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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2014 

To suspend temporarily the duty on horizontal machining center. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on horizontal machining 

center. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HORIZONTAL MACHINING CENTER. 

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: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2014 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Horizontal machining center, 

with true 5 axis simultaneous 

contouring capability having 

the following specifications: 

with fully automated 1,000 

mm square table built into 

machine base, with dropdown trunnion receiver with 

tilting axis center of rotation; 

capable of handling work 

loads of up to 2,000 kilograms with a precision of 

within +/¥3 arc seconds in 

the tilting and rotary axes for 

both positioning and machining; having a horizontal-spindle with a Y-axis travel of not 

less than 1,200 mm but not 

greater than 1,500 mm, an 

X-axis travel of not less than 

1,300 mm but not greater 

than 2,000 mm, and a Z-axis 

travel of not less than 1,000 

mm but not greater than 

1,400 mm (provided for in 

subheading 8457.10.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# L_2006207DE.01004701.xml

| 28.7.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 207/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 207/47

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 479/2006 der Kommission vom 23. März 2006 über die Zulassung bestimmter zur Gruppe der Bestandteile von Spurenelementen zählenden Zusatzstoffe

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 24. März 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 24. März 2006

Im Inhalt und auf Seite 4 wird der Titel geändert:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 6, Anhang, im Eintrag „E4 Kupfer — Cu“, Spalte 6 „Sonstige Bestimmungen“:

anstatt:

„Folgende Erklärungen sind auf der Etikettierung und in den Begleitpapieren anzubringen:

| — | Bei Schafen:
  Liegt der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln über 10 mg/kg: ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei bestimmten Schafrassen zu Vergiftung führen.‘ |
| --- | --- |

—

Bei Schafen:

Liegt der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln über 10 mg/kg: ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei bestimmten Schafrassen zu Vergiftung führen.‘

| — | Bei Rindern im Wiederkäueralter:
  Liegt der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln unter 20 mg/kg: ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann zu Kupfermangel bei Rindern führen, die Weidegras mit sehr hohem Molybdän- oder Schwefelgehalt fressen.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Bei Rindern im Wiederkäueralter:

Liegt der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln unter 20 mg/kg: ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann zu Kupfermangel bei Rindern führen, die Weidegras mit sehr hohem Molybdän- oder Schwefelgehalt fressen.‘“

muss es heißen:

„Folgende Erklärungen sind auf der Etikettierung und in den Begleitpapieren anzubringen:

| — | Bei Schafen:
  Sofern der Gehalt an Kupfer in Futtermitteln 10 mg/kg übersteigt:
  ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei bestimmten Schafrassen zu Vergiftungen führen.‘ |
| --- | --- |

—

Bei Schafen:

Sofern der Gehalt an Kupfer in Futtermitteln 10 mg/kg übersteigt:

‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei bestimmten Schafrassen zu Vergiftungen führen.‘

| — | Bei Rindern nach Beginn des Wiederkäueralters:
  Sofern der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln weniger als 20 mg/kg beträgt:
  ‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei Rindern, die auf Weiden mit hohem Molybdän- oder Schwefelgehalt gehalten werden, zu Kupfermangel führen.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Bei Rindern nach Beginn des Wiederkäueralters:

Sofern der Kupfergehalt in Futtermitteln weniger als 20 mg/kg beträgt:

‚Der Kupfergehalt dieses Futtermittels kann bei Rindern, die auf Weiden mit hohem Molybdän- oder Schwefelgehalt gehalten werden, zu Kupfermangel führen.‘“

---
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 06 3 . MARRI CO J . YOUNG v . CHARLES P. ROSE, J R.

M arri co J

. Yo u n g s eek s d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g

t h e f i l i n g o f h i s p ro p o s ed p ro s e m an d am u s act i o n seek i n g t o o b t ai n a ru l i n g o n a

p en di n g m ot i o n i n h i s cri m i n al cas e. Th e Su p rem e Co urt

, h owev er, has ex cl u s i v e

ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er al l cas e s i n v ol v i n g ex trao rd i nary rem ed i es , i n cl u d i n g

m an d am u s

. See Ga. Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3

, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (5 ); La d z in s ke v. Al l en , 2 8 0 Ga. 2 6 4 (6 2 6 SE2 d 8 3 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (“ ‘ [C] as es in v ol v i n g t h e g ran t o r d en i al o f

m an d am u s are wi t h i n t h e ex cl u s i v e j u ri s d i c t i o n of [t h e Su p rem e] Co urt wi t h o ut

reg ard t o t h e u n derl y i n g su b ject m at t er o r t he l eg al i s s ues rai sed .’ ”). Acco rd i n g l y ,
t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co urt fo r d i s po s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/08/2015 October 08, 2015
<PAGE>   1
                       Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.



                                   EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<S>                           <C>                                        <C> 
                              Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
                              t/k/a Star Holding Company    50%

    Meadowbrook,              American                                   Crest Financial
       Inc.                   Indemnity                                  Corporation
    Association               Insurance Co., Ltd.
   Self Insurance             Star                                       Williamsburg
   Services, Inc.             Insurance Co.     (50%)                    National
                                                                         Insurance Co.
    Meadowbrook
  Intermediaries,             Savers Property                            American
       Inc.                   and Casualty                               Highway
                              Insurance Co.                              Carriers Association
    Meadowbrook
       Risk                                                              Liberty
   Management, Inc.           Southeastern Holding Corp.                 Premium Finance,
                                                                         Inc.
   Meadowbrook of
     Nevada, Inc.             Ameritrust Insurance Corporation           Interline
                                                                         Insurance Services,
    Meadowbrook                                                          Inc.
     Insurance
    Agency, Inc.                                                         Commercial
                                                                         Carriers Insurance
    Meadowbrook                                                          Agency, Inc.
       Risk
   Management, Ltd.
     (Barbados)

    Meadowbrook
  Risk Management
     Limited
    (Bermuda):
         (80%)

     Meadowbrook
 International, Ltd.

    Florida Preferred 
  Administrators, Inc.

   Case Management 
   Resources, Inc.

   Meadowbrook of 
    Florida, Inc.

    Meadowbrook 
  Insurance, Inc.

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

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)

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), the undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (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 information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                                  
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |    
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen B. Hughes                                                                            
|                       |  |     |  | Stephen B. Hughes Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)

A signed original 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1849 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1849

       To renew the temporary suspension of duty on primsulfuron.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To renew the temporary suspension of duty on primsulfuron.

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

SECTION 1. PRIMSULFURON.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to primsulfuron) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
| (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 the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                                              |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 17, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Patrick G. Sheridan                      |   |
|               |   | Patrick G. Sheridan , Principal Financial Officer |   |
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1









	 	 	 	 	 
	3DATE:
4
	 	January 8, 2007	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3TO:
4
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3FROM:
4
	 	Boris Lipkin	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3CC:
4
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3RE:
4
	 	Retention Bonus	 	 





As you know, we have just entered into a definitive merger agreement with KLA-Tencor. There is no
guarantee that the acquisition will be approved or consummated.



Because of your dedication to the company, and your assistance with this transaction, if you remain
an employee of the company until the successful conclusion of the acquisition (that is, through the
closing of the merger following the tender offer), and to continue to help in that process, then
you will receive a retention bonus of $50,000, less required withholdings, within one week after
the effective time of the merger following the tender offer. This bonus is being paid as
compensation for past services performed and future services to be performed and has not been
calculated based on the number of securities of the company tendered or to be tendered by you and
is not conditioned upon you tendering such securities in connection with the acquisition.



This amount will be paid to you whether or not you are offered a position with KLA-Tencor, whether
or not you decide to accept any position that is offered to you, and regardless of any Change in
Control Severance Agreement that you may have. However, this amount will not be paid if the merger
does not close for any reason. Further, this amount will not be paid if, at any time prior to the
closing of the merger, your employment with the company terminates for any reason. This letter
does not change the at-will nature of your employment. This memo contains the entire terms and
conditions of the retention bonus, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements,
understandings or discussions regarding such bonus.



By signing below, you acknowledge that this retention bonus is being paid as compensation for past
services performed and future services to be performed and has not been calculated based on the
number of securities of the company tendered or to be tendered by you and is not conditioned upon
you tendering such securities in connection with the acquisition. Thank you, in advance, for your
continued support.



Agreed and accepted:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

     [Name]
	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 






44441250
Reliance Way, Fremont CA 94539 4Tel: (510) 668-2200 4Fax: (510) 656-3863
#### Anthony Fattorusso et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated August 14, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a verdict in their favor and granted a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The infant plaintiff Anthony Fattorusso was allegedly injured when he was thrown from his bicycle after striking a metal pipe cap which protruded from the ground. The accident occurred on a concrete pathway which was located between a schoolyard and a public playground. The pathway was used to travel between two city streets and was also used as an entranceway to and from the playground.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, the issue of whether the pathway is a sidewalk did not present an issue of fact for the jury. Instead, the evidence clearly established, as a matter of law, that the pathway in question is a sidewalk within the purview of the pothole law which includes a "pedestrian walk or path” (Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-201 [c] [1] [b]). Since there is no dispute that the plaintiffs failed to establish compliance with the written notice requirements of the statute, a condition precedent to the plaintiffs’ causes of action against the City, the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted with respect to the City *(cf., Cipriano v City of New York,*96 AD2d 817).

In addition, we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant Board of Educa*769tion of the City of New York. There is no evidence in the record that the Board of Education, which was merely an abutting property owner, controlled, maintained or derived any special benefit from the pathway *(see, Kiernan v Thompson,*137 AD2d 957, *affd*73 NY2d 840). Therefore, it too was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# L_2006135EN.01001701.xml

| 23.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 135/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 135/17

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2006 of 26 January 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 27 January 2006
  )

On page 32, in Article 1(2):

for:

‘The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Community-frontier price shall be:’,

read:

‘The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be:’.

---
#### Graubard Mollen Dannett Horowitz Shapiro and Pomeranz, Respondent, v Madison Investments, Inc., Appellant, and Lana Realty Company, Respondent.

Resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 23, 1990, which, *inter alia*granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, authorizing it to release an escrow fund of $65,000 plus accrued interest to defendant Lana Realty Company ("Lana Realty”), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff law firm commenced the underlying inter-pleader action pursuant to CPLR 1006 as a stakeholder and escrowee of $65,000, placed in an interest-bearing escrow account pursuant to the terms of a contract of sale by which defendant Lana Realty agreed to sell and defendant Madison agreed to purchase certain real property located in Cohoes, New York.

Upon examination of the record, we find, as did the IAS Court, that defendant Lana Realty was entitled to the $65,000 escrow fund, representing defendant Madison’s contract down-payment, as liquidated damages by reason of defendant Madison’s default in failing to appear and close title on December 16, 1987, in accordance with the December 3, 1987 letter, which clearly and unequivocally notified defendant Madison that defendant Lana Realty was ready, willing and able to convey and deliver marketable title, and that time was of the essence. *(Sohayegh v Oberlander,*155 AD2d 436, 440.)

We have considered defendant Madison’s contentions that *387title was not properly held by defendant Lana Realty, and that defendant Madison’s failure to timely close did not constitute a default under the contract of sale, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.39


Summary of Compensation of Executive Officers

as of October 31, 2006


The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors determines the compensation of the Chief
Executive Officer and other executive officers of the Company, including individual
elements of salary, bonus, incentive and equity compensation.  The current annual base salary of the Company’s
executive officers is as follows: 
Kenneth T. Hern, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer—$60,000; Lewis W.
(Jody) Powers, Chief Operating Officer—$125,000; J.D. McGraw,
President—$180,000; Leon van Kraayenburg, Vice President-Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer—$125,000; Russell Sammons, Vice President-Operations—$125,000; and
Richard Talley, President of Biosource America—$125,000.  To date the Compensation Committee has not
yet awarded bonuses to any executive officer. 
Messrs. van Kraayenburg, Sammons and Talley have employment agreements
with the Company and, along with Mr. Powers, are award recipients under the
Company’s 2006 Equity Incentive Plan. 
Each executive officer is eligible to participate in such employee
benefit plans as the Company may provide to employees generally.
$,XED ssp 2 

### A e*5 

## $ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY f P REGION IX +'4'41 pROXtG 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

December 14, 2010

William D. Wiley, P.E. Maricopa County Air Quality Department 1

001North Central Avenue, Suite 500

Dear We received the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's October 7,2010, request for delegation of Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Parts 60, 61, and 63. In this letter, we are responding only to your requests for delegation of 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP. You will receive a separate letter addressing delegation of 40 CFR Part 60NSPS and Part 61 NESHAP. In response to your request, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (EPA) hereby grants to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department formal delegation of .thefollowing 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP, asthey existed on July 1,2009: Subpart WWWWWW -NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations Subpart XXXXXX -NESHAP Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories Subpart YYYYYY
-NESHAP for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities Subpart ZZZZZZ -NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries Regarding any other 40 CFR Part 

### 63 NESHAP previously delegated to Maricopa County, this letter is also delegating any amendments made to those NESHAP as of July 1,2009. These NESHAP are being delegated in accordance with the November 1, 1999, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Maricopa County and EPA regarding the delegation of NESHAP. As set forth in the MOA, these delegations are effective upon the date of this letter and EPA will publish a future Federal Register notice to codify these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations.

Printed on Recycled PaperWe appreciate the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's efforts to implement the federal air toxics program and hope to continue working with you to reduce emissions of air toxics in Maricopa County. If you have any questions about this delegation, please call me at (41

### 5) 947-871

### 5 or have your staffcontact Mae Wang at (415) 947-4124. Sincerely,

deborah Jordan

## / Director, Air Division

cc: Jo Crumbaker, Maricopa County 

### AQD
\.AA- 2010- i03,(;

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli COlli

---

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer ~

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman

ATA Craig Fabian

-

--

ATA 1\1Lopez

----

09/29/06