alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The MELVA COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. BOGIE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 9, 1955.

L. O. Thompson, Lexington, for appellant.

Stoll, Keenon & Park and R. M. Odear, Lexington, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, Chester D. Adams, Judge.

This action was brought by appellant to recover $1,013.50 paid appellee on the pur*922chase price of certain machinery which was not delivered due to appellant’s alleged breach of contract. Appellee counterclaimed for damages in the sum of $1,520.47, charging breach of contract. The action was tried by the judge without a jury and judgment was entered for the appellant in the sum of $80.53.

An examination of the record reveals that the trial court was authorized under the pleading and proof to enter the judgment and we find no error.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|Name and State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation                |  | Registrants Percentage Ownership |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | -
|U. S. Subsidiaries                                                   |  |                                   |  
|C/P Products Corp, an Indiana corporation                            |  | 100                               | %
|United Sales and Warehouse of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation       |  | 100                               | %
|Foreign Subsidiaries:                                                |  |                                   |  
|The Coast Distribution System (Canada) Inc., Quebec, Canada          |  | 100                               | %
|Ai-wek a.k.a Eurasia Recreational Vehicle Accessories Taiwan Company |  | 100                               | %



In
accordance with the instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of
December 31, 2002.
**Exhibit 23**

 

***CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS***

 

We hereby consent to theapplication of our report dated December 17, 2003 included in this Form 10-KSBof 4-D Neuroimaging, relating to their consolidated financial statements andschedule for the year ended September 30, 2003, and previously filed Form S-8No. 333-60743, No. 33-61057, No. 33-32260, No. 33-33179, No. 33-68136, No.333-54322, No. 333-90450, No. 333-96267 and No. 333-105716.

 

 
| /s/  Swenson Advisors LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| San Diego, California          |
| December 18, 2003              |

 

----
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & Commercial ePacket contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         February 22, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & Commercial ePacket Contract 4 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-186 and CP2024-192.                

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler,

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2024-03633 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1651 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1651

     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create a 
designation for property owners who take actions to reduce nutrient and 
   sediment runoff into the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

 Mr. Sarbanes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create a 
designation for property owners who take actions to reduce nutrient and 
   sediment runoff into the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save the Chesapeake Bay Homeowner 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION.

    Section 117(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1267(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Designation program.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the 
                date of enactment of the Save the Chesapeake Bay 
                Homeowner Act of 2011, the Administrator shall develop 
                and implement the `Save the Chesapeake Bay Home' 
                designation program.
                    ``(B) Designation requirement.--The program under 
                subparagraph (A) shall designate a property owner in 
                the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a participant in such 
                program if the property owner performs a specified 
                number of items from a list of actions developed by the 
                Administrator to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff 
                into the Chesapeake Bay.
                    ``(C) Total maximum daily load credit.--The 
                Administrator shall determine an appropriate amount of 
                credit for compliance with total maximum daily load 
                requirements to award to a State or their designee 
                based on the number of property owners in the 
                jurisdiction who have received a designation under the 
                program.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.56
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
CONSULTING AND CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
 Agreement rd Effective Date OSI Consultant
 1. Nature of Consulting Services. Services
 2. Delivery of Consulting Services.
 3. Compensation and Reimbursement.
 (a)
 (b)
 4. Confidentiality.
 (a) Confidential Information
 (b)
 (i)
 (ii)




---



##### 



(iii)
 (iv)
 (c)
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 (g)
 5. Representation and Warranties.
 (a)
 2




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 6. Indemnification. Losses
 7. Term and Termination.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 8. General.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 3




---



##### 



OSI:
    
    OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

At the address set forth at the beginning of this Agreement 

Attention: General CounselConsultant:
    
    Walter M. Lovenberg, Ph.D.

At the address set forth in the records of the Company
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 (g)
 (h)
 4




---



##### 



(i)
  CONSULTANT
    
    
    
    OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Walter M. Lovenberg

Name: Walter M. Lovenberg, Ph.D.
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Colin Goddard

Name: Colin Goddard, Ph.D.Title: Chief Executive Officer
  5
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Global Assets & Services (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Bertram Cutler,  President, CEO, and CFO of the company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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
                operations of the Company.


                                         /s/Bertram Cutler
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Bertram Cutler, President/CEO/CFO

Dated:  11/19/02
#### Charles WATERS et al., Appellants, v. VICTORIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees.

No. 12865.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 11, 1955.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1955.

*696Thos. H. Dent, Galveston, for appellants.

Guittard & Henderson, W. L. Edwards, Victoria, for appellees.

'N'ORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiffs’ suit upon their failure to amend their petition, after the trial court had, sustained a plea to the jurisdiction; a plea in abatement and numerous special • exceptions lodged against the pleading by fthe defendants. From the, recitations contained in the order of dismissal which was rendered on January 3, 1955, it appears that the trial judge, after sustaining defendants’ motions and exceptions on October 16, 1954, allowed the plaintiffs thirty days in which to amend their pleadings. At the expiration of süch time, no amended pleadings having been filed, the time was further extended to January 1, 1955. As no amended pleadings were filed within the extended time, the case was dismissed with prejudice. On January 7, 1955, plaintiffs filed a motion which can be classified as a motion for new trial, within the provisions of Rule 329-b, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, although it is designated as a “motion to reinstate the case upon the court’s docket.” This motion was overruled by the court, on January 19, 1955, and an appeal taken to this Court.

All of plaintiffs’ points of error are based upon this motion and assert - in various forms the single proposition that the trial court ej-red in refusing to grant the motion to reinstate the case upon the docket and grant plaintiffs further time in which to amend their petition. Such points fail to show a reversible error. Upon the hearing of the motion, it was shown that although one of the members of the firm of attorneys • representing plaintiffs had suffered an illness, another member had taken over the management ,of the case and, despite the extension of time allowed by the trial court, no amended; petition had been filed within the extended period, nor was an amended pleading tendered for filing at the time •the motion for reinstatement was urged. ' This Court is consequently unable to determine whether plaintiffs could or would amend so as to meet-the rulings of the trial court.

The trial judge has control of his docket. He is entitled to call for pleadings and consequent joinder of issue within reasonable periods. In the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion, his rulings and decisions in regard to such matters will not be disturbed by this Court, Cardwell v. Cardwell, Tex.Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 635. The record fails, to show an abuse of discretion and the order appealed from is. accordingly affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1731 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1731

To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit notifications to Congress 
 with respect to the failure by the Secretary to comply with statutory 
        body armor procurement budget information requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2011

 Ms. Tsongas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit notifications to Congress 
 with respect to the failure by the Secretary to comply with statutory 
        body armor procurement budget information requirements.

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

SECTION 1. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE ON BODY ARMOR PROCUREMENT BUDGET 
              INFORMATION.

    Not later than each 90 days beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees written notification of--
            (1) the status of the Secretary with respect to complying 
        with the body armor procurement line item requirement under 
        section 141(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
        Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2223; 10 U.S.C. 
        221 note); and
            (2) the reasons why the Secretary has failed to comply with 
        such requirement.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1806 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Bluefin 

tuna may not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2011 

Mr. GUINTA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide 

that Bluefin tuna may not be treated as an endangered 

species or threatened species. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bluefin Tuna Fisher5 men Employment Preservation Act’’. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1806 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING TREATMENT OF BLUEFIN TUNA AS 

2 AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED 

3 SPECIES. 

4 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(4) The Bluefin tuna may not be treated as an 

8 endangered species or threatened species under this 

9 Act.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Service

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; HIGH IMPACT, INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE IN NIDDK RESEARCH AREAS (RC2) ON PSC.                    

*Date:*                         April 12, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maria E. Davila-Bloom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7637,                         *davila-bloomm@extra.niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: February 21, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03910 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                                       OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                  In  connection  with the  amendment  to  quarterly  report  of
I-trax,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Shannon  W.  Farrington,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (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 result of operations of
the Company.



/s/ Shannon W. Farrington
--------------------------
Shannon W. Farrington
Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2004


                                       43


<PAGE>
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.5.1



AMENDMENT TO ENDOLOGIX, INC. 2017 INDUCEMENT STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Effective as of December 5, 2018, and pursuant to approval by the Compensation Committee of Endologix, Inc. on such date, the maximum number of shares issuable pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Endologix, Inc. 2017 Inducement Stock Incentive Plan approved by the Board, including the Independent Board, on October 27, 2017 (the “Plan”), is hereby increased from 200,000 to 400,000 shares of Stock.  
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.  
Except as herein provided, all provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Raymond B Hatfield

3009 Decatur Street Omaha, Nebraska 68111

RE: SAID: 26524

3009 Decatur Street Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3009 Decatur Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures
Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment

LEGEND: H 

### - N 

### - P 

### - 01 

### - 26524 

## I Samples Analyzed

~Vdindow, udng porch etc ) [Wood, concrete etc ) Area

-



### -- - P 

### - - 26524 rnglcn3 ft2



### -



## -- - P

- - 26524 mgcm' ftz



### -

-- 

### - P 

## - - 26524 rns/cn~ R'

w LBP-1.1 Pmted. 09.Jul49 043701 01 13