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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 274 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 274

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 21, 2015.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1335) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for 
fishermen, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now 
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-16. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points 
of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be 
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original 
text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
24413

#### State v. Matsuda

Reversed and Remanded
**Exhibit 24.7****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     WHEREAS, ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, an Illinois corporation (herein referred to as the“Company”), is required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisionsof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2007; and     WHEREAS, each of the below undersigned is a director of the Company.     NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Scott A. Cisel and/orWarner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the trueand lawful attorneys-in-fact of the undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of theundersigned, 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 andas their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the undersigned, with full power ofrevocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtuehereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 8th day of February2008:       Daniel F. Cole, Director /s/ Daniel F. Cole      Steven R. Sullivan, Director /s/ Steven R. Sullivan      Thomas R. Voss, Director /s/ Thomas A. Voss                 STATE OF MISSOURI  )      )  SS.CITY OF ST. LOUIS  )        On this 8th day of February, 2008, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for saidState, personally appeared the above-named directors of Illinois Power Company, known to me to bethe persons described in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to methat 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/ Donna S. Bilkey   DONNA S. BILKEY   Notary Public- Notary SealSTATE OF MISSOURI- JEFFERSON COUNTYCommission #06900096My Commission Expires 06/13/2010
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                          ROBOTIC VISION SYSTEMS, INC.

      ROBOTIC VISION SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and providing for consideration thereof at the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation. The resolution setting
forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

      RESOLVED, that the Corporation's Restated Certificate of Incorporation be
      amended to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized
      thereunder from seventy-five million (75,000,000) to one hundred million
      (100,000,000), subject to ratification by the stockholders at the next
      regularly scheduled meeting of stockholders; and it was further

      RESOLVED, that Article FOURTH of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation
      be amended to read as follows:

            "FOURTH: the Corporation shall be authorized to issue one hundred
            million (100,000,000) shares with a par value of one cent $0.01) per
            share."

      SECOND: That, pursuant to resolutions duly adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, the 2002 annual meeting of the stockholders of the
Corporation was duly called and held on the 3rd day of April, 2002 upon notice
in accordance with Section 222 of the General
<PAGE>
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number
of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

      THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by Pat V. Costa, its President, and John J. Connolly, its Secretary, this
3rd day of April, 2002.


                                              /s/ Pat V. Costa
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Pat V. Costa, President

ATTEST:


/s/John J. Connolly
------------------------------
John J. Connolly, Secretary


                                      -2-
# EUR-Lex - 22002D0102(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22002D0102(01)

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 102/2002 of 12 July 2002 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing, and certification) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 298 , 31/10/2002 P. 0017 - 0018 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 102/2002

of 12 July 2002

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing, and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision No 15/2002 of the EEA Joint Committee of 1 March 2002(1).

(2) Commission Recommendation 2001/893/EC of 7 December 2001 on principles for using "Solvit"- the internal market problem solving network(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 3 (Council Resolution 2000/C 141/02) in Chapter XX of Annex II to the Agreement:

"4. 32001 H 0893: Commission Recommendation 2001/893/EC of 7 December 2001 on principles for using 'Solvit'-the internal market problem solving network (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 79)."

Article 2

The texts of Recommendation 2001/893/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 13 July 2002, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2002.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

G. S. Gunnarsson

(1) OJ L 110, 25.4.2002, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 79.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
#### FIRST SECURITY BANK, a corporation, Bankamericard Division, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gordon E. JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13871.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 19, 1975.

Gordon E. Johnson, pro se.

Jack Molgard, Brigham City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment bottomed on a credit card obligation. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

The complaint in this case, alleging a $929.51 claim, was filed in February, 1972, followed by defendant’s answer, counter*522claim, a long series of requests that plaintiff answer a much longer list of interrogatories, two motions to dismiss, two motions to compel answers, a motion to produce, a request for admission, a second set of interrogatories, several memoranda of authorities, three motions for summary judgment, motion to continue trial date,1 and other procedural memorabilia, resulting in almost numberless pages and answers to interrogatories, hearings on motions, a goodly number of memorandum decisions, all culminating in *September 12, 1974,*trial setting after two and a half years of protraction. The trial date was set by the trial court on *May 13,*1974,— four months prior thereto, followed by the belated request of defendant, from Los An-geles, nine days before the trial, for a continuance which the trial court promptly rejected.

Had the trial judge acted otherwise, he could have reflected only prejudice *in favor*of defendant, but certainly not *against*him.

The Findings and Judgment, based on a $930 claim, costs, etc., are supported by the record and affirmed.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Predicated on alleged failure to answer some interrogatories for a long time (two, so far as the record reveals), and that he could not appear at the trial because 1) it would jeopardize his job, and 2) he was in other conflicting federal litigation.
#### Samuel Gilbert, as Stockholder of Glen Alden Corporation, Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Stockholders of Said Corporation and for the Benefit of Said Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Francis O. Case et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

February 6, 1959.

*384
      *Robert L. Bobrick*for plaintiff.

*McLanahan, Merritt S Ingraham for*Grlen Alden Corporation, defendant.

*White d Case*for Francis O. Case and others, defendants.

Louis L. Friedman, J.

In this derivative stockholders ’ action, plaintiffs move to examine the defendant corporation before trial by one Case, “ its former president, chief executive officer, a director and a defendant herein. ’ ’

Defendant objects generally to the examination on the ground that the complaint is conclusory in nature and the allegations contained therein are based upon information and belief. In the absence of a motion directly attacking the sufficiency of a pleading an examination will be granted unless the pleading is patently insufficient *(Matter of Ryder,*275 App. Div. 994) or where the insufficiency is obvious, clear and free from doubt. The complaint does not fall within such category or exception to the rule. However, the objection relating to the witness by whom it shall be examined is properly taken. See *Gross*v. *Price*(2 A D 2d 707) where the court held that a defendant should not in the first instance be required to produce for such examination any specific officer or officers chosen by the examining party.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to all the items, except that item No. 3 is modified to read: *“*All the facts and circumstances relative to the corporation’s purposes and objectives in discounting the first mortgage to the extent of $3,192,309.16.” Defendant is to produce for such examination, a person familiar with the circumstances involved herein. If, after the examination of the person or persons submitted by the defendant, it shall appear that an examination of Case either as a director or as a hostile witness is necessary, application therefor may be made to this court *(Gross*v. *Price, supra),*and this court will then entertain such application to direct that the corporation be examined by its director Case. Defendant is to produce all books, records and memoranda material and necessary to the examination as granted and in accordance with section 296 of the Civil Practice Act.

Settle order on notice.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40091

USDC No. 9:96-CV-158

 

DARNELL JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

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

October 7, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Darnell Johnson, Texas prisoner #265926, requests a

certificate of appealability (COA) from the district court’s

denial of his federal habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254. 

Johnson contends that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.

Johnson’s petition was filed on April 2, 1996, prior to the

date of enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The Supreme Court recently held in
O R D E R

No. 97-40091

- 2 -

Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2067-68 (1997), that the

AEDPA’s amendments to the habeas corpus statutes, which include

the successive habeas provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244, apply only

to cases filed after the AEDPA’s effective date of April 24,

1996. 

Accordingly, Johnson’s motion for a COA is construed as a

request for a certificate of probable cause (CPC) and CPC is 

GRANTED. The case is VACATED and REMANDED to the district court

for consideration of Johnson’s petition under pre-AEDPA

standards. See Moran v. Stadler, ___ F.3d ___(5th Cir. September

8, 1997, No. 96-30892), 1997 WL 476407 at *1 (petition filed in

the district court prior to the effective date of the AEDPA is

not subject to the AEDPA’s successive habeas provisions).

Johnson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) in this court is GRANTED.

COA GRANTED; IFP GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.
# Publications Database Search

Help

Simple Search: Submit

Advanced Search: Submit Reset

Title

Author / Editor

Year Division Document Type

Select All 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Select All ABL FMA HEPR NMML OCD pre-AFSC RACE REFM Select All

Abstract AFSC Technical Memorandum Book Book Review Document Chapter F/NWC Technical Memorandum Journal Article Letter to Editor Other Documents Check heading checkbox when selecting items from a

Webmaster | Privacy | Disclaimer | Accessibility 

# Page 1 of 1 AFSC Publications Database Search

3/7/2011 http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/pubs/search.cfm
#### Grimes v. Grimes

23016

09/18/2001

Vacated and Remanded
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                MIDLAND FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (In thousands except per share amounts)





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              March 31       
                                                                      -----------------------
                                                                       1996             1995
                                                                      ------           ------
                                                                  (as restated)
<S>                                                                   <C>              <C>
Primary:
  Average Shares outstanding                                           5,547            5,347
  Net effect of dilutive stock options and
     warrants - based on the treasury stock
     method using average market price                                    20               97
                                                                     -------           ------
           Common and common equivalent shares                         5,567            5,444
                                                                     =======           ======

Net income (loss)                                                    $(1,650)          $2,609
                                                                     =======           ======

Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding                                           5,547            5,347
  Net effect of dilutive stock options and
     warrants - based on the treasury stock
     method using average market price                                    20              115
                                                                     -------           ------

               Common and common equivalents                           5,567            5,462
                                                                     =======           ======

Net income (loss)                                                    $(1,650)          $2,609
                                                                     =======           ======

Per share amount:
Primary:                                                             $  (.29)          $  .48
Fully diluted:                                                       $  (.29)          $  .48
</TABLE>

                                       11
153 P.3d 475

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Golojuch

27629

02/02/2007

Affirmed
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-
86454), Amended and Restated Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-86511), 1995 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-93856), Stock Option
Plan for Non-Employee Directors (Form S-8 No. 33-93844), The Interpore Cross
International 1999 Consultants Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-86523) and
Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-86290) of Interpore
International, Inc. and the Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option Plan (Form S-
8 No. 333-53775) pertaining to the Assumed Options of Cross Medical Products,
Inc. of our report dated February 2, 2001 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Interpore International, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Orange County, California
March 26, 2001
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Chattem, Inc. and in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-35386, 33-78524, 33-78922 and 33-61267), Form S-3 (Nos. 33-69961, 33-69397,
33-31113, 33-03091 and 33-85348) and Form S-4 (No. 33-53627) of our report dated
January 23, 2003, included in the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders of Chattem,
Inc.

Our audits also included financial statement Schedule II for the years ended
November 30, 2002 and 2001 of Chattem, Inc. listed in Item 15. This schedule is
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set
forth therein. The financial statement Schedule II for the year ended November
30, 2000 listed in item 15 was audited by other auditors who have ceased
operations and whose report dated January 23, 2002, expressed an unqualified
opinion on the schedule.





                                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Chattanooga, Tennessee
February 21, 2003
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
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
U.S. Capitol Police Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    American Elm

Year
    2008

Location
      
Capitol Square, N.W.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text of the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Commemorative Tree

*Ulmus americana 'Valley Forge'*
(Valley Forge American Elm)

To Commemorate the Service of
the United States Capitol Police

Sponsored by
Terrance W. Gainer, Senate Sergeant at Arms

September 24, 2008 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