alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply586Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Thomas Neale (... (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 11, 2018 - 5:51pmThanks very much for these informative postings. It's so interesting to get the inside story of how our Capitol Hill heritage is being preserved for the future.  Please keep me "in the loop."_x000D_ _x000D_ Thomas Neale_x000D_ Congressional Research Service_x000D_ The Library of Congress
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ____6-08-06____________________

Subject: Sunset Vote Not to Renew Lecithin, bleached under 205.605b synthetics allowed. 

Chair: Kevin O’Rell 

 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: _XXXXX_ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

Recommendation NOT to Renew Lecithin, bleached, 205.605b synthetics allowed. 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 12 

No – 0 

Abstain – 0 

Absent – 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Final Recommendation for Lecithin, bleached 

April 20, 2006 

I. List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or 

food groups.” 

(b) Synthetics allowed 

II. Committee Summary: Many comments were received recommending the continued 

allowance of lecithin-bleached. There were also comments opposed to the continuation of this 

substance. During the November NOSB meeting a manufacturer of organic lecithin announced 

that they could produce an organic bleached lecithin to meet the current organic market needs. As 

part of its due diligence, the Handling Committee contacted this manufacturer to verify the 

organic commercial availability of this substance. The manufacturer confirmed its availability as 

organic. Based on public comment that there is an organic alternative available to replace a 

synthetic on the National List, the HC is recommending not to renew: lecithin-bleached. 

III. NOSB Recommendation(s): The handling committee recommends not renewing the 

following substances in this use category based on the submitted evaluation forms: 

Lecithin-bleached 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

 Board vote: Yes – 12 No – 0 Abstain – 0 Absent - 2
<PAGE>

                                        Exhibit 11.1

                        WIRELESS TELECOM GROUP, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                         For the Three Months      For the Nine Months
                         Ended September 30, 1998  Ended September 30, 1998


                        Income   Shares  Per Share   Income  Shares  Per Share
<S>                  <C>      <C>     <C>         <C>    <C>     <C>
Net income (loss)    ($135,189)                   $691,675

Basic EPS
Income (loss)
 available to common
 shareholders        (135,189)  17,557,298 ($.01) 691,675 17,533,180   $.04

Effect of Dilutive Securities
Stock options              -            -              -     41,344

Diluted EPS
Income (loss) available
 to common shareholders
 plus assumed
 Conversions       ($135,189)  17,557,298  ($.01) $691,675 17,574,524 $.04


                         For the Three Months      For the Nine Months
                         Ended September 30, 1997  Ended September 30, 1997

                         Income  Shares Per Share  Income Shares Per Share
<S>                   <C>        <C>    <C>      <C>      <C>    <C> 
Net income            $1,800,747                 $6,182,991

Basic EPS
Income available
 to common
 shareholders         1,800,747 17,445,935 $.10   6,182,991 17,430,489 $.35


Effect of Dilutive Securities
Stock options                -    383,597                -    391,917

Diluted EPS
Income available to
 common shareholders
 plus assumed
 Conversions         1,800,747  17,829,532  $.10 $6,182,991 17,822,406 $.35

</TABLE>
                                        -13-
Vision Services Group LLC

6185 Crooked Creek Rd. Suite B! Norcross, GA 30092! Phone: (800) 874-9441 !

E-Mail: mmendez@vsg-unmanned.com !Web: www.vsg-unmanned.com

8 December 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

Federal Aviation Administration

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington DC 20590

Subject: Petition for exemption of applicable requirements of the Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) for VSG-Unmanned’s small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) 

Publishable Summary: 

Vision Services Group, LLC (VSG-Unmanned) wishes to petition for exemption from specific regulations of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. These exemptions are pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012. PL 112-95, February 14, 2012, 126 Stat 11.

VSG-Unmanned’s highest consideration, with regards to the commercialization of unmanned systems, is the safety and 

integrity of the United States National Airspace System. To ensure the continual adherence to this objective and in 

observance of § 91.7, an Aviation Safety, Safety Management System (AVSSMS) is followed and continually reviewed for 

necessary amendments.

On behalf of those employed by and invested in Vision Services Group, LLC, I thank you for your consideration of this 

petition for exemption and look forward to your comments and feedback so that we may continue to work towards our 

common objective.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Israel Beck, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

January 23, 1959.

*Sidney S. Rubin (Raphael <& Dorman*of counsel), for petitioners.

*Edward Wagreich*for objectants.

Maximilian Moss, S.

Two of decedent’s children have filed objections to the propounded instrument. The proponents have moved that the objections be dismissed on the ground that the objectants are not persons interested within the meaning of section 147 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. In support of the motion proponents allege that contestants would receive more under the will than they would under intestacy and therefore contestants do not have a financial interest warranting the filing of objections.

The propounded instrument, after providing for payment of just debts and funeral expenses, leaves all the rest, residue and remainder in trust to pay the income therefrom to decedent’s wife during her lifetime. Upon the death of decedent’s wife the trust shall terminate and the remainder of the principal and income shall be distributable in certain specified shares to contestants and decedent’s other children or their issue per stirpes.

The principal assets of decedent’s estate consist of shares of stock owned by decedent in three closely held corporations. By his will decedent authorized the named trustees to deal with the principal and income of the trust without limitation of their.powers “which now are or may hereafter be conferred by law. ’ ’ Among the broad powers conferred upon the trustees is that of disposing of decedent’s property including “ principal or accumulated income ” to be administered by the trustees, *115for cash or on credit, secured or unsecured. An element of risk exists in business ventures whether conducted by individuals or corporations. The fact that decedent’s will virtually eliminates any restrictions placed upon trustees by law may adversely affect the remaindermen’s rights *(Matter of*Ealperin, 201 Misc. 763; *Matter of Carnell,*260 App. Div. 287, 292, affd. 284 N. Y. 624). There is no assurance that the principal assets of the estate will remain constant so as to provide a larger bequest to the remaindermen upon the termination of the trust than they would receive by immediate distribution as in intestacy.

The authorities relied upon by proponents principally deal with questions of status and are clearly distinguishable. No question of status is involved in the case at bar. Moreover, payment of any benefit under the will is postponed until the trust for the benefit of the widow terminates. The contestants herein do have a substantial financial interest to protect and are interested persons within the purview of section 147 of the Surrogate’s Court Act *(Matter of Salkind,*11 Misc 2d 826; *Matter of Rose,*185 Misc. 39, affd. 269 App. Div. 933). Triable issues having been raised, objections to probate should not be summarily dismissed. The motion is therefore denied.

Settle order on notice.
# C_2016202EN.01006101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/61

---

Article 37

(ex Article 31 TEC)

(ex Article 31 TEC)

1.   Member States shall adjust any State monopolies of a commercial character so as to ensure that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States.

The provisions of this Article shall apply to any body through which a Member State, in law or in fact, either directly or indirectly supervises, determines or appreciably influences imports or exports between Member States. These provisions shall likewise apply to monopolies delegated by the State to others.

2.   Member States shall refrain from introducing any new measure which is contrary to the principles laid down in paragraph 1 or which restricts the scope of the articles dealing with the prohibition of customs duties and quantitative restrictions between Member States.

3.   If a State monopoly of a commercial character has rules which are designed to make it easier to dispose of agricultural products or obtain for them the best return, steps should be taken in applying the rules contained in this Article to ensure equivalent safeguards for the employment and standard of living of the producers concerned.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 20, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0164. WILLIAM P. WRIGHT, JR., et al. v. ALMA C. DIXON, et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

07V250
Exhibit 24.6

POWER OF ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY, an Illinois corporation (herein referred to as the Company),
is required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005; and

WHEREAS, each of the below undersigned is a director of the Company.

NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L. Rainwater and/or Scott A. Cisel and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact of the undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to affix the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and any amendments thereto, and, for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint
in their place and stead and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the undersigned, with full power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 10th day of February 2006:



|                             |  |                       
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                             | 
|Scott A. Cisel, Director     |  | /s/ S. A. Cisel       
|                             | 
|Daniel F. Cole, Director     |  | /s/ Daniel F. Cole    
|                             | 
|Steven R. Sullivan, Director |  | /s/ Steven R. Sullivan
|                             | 
|Thomas A. Voss, Director     |  | /s/ Thomas A. Voss    
|                             | 
|David A. Whiteley, Director  |  | /s/ David A. Whiteley 



|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|                  |  |  
|STATE OF MISSOURI |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  |  
|                  |  | ) |  | SS.
|                  |  |  
|CITY OF ST. LOUIS |  | ) |  |    

On this 10th day of February, 2006 before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared the above-named directors of Central Illinois Light Company, known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to me that they executed the same as their free act and
deed for the purposes therein stated.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.



/s/ S. A. KitchensS. A. KitchensNotary Public  Notary SealSTATE OF MISSOURISt. Louis CountyMy Commission Expires: July 9, 2007
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                     WIRELESS TELECOM GROUP, INC.
                                                   COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                                              (Unaudited)



                                                       For the Three Months            For the Six Months
                                                          Ended June 30,                 Ended June 30,
                                                          --------------                 --------------
                                                      2004              2003         2004               2003
                                                      ----              ----         ----               ----

<S>                                               <C>                 <C>         <C>               <C>
Net Income                                        $646,917            $ 367,326   $834,785          $ 485,470
                                                  ========            =========   ========          =========

BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding                                17,161,361           16,886,865 17,080,168        16,869,008
                                                ==========           ========== ==========        ==========

Basic earnings per common share                     $ 0.04                $0.02     $ 0.05             $0.03
                                                    ======                =====     ======             =====

DILUTED EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding                                17,161,361           16,886,865 17,080,168        16,869,008
Assumed exercise of stock options                  414,830              137,858    520,263           101,256
                                                   -------              -------    -------           -------

Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding, as adjusted                   17,576,191           17,024,723 17,600,431       16,970,264
                                                ==========           ========== ==========       ==========

Diluted earnings per common share                   $ 0.04                $0.02     $ 0.05            $0.03
                                                    ======                =====     ======            =====

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Rocky Lee Ellinger, Appellant

No. 06-14-00205-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 276th District Court of 

Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

F14503). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the 

assessment of attorney fees incurred during the revocation proceeding from the judgment, 

leaving only the $300.00 in attorney fees that were assessed as part of appellant’s original plea 

agreement. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Rocky Lee Ellinger, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 21, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 12.3
 Central Illinois Public Service Company
Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Combined
Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
(Thousands of Dollars, Except Ratios)
 Year Ended December 31,2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007Net income from continuing operations
    
    $
    28,474
    
    
    $
    32,463
    
    
    $
    42,998
    
    
    $
    37,372
    
    
    $
    16,535Add - Taxes based on income
    
    
    6,245
    
    
    
    16,135
    
    
    
    24,596
    
    
    
    15,539
    
    
    
    9,322Net income before income taxes
    
    
    34,719
    
    
    
    48,598
    
    
    
    67,594
    
    
    
    52,911
    
    
    
    25,857Add - fixed charges:Interest on long-term debt
    
    
    33,118
    
    
    
    31,372
    
    
    
    28,969
    
    
    
    29,932
    
    
    
    36,670
    (1)Estimated interest cost within rental expense
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    726
    
    
    
    899Amortization of net debt premium, discount,
and expenses
    
    
    935
    
    
    
    903
    
    
    
    953
    
    
    
    1,025
    
    
    
    1,105Total fixed charges
    
    
    34,053
    
    
    
    32,275
    
    
    
    29,922
    
    
    
    31,683
    
    
    
    38,674Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    
    68,772
    
    
    
    80,873
    
    
    
    97,516
    
    
    
    84,594
    
    
    
    64,531Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.01
    
    
    
    2.50
    
    
    
    3.25
    
    
    
    2.67
    
    
    
    1.66Earnings required for combined fixed
charges andpreferred stock dividends:Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    2,973
    
    
    
    2,512
    
    
    
    2,512
    
    
    
    2,512
    
    
    
    2,512Adjustment to pretax basis
    
    
    651
    
    
    
    1,248
    
    
    
    1,437
    
    
    
    1,045
    
    
    
    1,4163,624
    
    
    
    3,760
    
    
    
    3,949
    
    
    
    3,557
    
    
    
    3,928Combined fixed charges and preferred stock
dividend requirements
    
    $
    37,677
    
    
    $
    36,035
    
    
    $
    33,871
    
    
    $
    35,240
    
    
    $
    42,602Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
and preferred stock dividend requirements
    
    
    1.82
    
    
    
    2.24
    
    
    
    2.87
    
    
    
    2.40
    
    
    
    1.51
 
 (1)
    
    Includes FIN 48 interest expense
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-31252 Summary Calendar

__________________ M.A. BAHETH, also known as M. Allam Baheth; BAHETH RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LAB; M.A. BAHETH & CO., INC.; BAHETH ENVIRONMENTAL & ANALYTICAL TESTING LAB, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, also known as Regions Bank of Louisiana; CHUCK DABADIE; CHRIS POPE; FRANK CLARK, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-96-M-A

- - - - - - - - - - October 7, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellants M.A. Baheth, also known as M. Allam Baheth; Baheth Research & Development Lab; M.A. Baheth & Co., Inc.; and Baheth Environmental & Analytical Testing Lab, Ltd., appeal the district court's judgment dismissing their federal claims pursuant to the antitying provisions of the Bank Holding CompanyNo. 95-31252 -2- Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1972 and 1975, for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They also appeal the dismissal of their state law claims based on prescription. Because appellants have failed to challenge the district court's alternative basis for the dismissal of their state law claims based on a discretionary declination of supplemental jurisdiction, these claims are considered abandoned. See Weaver v. Puckett , 896 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 966 (1990). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error regarding the dismissal of the federal claims. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court. M.A. Baheth, a/k/a M. Allam Baheth; Baheth Research & Development Lab, and Baheth Environmental & Analytical Testing Lab, Ltd. and M.A. Baheth & Co., Inc. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, et al. , C.A. No. 95- 96-B-1 (M.D. La. Nov. 3, 1995).
AFFIRMED.