482.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7603 

To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to require congressional 

notice if the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 

notifies a party to a covered transaction that the Committee has completed all action with respect to such transaction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2020 

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Mr. HIMES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to 

the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to require 

congressional notice if the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States notifies a party to a covered 

transaction that the Committee has completed all action 

with respect to such transaction, 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 ‘‘Improving Congres5 sional Oversight of CFIUS Determinations Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7603 IH

1 SEC. 2. CERTIFIED NOTICE AT COMPLETION OF AN ASSESS2 MENT. 

3 Section 721(b)(3) of the Defense Production Act of 

4 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(b)(3)) is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 

6 (A) in the heading, by adding ‘‘OR ASSESS7 MENT’’ at the end; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘subsection (b) that con9 cludes action under this section’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘this subsection that concludes action under 

11 this section, or upon the Committee making a 

12 notification under paragraph 

13 (1)(C)(v)(III)(aa)(DD)’’; and 

14 (2) in subparagraph (C)(i)— 

15 (A) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

16 the end; 

17 (B) in subclause (II), by striking the pe18 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

19 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(III) whether the transaction is 

21 described under clause (i), (ii), (iii), 

22 (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(4)(B).’’. 

23 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1727(a) of the Foreign 

25 Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (Pub26 lic Law 115–232) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7603 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘(4)(C)(v)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘(4)(F)’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘subpara4 graph (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (C)’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments under sub6 section (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 

7 the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 

8 of 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
September 27, 2013

Mr. Randall Fiertz

Director

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-1

Federal Aviation Administration

Orville Wright Building

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Withdrawal of Revised Preliminary Application under 49 U.S.C. § 47134 for Chicago 

Midway International Airport

Dear Mr. Fiertz:

The City of Chicago hereby withdraws its Revised Preliminary Application, filed January 17, 

2013, under 49 U.S.C. § 47134 for Chicago Midway International Airport.

As you know, the City of Chicago set high standards in exploring a potential leasing of Midway 

Airport that would ensure taxpayers and our airport stakeholders – including the airlines, 

passengers, and workers -- received a fair and equitable deal. Throughout the process, the City 

remained committed to proceeding only if a transaction could meet the criteria. We said from 

the beginning that any potential lease would be structured differently and that it would not be 

supported unless very specific conditions were met. At this time, we do not believe these 

conditions will be met. 

On behalf of the City, I want to thank you and your team for the helpful assistance you have 

provided us as the City evaluated this potential transaction. 

Sincerely,

Lois Scott

Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Veritas DGC Inc. (the "Company")for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Mark E. Baldwin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.          TheForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;

 

2.          Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof the dates and for the periods presented as required by such report.

 

June 6,2006

 

 
| /s/ MARK E. BALDWIN     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Mark E. Baldwin         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Veritas DGC Inc. and will be retained byVeritas DGC Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice: 18-050]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Science Advisory Committee (PAC). This Committee functions in an advisory capacity to the Director, Planetary Science Division, in the NASA Science Mission Directorate. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the planetary science community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. 

# DATES:

Monday, July 2, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held telephonically and via WebEx. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-800-779-9966 or toll number 1-517-645-6359, passcode 3954829, followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting. The WebEx link is                         *https://nasa.webex.com/​;*                         the meeting number is 994 146 371, password is PAC@July2 (case sensitive).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or                         *khenderson@nasa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

—Planetary Science Division Update

—Planetary Science Division Research and Analysis Program Update

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Patricia Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2018-12307 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Sh inberg, Samuel I.

From:

Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:49 AM

To: Walsh, Kathryn E.; Sheinberg, Samuel |.; Six, Anne; Whitehead, Nora; Musick, Vesselina
Subject: FW: Item 3(b) - Employment Agreements

From: Berg, Karen E. <KBERG@ftc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:49:21 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: Item - Employment Agreements

We are looking for non-competes that constrain the seller post-acquisition, so it doesn’t appear you need to produce

these.

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, "DU: -U5:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Be + Item ~ Employment Agreements

Hi PNO,

I’m looking at Informal 1702002 (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/informal-
interpretations/1702002) where you say “we are fine with not receiving non-competes that are in the form of a
continuing employment agreement and the acquired person is not a party to said agreement.”

By “acquired person” does this mean the UPE/seller or the entire person, i.e., including the acquired entity?

I’m looking at a situation where, in connection with the sale of Target (a reportable transaction), Target signed
employment agreements with a number of employees, and all of those include non-competes. Neither the buyer nor
the seller is a party to these agreements, however.

Based on the language quoted above, | think | would need to include all of them since the acquired person is a party,
since that “person” includes the acquired entity. But perhaps I’m misreading Informal 1702002?