alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE v. MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION et al.

No. 47400.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 4, 1974.

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Can-nada, Jay A. Travis, III, Jackson, N. Shelton Hand, Jr., Clinton, for appellant.

James E. Williams, Carl C. Bostic, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; George Williams Haynes, Chancellor.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ-

Affirmed.
# C_2015358EN.01000201.xml

| 30.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 358/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 358/2

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus

(2015/C 358/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1957 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1949 (4) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should continue to apply to those persons and entities. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

However, the persons and entities included in Annex II to Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1957, and in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1949, are hereby informed that the measures referred to in Articles 3(1) and 4 of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 have been suspended as far as they apply to them.

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2015, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 8a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 149.

2

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 71.

4

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18383]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 21, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 63 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-212, 
CP2018-294.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-18383 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                 MILLENNIUM OFFERING SHARES OF ITS COMMON STOCK

                    --STOCK SPLIT PAYMENT DATE ACCELERATED--

CAMBRIDGE, MASS., SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 -- Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Nasdaq: MLNM) today announced that it is making a public offering of 5.5
million shares of its common stock (plus up to 825,000 shares to cover
over-allotments, if any). All of the shares are being offered by the Company.
The shares of common stock are being offered by a prospectus supplement pursuant
to the Company's effective shelf registration statement in an offering jointly
managed by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, and co-managed
by Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In addition, the Company's Board of Directors has approved an acceleration of
the dividend distribution date for its previously-announced two-for-one stock
split, from October 18, 2000 to October 4, 2000. Stockholders of record at the
close of business on September 27, 2000 are entitled to one additional share of
common stock for each share of the Company's common stock held on that date.
After the distribution date, the number of shares being offered in the Company's
public offering will be adjusted to reflect the split.

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of
an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in
which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration
or qualification under the securities laws of any such state. A shelf
registration statement relating to the shares that the Company intends to sell
has previously been filed with, and declared effective by, the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Any offer, if at all, will be made only by means of a
prospectus, including a prospectus supplement, forming a part of the effective
registration statement.

Millennium is a leading drug discovery and development company that employs
large-scale genetics, genomics, high-throughput screening and informatics in an
integrated science and technology platform, which is applied to the discovery
and development of proprietary therapeutic and Diagnomic(TM) products and
services.
# RE: Carlsbad Energy Ce nter - Data Request

Tom W. Andrews

to:

Tom W. Andrews, Shaheerah Kelly

06/02/2010 09:58 AM

Cc:

"Piantka, George"

Show Details

This time with the attachment.

From: Tom W. Andrews

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:56 AM

To: 'Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov'

Cc: Tom W. Andrews; 'Piantka, George'

Subject: RE: Carlsbad Energy Center - Data Request

Ms. Kelly:

As requested last Friday, enclosed is a summary of the annual f uel use and emissions for Encina Units 1-3 for 2009. Please giv e me a call at 916-444-6666 regarding the need for monthly fuel us e/emissions for Encina Units 1-3 for the period from 1997 to 20 09.

I’m not sure why the EPA would need mont hly emissions/fuel use for a 13-year period given that PSD app licability is based on

annual emissions.

From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov [mailt o:Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:03 PM

To: Tom W. Andrews

Subject: Carlsbad Energy Center - Data Request

Tom,

We will need monthly, rather than annual, emissions and fuel data for the units at the Encina plant for the years 1997 to the

present. Providing this data in an excel spreadsheet would be very helpful. Please let me know if this can be done and whether you can provide this info this week or at a later time.

-Shaheerah

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Air Division (AIR-3)

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

email: kell y .shaheerah @ epa. g ov 

# Pa g e 1 of 1

6/12/2010EncinaPowerPlant2009AnnualEmissionsforUnits1,2,&3Unit1 Unit2 Unit3 TotalNaturalGas(tons/year)CO14.6 29.9 14.959.4NOx13.32.2 3.38.8PM103.7 2.6 3.29.6VOC1.9 1.3 1.95.1SOx10.2 0.1 0.20.5EmissionFactors2forUnits1,2,&3FactorsforNaturalGas(lb/MMscf)CO 4.18E+01 1.26E+02 4.34E+01NOxPM10 1.06E+01 1.10E+01 9.45E+00VOC 5.50E+00 5.50E+00 5.50E+00SOxFuelUseforUnits1,2,&3NaturalGas1(MMBtu/yr)714,234 483,252 697,387 1,894,873NaturalGas(MMscf/yr)701 474 684 1,860Notes:1.BasedoninformationfromEPAAcidRainwebsite(http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard).2.SDAPCDemissionsinventoryreportfor2009hasnotbeenfinalizedyet;therefore,theemissionfactorsfrom2007SDAPCDinventoryreportwereused.
#### Larry CRITTENDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-153.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1973.

Gerald Sohn, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); United States v. Battle, 467 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1972).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ„ concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 9, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 1255 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 12852

________________ 

### Mariana Fiuza A q uino d e Oliveira , Appellant,

vs. 

### Gregory Charles Sim , Appellee.

An a ppeal from non

- final order s from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Victoria d el Pino , Judge. Law Office of Kimberly H. Schultz, P.A. , and Kimberly H. Schultz (Plantation) , for appellant. Gregory Charles Sim, in proper person

. Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J

.2 In this paternity action, a ppellant, Mariana Fiuza Aquino d e Oliveira, the mother, challenges two non - final orders, the first of which entered default in favor of appellee, Gregory Charles Sim, the father , while the secon d denied a motion to quash s ervice of process. Under well

- settled precedent, we lack jurisdicti on to review the propriety of the default at this juncture in the proceedings

. See Fascetti v. Fascetti , 795 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that clerk’s defaults are not independently appealable )

. Because no summons was issued , however, l et alone served upon the mother, we are constrained to reverse the order denying the motion to quash. See Fla

. Fam. L. R. P. 12.070(a)(1) ( “ O n the commencement of the action ,

. . . summons or other process authorized by law must be issued immediately by the clerk or judge under the clerk’s or the judge ’ s signature and the seal of the court and delivered for service.” ) ; Ingenieria Y Exportacion De Tecnologia S.L. v. Freytech, Inc. , 2 10 So. 3d 211, 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“ Because no summons was ever served on

. . . the foreign defendant in this case, [the plaintiff] failed to comply with Florida ’ s service requirements .”); St ate ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan , 195 So. 145, 147 (Fla. 1940 ) ( “[T]he real purpose of the service of summons ad respondendum is to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff and, therefore, to vest jurisdiction in the court3 entertaining the controversy

. . . .” ) ; Bay City Mgmt., Inc. v. Henderson , 531 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“When [ the plaintiff] failed to issue summons to the [defendants] , they were not advised that they were individually being called upon to answer the complaint and defend the suit

. Thus, they were not obliged to serve any paper

. ”); see also Sierra v . U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr. , 299 So. 3d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“A defensive motion that challenges personal jurisdiction and that does not seek affirmative relief does not subject the movant to the court’s jurisdiction.”). Reversed and remanded.
# C_2014143EN.01000401.xml

| 13.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/4

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2014/271/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 479/2014, concerning restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in Côte d'Ivoire apply

2014/C 143/03

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2014/271/CFSP (2), and in Annex IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 479/2014 (4), imposing certain restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in Côte d'Ivoire.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/656/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

For the purpose of the Council's next review of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, the persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 March 2015, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the said list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| e-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu. |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

e-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28.

1

(2)  OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 108.

2

(3)  OJ L 95, 14.4.2005, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 3.

4

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Herbst Gaming, LLC(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David Ross, in my capacity as a person performing the equivalent functions ofprincipal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 15, 2010 | ** **                 |
|--------------------------|----------------------------|
|                     | ** **                 |
|                     | **HERBST  GAMING**,**LLC** |
|                     |                       |
|                     | By:                        | /s/  DAVID ROSS |
|                     |                       | Name:  David Ross |
|                     |                       | Title:  *Manager* |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. This Certification has not been,and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

----
#### Joan Littlejohn, Appellant, v City *of*New York, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 245]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated March 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied as academic her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs *(see, Littlejohn v City of New York,*290 AD2d 422 [decided herewith]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of NetSpend Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), George W. Gresham, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ George W. Gresham |                      |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  |                      |
| Name:                 | George   W. Gresham       |
|                  |                      |
| Title:                | Chief   Financial Officer |
|                  |                      |
|                  |                      |
| Date:                 | May 16,   2011       |
|                       |                           |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

 

----
### FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866

Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to identify for the public, in a complete, clear, and simple manner, t hose changes in a regulatory action made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget.

Title of Rulemaking: Photo Requirements for Pilot Certificates

Regulatory Identification Number: 2120-JA42

_________ _ OIRA did not review the rulemaking document.

__________ OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not suggest or recommend any changes.

____ X ______ OIRA reviewed the rulema king document, and we have documented the changes we made at OIRA’s suggestion or

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet.

Karen Thornton November 19, 2010 Office of Rulemaking Analyst Date

Attachment2 Several changes were made to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to questions from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The majority of these were wording

clarifications and insertions of additional information for the benefit of the reader.

Other changes were as follows:

 In the section of the preamble entitled “ Fees for Issuing or Replacing a Pilot
Certificate with Photo,” OMB asked the FAA to add—“ The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill (H.R. 915), if enacted as passed by the House of Representatives on May 21, 2009, would provide authority to increase fees for airman certificates. This legislation would allow the FAA to recover the costs related to airman certification, and the legislation sets the fee for issuing an airman certificate at $50 and for issuing a replacement airman certificate at $25. Once the outcome of the reauthorization legislati on is known, the FAA would decide whether additional rulemaking is necessary. ”

 In the preamble, OMB asked the FAA to create a consolidated section of questions for the public to consider titled “Comments Invited”, instead of including the questions in the sections of the preamble related to their issues.
#### ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION v. MILLIGAN.

NO. 39380.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 262. 229
# C_2014028EN.01000101.xml

| 31.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6857 — Crane Co./MEI Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 28/01

On 19 July 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6857. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6857. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---