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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 342

Designating the week beginning September 17, 2000, as ‘‘National

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 25, 2000

Mr. THURMOND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning September 17, 2000, as

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Week’’.

Whereas there are 105 historically black colleges and universities in the United States;

Whereas black colleges and universities provide the quality

education so essential to full participation in a complex,

highly technological society;

Whereas black colleges and universities have a rich heritage

and have played a prominent role in American history;

Whereas black colleges and universities have allowed many

underprivileged students to attain their full potential

through higher education; and
2

•SRES 342 IS

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the week beginning September

3 17, 2000, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges

4 and Universities Week’’; and

5 (2) requests that the President issue a procla6 mation calling on the people of the United States

7 and interested groups to observe the week with ap8 propriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to

9 demonstrate support for historically black colleges

10 and universities.

Æ
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.
 Department of Energy [12-06-LNG, 12-09-LNG, 12-10-LNG, et al.]
 AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
 ACTION: Notice of orders.
 SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during February 2012, it issued Orders granting authority to import and export natural gas and liquefied natural gas. These Orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at 
                        *http://www.fossil.energy.gov/​programs/​gasregulation/​authorizations/​Orders-2012.html.*
                         They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2012. John A. Anderson, Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Office of Fossil Energy.
 Appendix
                    ( print page 19278) DOE/FE Orders Granting Import/Export Authorizations
Date issued
FE Docket No.
Authorization holder
Description of action02/10/12
12-06-LNG
Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC
Order granting long-term authority to export LNG by vessel from the Freeport Terminal to FTA nations.02/15/12
12-09-LNG
Excelerate Energy L.P
Order granting blanket authority to import LNG from various sources by vessel.02/15/12
12-10-lNG
Shell NA LNG LLC
Order granting blanket authority to import LNG from various sources by vessel.02/15/12
12-12-NG
Quicksilver Resources Inc
Order granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada.02/15/12
12-13-NG
United Energy Trading Canada, ULC
Order granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada.02/15/12
11-163-LNG
Encana Natural Gas Inc
Order granting blanket authority to import/export LNG from/to Canada/Mexico by truck, rail, barge and waterborne vessels.02/24/12
12-11-NG
ALCOA Inc
Order granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada.02/24/12
12-15-LNG
JPMorgan LNG Co
Order granting blanket authority to import LNG from various sources by vessel.02/24/12
12-17-NG
CNE Gas Supply, LLC
Order granting blanket authority to export natural gas to Canada/Mexico.


[FR Doc. 2012-7670 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30315

__________________

FIRST NATIONAL BANK; HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK,

HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, AS SUCCESSORS

IN INTEREST FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK,

Plaintiffs,

 and

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

as Receiver for First National Bank,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRAINTREE INC; KERMIT L ROUX, JR;

and KATHRYN FELT ROUX; 

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1544-S)

______________________________________________

February 15, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After considering the record and briefs in this appeal, we

affirm for the following reasons: 
2

1. The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) reacquired

the note which it originally transferred to Hibernia National Bank;

and

2. The note reacquired by the FDIC was a part of a bulk sale

originally conducted by the FDIC.

Under such circumstances, Louisiana's litigious redemption

statute is not applicable. See Moss v. Coury, 613 So.2d 270 (La.

Ct. App. 1992); Peoples Homestead Federal Bank and Trust v. Laing,

637 So.2d 604 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.23

August 1, 2005


Ms. Barbara Pifel
Ms. Audrey Schwimmer
Mr. Derek Spears
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Office of Research & Sponsored Programs
1300 York Avenue, Room A-131
New York, NY 10021

Dr. Brij Saxena
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
515 East 71st Street, Room 412
New York, NY 10021

Re:       Sponsored Research Agreement between Marc Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Weill Medical College of Cornell University dated January 22, 2004 (the
"Agreement")

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This letter is to confirm our understanding that the second payment to be
made under the Agreement, pursuant to section 4.1 which provided that $187,500
shall be paid by July 1, 2005, shall be revised as follows: $50,000 shall be
paid by August 16, 2005, $68,750 shall be paid by September 16, 2005 and $68,750
shall be paid by October 16, 2005.

     We trust that the foregoing represents the understanding between us. Please
indicate your confirmation by signature and return of the enclosed copy.


Sincerely,


Marc Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

By: ______________________
Name:   Robert M. Cohen
Title:  CEO & President


We hereby confirm our agreement and understanding of the foregoing:

Weill Medical College of Cornell University

By: ________________________
Name:______________________
Title: _______________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 13-8071

RACHEL EASTMAN, an individual; ACADEMIC SOFTWARE, a New Jersey 

Corporation;

AIA ENTERPRISES INC, DBA Chesterfield Inn, a New Jersey Corporation;

BUDGET WINDOWS, a New Jersey Corporation; JOHN PIERSON, an individual,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;

Petitioners

v.

FIRST DATA CORP, a Delaware Corporation;

FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORP, a Florida Corporation

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion issued on December 4, 2013 is hereby amended to delete the listing of 

Nathan M. Edelstein, Esq. as counsel for Plaintiffs – Petitioners. Mark A. Fisher, Esq., 

Arnold C. Lakind, Esq., and Stephen Skillman represented Plaintiffs – Petitioners in the 

matter before the Court.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: December 12, 2013

Cnd/cc: Nathan M. Edelstein, Esq.

Mark A. Fisher, Esq.

Arnold C. Lakind, Esq.

Stephen Skillman, Esq.

Thomas A. Cunniff, Esq.
#### TERRA RESOURCES, INC. v. FEDERATED ENERGY CORPORATION.

No. 87-C-1114.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Federated Energy Corporation; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5560; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 83-15899.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 604.

Granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal for a review of the entire record, including the correctness of the trial court’s factual findings as to the parties’ intent as revealed by the testimony of the witnesses.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ and would grant the rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 4, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RobertB. Toth, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

** **
| Date: August 7,  2009 | /s/ Robert B. Toth                    |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | Robert B. Toth                        |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Bertram Jerome JACKSON, Appellee.

No. 4-86-1965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 14, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew H. Boros, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals from an order granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. The state contends that appellee’s motion to suppress fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.190(h)(2). We agree and reverse.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(2) provides:

> Every motion to suppress evidence shall clearly state the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based. Since neither appellee’s motion nor the court’s order granting the motion identifies the items to be suppressed with particularity, we reverse the order granting appel-lee’s motion to suppress on the authority of *State v. Breland,*421 So.2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). *Also see State v. Hinton,*305 So.2d 804, 808 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and *State v. Pezzella,*397 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
##### 



POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore International, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  November 6, 2007
    /s/    Lynn AmosLynn AmosChief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2010-0564

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-13-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 NO COMMENTS RECEIVED – If this box is checked, no signatures are required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                                         COMPUTATION  OF EARNING PER SHARE Years
                                     ended December 31, 1996, 1995, 1994



                                                                    For the years ended December 31
                                                                    -------------------------------
                                                            1996                  1995                  1994
                                                            ----                  ----                  ----

<S>                                                      <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Beginning shares outstanding                                26,534,742            21,360,108            13,973,068

Special warrants exercised                                   4,682,787             3,937,252             3,055,325
Average shares issued for options exercised                    187,840                     -                     -

Common share purchase warrants exercised                             -                98,950               377,957

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

Weighted average shares outstanding                         31,405,369            25,396,310            17,406,350

                                                      =================     =================     =================

Net loss                                                 $(23,069,639)          $(8,989,718)          $(5,738,926)
                                                      =================     =================     =================

Loss per common share                                          $(0.73)               $(0.35)               $(0.33)
                                                      =================     =================     =================


</TABLE>



     NOTE:All  other   issued  and   outstanding   options  and   warrants   are
          antidilutive.   Fully  diluted  loss  per  share  calculation  is  not
          different from the calculation above and therefore is not applicable.
BRANDON WARNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1135

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, L. 

Allen Beard, Assistant Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Thomas Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, 

and Tayo Popoola, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 16

Identify all persons, including employees, consultants, representatives of the taconite

industry, or representatives of air pollution control manufacturers, who assisted in the

preparation, or were consulted for the purpose of preparing, the BART report.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response:

Chrissy Bartovich – U. S. Steel

Answer:

The Minntac BART report was written by Barr Engineering, who also wrote BART reports for 

other taconite facilities. Below is a list of individuals from U. S. Steel and Barr who worked on 

the subject report. MPCA staff who were consulted during the course of writing the report were 

not included. This list may not be all inclusive, but it is the best information we have available 

after going through information from 2006. Individuals listed were employees of the companies 

at the time of the BART report. Since that time some have moved to other companies or retired. 

For U. S. Steel those individuals who are still employed by the company have been identified 

with the word “active” after their name.

U. S. Steel:

Chrissy Bartovich – active 

Kevin Pylka

Ray Potts

Bill Kubiak

Scott Vagle – active 

Barr Engineering:

Erik Boleman

Andrew Skoglund

Joel Trinkle

Tony Shoberg

George Pruchnofski

Mike Hansel

Beth Havlik

Jack Kennedy
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 142

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal participation in the funding

of Corps of Engineers projects for shore protection and beach replenishment should not be reduced.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING, Mr.

MCINTYRE, Mr. NADLER, Mr. PALLONE, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. SMITH of

New Jersey, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. GRUCCI, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr.

LOBIONDO, and Mr. LAMPSON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal participation

in the funding of Corps of Engineers projects for shore

protection and beach replenishment should not be reduced.

Whereas the President’s budget for fiscal year 2002 proposes

to drastically reduce the Federal share and increase the

non-Federal share of the cost of Corps of Engineers

projects for beach replenishment;

Whereas by significantly increasing the contributions required

from State and local governments, the proposed change

in cost-sharing would result in the delay or elimination
2

•HCON 142 IH

of proposed Corps of Engineers projects for beach replenishment;

Whereas States have consistently shown their commitment to

assist in the preservation and replenishment of beaches

along the Nation’s coastlines;

Whereas the proposed change in cost-sharing would have a

disastrous effect on the budgets of coastal States and

coastal communities; and

Whereas the proposed change in cost-sharing would have a

disastrous effect on the tourism industry of coastal

States (including the potential loss of tens of thousands

of jobs), on property values, and on State and local tax

revenues: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Federal

3 participation in the funding of Corps of Engineers projects

4 for shore protection and beach replenishment should not

5 be reduced.

Æ
#### Polk, Appellant, *v.*City of Maple Heights, Appellee.

(No. 31191

Decided January 14, 1948.)

*Mr. Thomas V. Moore,*for appellant.

*Mr. William C. Graves,*for appellee.

It 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.