alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment
No. 1 to the Bylaws as Amended through September 21, 1990


of


The
Saint James Company (f/k/a Radiation Disposal Systems, Inc.)





Dated as
of September 26, 2008




The
Bylaws, as amended through September 21, 1990, of The Saint James Company, a
North Carolina corporation f/k/a Radiation Disposal Systems, Inc., are hereby
amended as follows:




1.           The
second sentence of Section 1 of Article V is hereby deleted in its entirety and
the following is inserted in its place:




“Any two
or more offices may be held by the same person, including without limitation the
offices of President and Secretary.”
No. 11200.

#### Hauke *v.*Hauke, Executor.

Decided November 9, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Highland county.

*Messrs. Wilson & McBride,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Steele & Sams,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis, Si-tauck and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,173
<SECURITIES>                                     2,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                    54,442
<INVENTORY>                                     13,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,007
<PP&E>                                         438,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                 130,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 734,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,629
<BONDS>                                        491,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       224,475
<OTHER-SE>                                   (182,472)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   734,824
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               659,219
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               564,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46,606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,372
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    656
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,812)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,243)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 and 32.2

                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 Coates International, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, George J. Coates, President and Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company's Form
10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 19, 2004                 By: /s/ George J. Coates

                                           -------------------------------------
                                           George J. Coates
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Principal Financial Officer
Analysis of Impacts

• Original TSD - Nov. 1993

• Revised Analysis -

- Life cycle cost

- Energy savings

Feb. 1996

• Analysis Workshops - 1996 and 1997

• Revised TSD - July 1997

• Revised Analysis

- Life cycle cost

- Energy savings

- Utility impacts

April 1998

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21LL
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7383** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KENNETH RAY STEVENS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00015

- JPJ

- 1; 1:10

- cv - 80254 )

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Ray Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Stevens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proc edural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the r ecord and conclude that Stevens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
= al
i éhia|} hil] IX,
| | Mi
m i } Lai t +
i Y 3)! Wd | |
GH 4h ast lala) 2] 14 aa
ahah v: N 1 | |
HF dal ae
2 SSF i
by A Fis Si iatiel zi" | | i
x lta al Bata 4| |
a4 Z sini s |
1 2 4) fi Pins | fl
Hh Bh, a} 7) eA
Es a Nb Zid | | |
4 4 | | |
wi 2/2257 am ae
He 4 bday | | | hi
Ae Nee tal eee | | |
PA 4) 2 He | | bad
Wie eis tal ete) 1) | } Ea
2 yout LAbeh Ph eae
ia] vawa ear aeg made |
MA) cy a8 fae 41) | |
bei ei z| Pizhsi2l 7
¢ 14] ey pai | |

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                      1995 DIRECTORS STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                                       OF
                       UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                SECOND AMENDMENT


The following represents the SECOND AMENDMENT to the above-referenced Plan,
following its amendment and restatement effective July 14, 1998, made by the
Board, subject to shareholder approval, at its January 21, 1999 meeting:

         1.    Section 4(a) is amended by substituting "1,500,000" for
               "1,000,000".

         2.    The foregoing amendment is effective on the date approved by
               the shareholders.

         3.    Except as amended herein, all other terms and provisions shall
               remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>

Subsidiaries of Registrant
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

Advertising & Display Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Advertising Services, ltd.
ARAMARK Bay Area Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Business Dining Services of Texas, Inc.
ARAMARK Cleanroom Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Consumer Discount Company
ARAMARK Convention Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Correctional Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Delaware, Inc.
ARAMARK Educational Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Educational Resources, Inc.
ARAMARK Educational Services of Texas, Inc.
ARAMARK Educational Services of Vermont, Inc.
ARAMARK Educational Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Facilities Management, Inc.
ARAMARK Facility Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Food and Support Services Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Health & Education Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Healthcare Support Services of Puerto Rico, Inc.
ARAMARK Healthcare Support Services of Texas, Inc.
ARAMARK Healthcare Support Services of the Virgin Islands, Inc.
ARAMARK Healthcare Support Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Industrial Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Kitty Hawk, Inc.
ARAMARK Magazine & Book Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Marketing Services Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Pittsburgh Limited
ARAMARK Pittsburgh Stadium Concessions, Inc.
ARAMARK RBI, Inc.
ARAMARK Refreshment Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Senior Notes Company
ARAMARK Services of Kansas, Inc.
ARAMARK Services of Puerto Rico, Inc.
ARAMARK Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Share 100, Inc.
ARAMARK Sports and Entertainment Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Sports and Entertainment Services of Texas, Inc.
ARAMARK Sports and Entertainment Services, Inc.
ARAMARK Summer Games 1996, Inc.
ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc.
ARAMARK Uniform Manufacturing Company
ARAMARK Uniform Services Group, Inc.
ARAMARK Venue Services, Inc.


<PAGE>


ARAMARK/Gall's Group, Inc.
ARAMARK/HMS Company
CWLC Brokerage, Inc.
D.G. Maren II, Inc.
Davre's, Inc.
Delsac VI, Inc.
Delsac VII, Inc.
Delsac VIII, Inc.
Delsac X, Inc.
Dragon Wagon, Inc.
E.T. Wright Corporation
Fashion-Tex Services, Inc.
Gall's, Inc.
H.M.S. Delaware, Inc.
Harry M. Stevens, Inc.
Harry M. Stevens, Inc. of New Jersey
Harry M. Stevens, Inc. of Penn.
Landy Textile Rental Services, Inc.
Linen Supply Service, Inc.
Main, Inc.
Merced News Company
Smithsub, Inc.
#### Jerry John ROUSSELLE v. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., and Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company.

No. 5776.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 1, 1973.

*468Seelig & Cosse, Irvy E. Cosse, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Car-rere & Denegre, Ignatz G. Kiefer, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before REGAN, REDMANN and STOULIG, JJ.

REGAN, Judge.

Petitioner herein instituted suit for damages against Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., and its insurer, Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. By supplemental and amended petition, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was likewise joined as a party defendant in this cause.

Exceptions of no right or cause of action were pleaded by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and a motion for summary judgment was filed by Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., both of which sought dismissal of plaintiff’s demand. These matters were heard by the trial court on June 23, 1972 and taken under advisement. On July 3, 1972 judgment was rendered in favor of defendants dismissing plaintiff’s demand.

This court, on its own motion, has raised the question of whether the devolutive appeal bond has been timely filed herein thereby giving jurisdiction to this court to hear the plaintiff’s appeal.

Notice of judgment was mailed to counsel for plaintiff on July 3, 1972. Normally the delay for applying for a new trial would have commenced to run on the following day pursuant to C.C.P. art. 1974; however, since July 4 was a legal holiday, the time began to run on July 5, 1972 and expired on July 7. Plaintiff had 90 days from July 7 or until October 5 within which to perfect his appeal.

The record reflects that plaintiff’s devolutive appeal bond was not filed until October 10. Accordingly, plaintiff has not properly perfected his appeal and the appeal must therefore be dismissed since we lack jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Appeal dismissed.

REDMANN, Judge

(concurring).

I concur on the ground that Orrell v. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co., 248 La. 576, 180 So.2d 710 (1965) obliges us to dismiss.

But note grant of writ, 262 La. 1069, 266 So.2d 213, to review Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, 264 So.2d 304 (La.App.1972). See also dissent from writ refusal, Bonvillian v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 262 La. 1175, 266 So.2d 450 (1972).
55

60

65

70

75

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020

Percent

Annual Homeownership Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968-2022

Recession

Figure 5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, March 15, 2023

Recession data: National Bureau of Economic Research, <www.nber.org>

South

Midwest

United States

Northeast

West

2022
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 01/01-0435]

Notice is hereby given that Ironwood Mezzanine Fund IV-A, L.P., 45 Nod Road, Suite 2, Avon, CT 06001, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with a financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Ironwood Mezzanine Fund IV-A, L.P. proposes to provide debt and equity financing for the purpose of purchasing a subsidiary (Capewell Intermediate Holding, LLC) from an Associate, Capewell Holding, LLC. Capewell Holding, LLC is an Associate because Ironwood Mezzanine Fund III-A L.P., an Associate of Mezzanine Fund IV-A, L.P., owns more than ten percent of Capewell Holding, LLC.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) of the Regulations because proceeds from the transaction will directly benefit Associates Ironwood Mezzanine Fund III, L.P. and Ironwood Mezzanine Fund III-A, L.P.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2018-16415 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
#### AMERICAN HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. O. Patricia REGNIER, Appellee.

No. 72-616.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 9, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Wm. G. Akridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, doing business as Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Appellee.

No. 72-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### GUEDRY FINANCE COMPANY, INC. v. Oscar M. SANDERSON.

No. 8763.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 11, 1978.

Warren M. Simon Jr., Metairie, for Gued-ry Finance Company, Inc., plaintiff-appellant.

*1339George J. G. Roux, New Orleans, for the Legal Successors of Oscar M. Sanderson, defendant-appellee.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

Defendant heirs of Oscar M. Sanderson obtained an ex parte order dismissing plaintiff’s suit as abandoned under C.C.P. Art. 561. Plaintiff filed a rule nisi questioning the validity of that order, and judgment was rendered dismissing the rule and maintaining the order of dismissal of suit. Plaintiff appeals.

The pertinent facts are that Guedry Finance Company, Inc. filed a suit on a promissory note January 21,1971, and the sheriff returned citation not served, February 1, 1971. Within five years of those dates nothing was done except on November 14, 1975, plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the promissory note from the registry of the court to use in another suit against these heirs. The sole question is did thát action constitute a step in the prosecution so as to prevent abandonment? Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 561 states in pertinent part:

> “An action is abandoned when the parties fail to take any steps in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of five years. This provision shall be operative without formal order, but on ex parte motion of any party or other interested person, the trial court shall enter a formal order of dismissal as of the date of its abandonment.”

 The interpretation of that rule is that a step in the prosecution of a suit requires some formal move which must appear in the court record in the subject court and intended to hasten judgment therein. *Melancon v. Continental Casualty Company,*307 So.2d 308 (La.1975). A motion to withdraw the promissory note upon which the suit is based may have been of assistance in prosecuting the other suit, but it is certainly not a step in the prosecuting of this suit. See for example, *Lips v. Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool,*149 La. 359, 89 So. 213 (La.1921) arising under then Civil Code Article 3519 in which a motion for permission to withdraw the record was made.

The judgment is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Galephar 
Pharmaceutical Research Inc.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 31, 2018. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated 
to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division 
(``Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, 
appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 
3, 2018, Galephar Pharmaceutical Research Inc., #100 Carr 198 
Industrial Park, Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777 applied to be registered as 
an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Drug
          Controlled substance            code           Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydromorphone..........................    9150  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in 
finished dosage form for clinical trials, research and analytical 
purposes.

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
 John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-16466 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1571 

To permit the District of Columbia to obligate and expend local funds in 

accordance with the local budget adopted by the Council of the District 

of Columbia during any period of fiscal year 2014 in which no Federal 

law appropriating such local funds is in effect, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 12, 2013 

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To permit the District of Columbia to obligate and expend 

local funds in accordance with the local budget adopted 

by the Council of the District of Columbia during any 

period of fiscal year 2014 in which no Federal law appropriating such local funds is in effect, 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, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1571 IS

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING USE OF LOCAL FUNDS BY DIS2 TRICT OF COLUMBIA WHEN NO FEDERAL AP3 PROPRIATION OF LOCAL FUNDS IS IN EF4 FECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014. 

5 (a) USE OF LOCAL FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any 

6 provision of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, dur7 ing any period of fiscal year 2014 in which no Act of Con8 gress is in effect to approve the obligation or expenditure 

9 of local funds by the District of Columbia government, the 

10 District of Columbia may obligate and expend local funds 

11 for programs and activities at the rate set forth under 

12 ‘‘District of Columbia Funds—Summary of Expenses’’ as 

13 included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request Act of 

14 2013 (D.C. Act 20–127), as modified as of the date of 

15 the enactment of this Act, except that the obligation or 

16 expenditure of such local funds for a program or activity 

17 shall remain subject to any terms and conditions which 

18 were imposed on the obligation or expenditure of local 

19 funds for such program or activity pursuant to section 

20 1101 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appro21 priations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6; 127 Stat. 412). 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall apply 

23 with respect to any obligation or expenditure of funds oc24 curring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS