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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1951 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gum Rosin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. ISAKSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gum Rosin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GUM ROSIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Gum Rosin (CAS No. 8050– 

09–7) (provided for in subheading 3806.10.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1951 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 32006M4112 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32006M4112

**Commission Decision of 28/02/2006 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4112 - CERBERUS / GOLDMAN SACHS / WITTUR) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 28/02/2006

SG-Greffe(2006) D/200889

To the notifying party

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.4112 - CERBERUS / GOLDMAN SACHS / WITTUR Notification of 24.01.2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 26 of 02.02.2006, page 8

1. On 24.01.2006 , the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which the undertakings Pelton S.à. r.l. (Luxembourg) belonging to the Cerberus Group (“Cerberus”, USA) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”, USA), through its subsidiary ELQ Investors Ltd. (UK), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Wittur AG (“Wittur”, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Cerberus: investments in personal property;

- for Goldman Sachs: investment banking and securities firm;

- for Wittur: manufacturing of elevator components.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph b, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

(signed)

Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                             (Shares in Thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                                                                   -----------------------
                                                                                     1995           1996
                                                                                   --------       --------
                                                                                (Pro forma) (a)
<S>                                                                                 <C>           <C>    
Average number of shares outstanding ...........................................    248,896       249,153

Average shares issuable on exercise of stock
   options less shares repurchasable from proceeds .............................        778           925
                                                                                    -------       -------

Total average number of common and common equivalent shares ....................    249,674       250,078
                                                                                    =======       =======


Net income (millions) ..........................................................    $ 316.2       $ 320.8
                                                                                    =======       =======

Earnings per share .............................................................    $  1.27       $  1.28
                                                                                    =======       =======
</TABLE>


(a)      Pro forma earnings per share is based upon 1995 pro forma net income
         (see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements) and the average
         number of common shares outstanding from the date of the Company's
         initial public offering (October 10, 1995) until December 31, 1995.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 4083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1537]

[[Page 4083]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7775]

Amendment of the Designation of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, et al. as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity Pursuant to Executive 
Order 13224

    In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of al-Qa'ida 
in Iraq, aka Jam'at al Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, aka The Monotheism and 
Jihad Group, aka The al-Zarqawi Network, aka al-Tawhid, aka Tanzim 
Qa`idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, aka The Organization of al-
Jihad's Base of Operations in Iraq, aka al-Qaida of Jihad in Iraq, 
aka al-Qaida in Iraq, aka al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, aka al-Qaida in 
the Land of the Two Rivers, aka al-Qaida of the Jihad in the Land of 
the Two Rivers, aka al-Qaida of Jihad Organization in the Land of 
the Two Rivers, aka al-Qaida Group of Jihad in Iraq, aka al-Qaida 
Group of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers, aka The Organization 
of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers, aka The 
Organization Base of Jihad/Country of the Two Rivers, aka The 
Organization of al-Jihad's Base in the Land of the Two Rivers, aka 
The Organization Base of Jihad/Mesopotamia, aka The Organization of 
al-Jihad's Base of Operations in the Land of the Two Rivers, aka 
Tanzeem qa'idat al Jihad/Bildad al Raafidaini, as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist entity pursuant to Executive Order 
13224.

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and in consultation with the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
State concludes that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that 
al-Qa'ida in Iraq, also known under the aliases listed above, uses or 
has used an additional alias, namely, Islamic State of Iraq.
    Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby amends the 2004 
designation of al-Qa'ida in Iraq as a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist entity, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, to include the 
following new alias and other possible transliterations thereof: 
Islamic State of Iraq.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-1537 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dwight Hendy, Appellant, v Arthur Leonardo, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered August 23, 1990 in Washington County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus insofar as his allegations concerning his indictment and conviction were or could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion *(see, People ex rel. Rosado v Miles,*138 AD2d 808). In addition, the allegations in his petition do not warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure *(see, People ex rel. Grady v LeFevre,*152 AD2d 850, *lv denied*75 NY2d 702). Finally, it is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus is an improper vehicle for testing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, People ex rel. Grant v Scully,*133 AD2d 359).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128554 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128554 COA: 251750 Oakland CC: 02-183651-FC CAROL LORRAINE MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal to affirm the applicability and viability of People v Scruggs , 256 Mich App 303 (2003).

d1128 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 5, 2005

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

John Barfield and Tana Barfield, Wife,

Individually, and John Barfield and Tana

Barfield as Next Friends of C. B. and K.

B., Minor Children

,

Appellant s

,

v

.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. and Jose Pepe

Saenz

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 0 59

- CV

Appeal from the

109 th District Court

of Andrews C ounty, Texas

(TC# 19145 )

O R D E R

On April 7, 2017 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order required the

parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On April 17, 2017

Appellee s timely filed an objection. The Court finds Appellee s ’ objection persua sive.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension

is lifted and the Record shall now be filed in this Court on or before May 17 , 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17 th day of April , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joaquin Medina, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), both rendered October 15, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 3700/82 and murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 345/86, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues *568which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Probe Manufacturing, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date:  August 14, 2009   /s/  Kambiz Mahdi ---------------------- Kambiz Mahdi Chief Executive Officer
NO. 07-03-0297-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS			

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 29, 2003

	______________________________

	SHAWN O’CONNELL LEWIS,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 44,391-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Opinion Dismissing Appeal

	______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Shawn O’Connell Lewis attempts to appeal his conviction for driving while intoxicated.  The court imposed his sentence in open court on April 19, 2002.  At that time, he orally informed the trial court of his desire to appeal.  However, the record contains no written notice of appeal filed within 30 days of April 19th.  Nor does it contain a timely filed motion for new trial.  Instead, the first written instrument wherein he mentions his desire to appeal was sent to the district clerk and file-marked July 17, 2002.  In it, appellant asked about the status of his appeal.

	Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a notice of appeal.  Ashorn v. State, 77 S.W.3d 405, 409 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d).  The notice must not only be timely but also in writing.  State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Ashorn v. State, 77 S.W.3d at 409; see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c) (requiring a written notice of appeal).  An oral notice, even if made in open court, does not suffice.  Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ashorn v. State, 77 S.W.3d at 407; Brunswick v. State, 931 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.).  Given this, appellant’s oral notice on April 19, 2002, failed to satisfy appellate rule 25.2(c) and trigger our jurisdiction.  Nor did the missive file-marked by the district clerk in July of 2002 fill the void given its belatedness (and assuming it satisfied the other requirements of Rule 25.2).

	Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.1

							Brian Quinn

							   Justice

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.11
-------------
             Cathy Sigalas, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
                                Terms of Contract

Employment termination date:  July 21, 2001
Notwithstanding the termination of her employment, Ms. Sigalas will continue to
work through a transition with her replacement, currently anticipated to be
through August 10.

Other than her rights under her employment agreement, Ms. Sigalas is not
entitled to any Relocation related severance or transition payments.

Total Contractual Severance Due:  $262,000 (18 months salary) Ms. Sigalas has
agreed to receive her severance in monthly payments, rather than in a lump sum,
as follows:

Payments:         July 27, 2001:            $45,000
--------
                  August 27, 2001:          $30,000
                  September 27, 2001:       $30,000
                  October 27, 2001:         $30,000
                  November 27, 2001:        $30,000
                  December 27, 2001:        $30,000
                  January 27, 2002:         $30,000
                  February 27, 2002:        $37,500

Vesting of stock options/Forfeiture of certain options:
-------------------------------------------------------

Effective July 21, 2001, the following options will vest:

         Date of grant              Number of options vested
         -------------              ------------------------

         April 7, 1999              13,000
         September 1, 1999          25,000
         March 29, 2000             62,000

Effective July 21, 2001, the following options will be forfeited and expire:

         Date of grant              Number of options vested
         -------------              ------------------------

         May 31, 1995               927.27
         December 23, 1997          12,000

* The objective of this payment is to cover the taxes due on the vesting of Ms.
Sigalas' ESEP shares, and to leave Ms. Sigalas with a balance of a few thousand
dollars until the next payment on August 27, Ms. Sigalas gave up about $105,000
in salary during the course of the ESEP Program, and approx. 85,000 shares will
vest on termination of other employment. Before applying any amount of severance
to the taxes due on vesting of the ESEP shares, unused leave will be credited to
payment of those taxes.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert A.Peterson, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Safety ProductsHoldings, Inc. (the “registrant”);

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

## (a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

## (c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

## (d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing equivalent functions):

## (a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

## (b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

| Date:  August 14, 2006 |
|------------------------|
|                   |
| By:                    | /s/ ROBERT A. PETERSON |   |
|                   | Robert A. Peterson |
|                   | President, Chief Executive Officer and |
|                   | Director |
|                   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
#### Garcia, Appellant, *v.*The Andrews Furniture Storage Co., Appellee.

(No. 31016

Decided May 7, 1947.)

*Messrs. Payer, Bleiweiss, Grow £ Mollison,*for appellant.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter £ Stewart, Mr. L. B. Davenport*and *Mr. Smith Warder,*for appellee.

*164It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, ' Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
#### Kay Zagami, Appellant, v Anthony Zagami, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 10, 1985, the plaintiff Kay Zagami appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated December 20, 1989, which denied her motion to resettle the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment *(see, Blaustein v Blaustein,*145 AD2d 591; *Blume v Blume,*124 AD2d 771; *Valenti Elec. Co. v Power Line Constructors,*123 AD2d 604; *Hatsis v Hatsis,*122 AD2d 111; *Masters Inc. v*
      *699
      *White House Discounts,*119 AD2d 639). Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
### FPL PEEC Cultural Reources Assessment Kosky, Ken to: Andrew Parks 08/02/2012 12:02 PM

Cc: "Andy.Flajole@fpl.com", "Foster, Stacy (Stacy.Foster@fpl.com)", "Sobol, Justin (Justin.Sobol@fpl.com)"



### Andrew: The cultural resources assessment is included in the Site Certification Application (SCA) as Appendix 10.7.2. This appendix is the desktop analysis and a site visit although actual shovel tests were not conducted due to the nature of the site. The SCA was sent to Laura A. Kammerer, Historic Preservationist Supervisor, Florida Bureau of Historical Resources, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, R. A. Gray Building, Room 423, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 in January 2012. This agency is a party of the SCA process and is the designated State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for Florida. Let me know if you have problems finding the cultural analysis or any questions. Regards, Ken

Kennard F. Kosky, P.E. | Principal | Golder Associates Inc. 6026 NW 1st Place, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32607 T: +1 (352) 336-5600 | F: +1 (352) 336-6603 | E: Ken

_ Kosky@golder.com | www.golder.com

Work Safe, Home Safe

This email transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient

. A n y use, distribution or copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deteri oration, and incompatibility. A ccordingly, the electronic media version of any work product may not be relied upon.

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.