alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30262]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3305; 
Amendment #1]


State of Arizona

    In accordance with notices received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated November 8 and November 16, 2000, the above-
numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Pinal County and the 
Gila River Indian Community in the State of Arizona as a disaster area 
due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding, and to establish 
the incident period for this disaster as beginning on October 21, 2000 
and continuing through November 8, 2000.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous county of Graham, Arizona may be 
filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. 
All other contiguous counties have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is December 26, 2000 and for 
economic injury the deadline is July 27, 2001.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-30262 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1120

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the Federal prohibitions

against assaulting children.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the

Federal prohibitions against assaulting children.

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 ‘‘Assaults Against Chil5 dren Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. ASSAULTS AGAINST CHILDREN.

7 (a) SIMPLE ASSAULT.—Section 113(e) of title 18,

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘by fine’’ and

9 all that follows through the period and inserting ‘‘—
2

•HR 1120 IH

1 ‘‘(A) if the victim of the assault is an individual

2 who has not attained the age of 16 years, by a fine

3 under this title or imprisonment for not more than

4 one year, or both; and

5 ‘‘(B) by a fine under this title or imprisonment

6 for not more than three months, or both, in any

7 other case.’’.

8 (b) ASSAULTS RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL BODILY

9 INJURY.—Section 113 of title 18, United States Code, is

10 amended by adding at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(7) Assault resulting in substantial bodily in12 jury to an individual who has not attained the age

13 of 16 years, by a fine under this title or imprison14 ment for not more than 5 years, or both.’’.

15 (c) TECHNICAL AND STYLISTIC CHANGES TO SEC16 TION 113.—Section 113 of title 18, United States Code,

17 is amended—

18 (1) in paragraph (b), by striking ‘‘of not more

19 than $3,000’’ and inserting ‘‘under this title’’;

20 (2) in paragraph (c), by striking ‘‘of not more

21 than $1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘under this title’’;

22 (3) in paragraph (d), by striking ‘‘of not more

23 than $500’’ and inserting ‘‘under this title’’;

24 (4) in paragraph (e), by striking ‘‘of not more

25 than $300’’ and inserting ‘‘under this title’’;
3

•HR 1120 IH

1 (5) by modifying the left margin of each of

2 paragraphs (a) through (f) so that they are indented

3 2 ems;

4 (6) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (f)

5 as paragraphs (1) through (6); and

6 (7) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Whoever’’.

7 (d) DEFINITIONS.—Section 113 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing:

10 ‘‘(b) As used in this subsection—

11 ‘‘(1) the term ‘substantial bodily injury’ means

12 bodily injury which involves—

13 ‘‘(A) a temporary but substantial disfigure14 ment; or

15 ‘‘(B) a temporary but substantial loss or

16 impairment of the function of any bodily mem17 ber, organ, or mental faculty; and

18 ‘‘(2) the term ‘serious bodily injury’ has the

19 meaning given that term in section 1365 of this

20 title.’’.

21 (e) ASSAULTS IN INDIAN COUNTRY.—Section

22 1153(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

23 inserting ‘‘(as defined in section 1365 of this title), an

24 assault against an individual who has not attained the age

25 of 16 years’’ after ‘‘serious bodily injury’’.
4

•HR 1120 IH

Æ
----

(2004/C 84 E/0427)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0349/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Serious irregularities involving the EU as regards the establishment of the private University of Formello (Rome)

The ‘Free University of Formello’ was set up in 2003. It is a private institution and started teaching students on 11 November 2003. On that date the municipality of Formello decided to become a shareholder in the university but, because of some dubious statements contained in the document submitted at the Council meeting to justify this decision, a number of councillors carried out detailed checks. The document in question supposedly dealt with a request for recognition of the university, sent to the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, by the European Commission. It said that funding had been granted for the project by the DG for Education and Culture under the Leonardo programme and bore the signature of the chairman of the National Committee for the assessment of the university system (a body belonging to the Ministry of Education) and a file number — DOC 27/2003. When the councillors checked with the chairman, they concluded that the document was false, for the following reasons: the chairman said that the Committee had never written the document, the chairman's signature had been forged and the Committee had not met on the dates mentioned in the document.

The councillors have already taken steps to launch all the penal and administrative procedures required to throw light on the subject. The Ministry of Education has lodged a complaint with the misleading advertising watchdog regarding the use of the name ‘Free university’, which is not allowed under current legislation because it is not authorised by the Ministry.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

In response to the Honourable Member's questions, and to address irregularities in the creation of the private University of Formello, the Commission would like to point out that:

----
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 27, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Portfolio of Closed-End Fund
Opportunities Trust, Series 8


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Portfolio of Closed-End Fund Opportunities Trust, Series 8 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on August 26, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in
the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the
party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-205628) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
exv10w2



 








Exhibit 10.2




DESCRIPTION OF THE 2005 CASH INCENTIVE PLAN




Purpose



On January 22, 2005, EchoStar Communications Corporation (“EchoStar”) established a short-term cash
incentive plan for the 2005 fiscal year (the “2005 Cash Incentive Plan”). The purpose of the 2005
Cash Incentive Plan is to promote EchoStar’s interests and the interests of EchoStar’s stockholders
by providing EchoStar’s key employees with financial rewards upon achievement of specified
short-term business objectives together with, for EchoStar’s executive officers, certain subjective
criteria.



Eligibility



The employees eligible to participate in the 2005 Cash Incentive Plan include EchoStar’s executive
officers, vice presidents, director-level employees and certain other key employees designated by
management of EchoStar.



Amount of Awards



The maximum amount payable to any employee under the 2005 Cash Incentive Plan upon satisfaction of
all specified business objectives and other criteria is less than the employee’s annual base
salary.
#### TEXAS CO. v. HENDERSON.

No. 4128.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso, Texas.

Sept. 18, 1941.

Mae M. Ament, of Alpine, for appellant.

A. E. Owens, of Alpine, for appellee.

WALTHALL, Justice.

Appellant, the Texas Company, filed this case as plaintiff in the Justice of the Peace Court in Brewster County. The case was there tried to judgment, and from that court the case was appealed to the County Court, where it was again tried to final judgment. From the judgment in the County Court this appeal was prosecuted.

Appellant’s suit was upon a verified itemized account against the appellee for $106.-58. Appellee was duly cited in the Justice Court and filed a written answer consisting of a general demurrer and general denial. In the County Court appellee for the first time set up a counterclaim for the sum of $140.05, being an alleged refund due him of one cent per gallon on 14,005 gallons of gasoline. To the counterclaim the appellant filed a special exception which was overruled and exception preserved in the record.

There is no statement of facts and ap-pellee has filed no brief in this court. The judgment of the trial court recites as a fact that the account of appellant was admitted by the appellee, and that he owed the same.

Under Art. 958, R.S., the County Court was without jurisdiction to try the counterclaim, and the exception of appellant should have been sustained and the counterclaim dismissed. The statute requires no construction, but such has been the construction in a number of cases. We cite the following: Jund v. Stute, 49 Tex.Civ. App. 510, 108 S.W. 763; Mercer v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1107; Racugno v. Hanovia Chemical Co., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 249.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and here rendered in favor of The Texas Company, appellant, for its debt and costs, and the judgment in favor of the appellee is reversed and remanded with instructions that the counterclaim be dismissed without prejudice.
**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting, February 10, 2012**

**Attendance List**

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943320
<NAME>                        TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         133,904
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  94,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                   22,370
<INVENTORY>                                    12,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,981
<PP&E>                                         2,315,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                 336,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,441,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,727
<BONDS>                                        1,734,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          242
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,441,116
<SALES>                                        660,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               741,558
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  426,951<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               170,952<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               6,057
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (28,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.29)
        
<FN>
<F1> Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2> Includes general & administration, depreciation & amortization and 
     development costs.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### SPIVEY v. STATE.

No. 24163.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1948.

W. C. Wofford, of Taylor, for appellant.

, Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is rape. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before this court without any bills of exception or objections to the court’s charge. Consequently, the only *630question here is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

The state made a complete case against appellant by the testimony of prosecutrix. Appellant did not testify or offer any affirmative defense. Under the facts as disclosed by the record, we deem the evidence ample to sustain the conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7246

MAKANDI L. TERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00207-DCN)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: March 6, 2018

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Makandi L. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, 

Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Makandi L. Terry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Terry has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, deny Terry’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission. 

# TIME AND DATE: 

February 11, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. 

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW Washington, DC 20436 Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

 

1. Agenda for future meeting: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-864-867 (Preliminary)(Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines)—briefing and vote. (The Commission will transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on February 14, 2000.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 3, 2000. 

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-3021 Filed 2-4-00; 4:30 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 131

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 8, 1994

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating December 7 of each year as ‘‘National Pearl

Harbor Remembrance Day’’.

Whereas, on December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy

and Air Force attacked units of the armed forces of the

United States stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii;

Whereas more than 2,000 citizens of the United States were

killed and more than 1,000 citizens of the United States

were wounded in the attack on Pearl Harbor;

Whereas the attack on Pearl Harbor marked the entry of the

United States into World War II;

Whereas the veterans of World War II and all other people

of the United States commemorate December 7 in remembrance of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and
2

HJ 131 RDS

Whereas commemoration of the attack on Pearl Harbor will

instill in all people of the United States a greater understanding and appreciation of the selfless sacrifice of the

individuals who served in the armed forces of the United

States during World War II: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That December 7 of each year is designated as ‘‘National

4 Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day’’ and the President is

5 authorized and requested—

6 (1) to issue annually a proclamation calling on

7 the people of the United States to observe the day

8 with appropriate ceremonies and activities; and

9 (2) to urge all Federal agencies, and interested

10 organizations, groups, and individuals, to fly the flag

11 of the United States at halfstaff each December 7

12 in honor of the individuals who died as a result of

13 their service at Pearl Harbor.

Passed the House of Representatives, August 5,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 400 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 400

        To designate October 20, 1994, as ``Leyte Landing Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 10, 1994

  Mr. Gutierrez introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
        To designate October 20, 1994, as ``Leyte Landing Day''.

Whereas the landing at Leyte Gulf, Philippines, was a crucial turning point in 
        the Allied Force's victory in the Pacific Theater of Battle during World 
        War II;
Whereas the landing of these forces was made possible by the heroism and skill 
        of brave Filipino forces;
Whereas the landing at Leyte led to the eventual liberation of the Philippines, 
        thus ending 3 years of occupation by enemy forces;
Whereas the liberation of the Philippines was a key and crucial step in the 
        ultimate triumph in the Pacific;
Whereas the aerial and naval battles were led by General Douglas MacArthur and 
        Admiral Chester Nimitz;
Whereas veterans of the United States Armed Forces and of the Filipino Armed 
        Forces have reason to recall this event with pride;
Whereas the American public should be given every opportunity to learn more 
        about the important contributions and remarkable sacrifices made by 
        Filipinos on behalf of the Allied War effort and that such actions 
        should be remembered with all appropriate dignity and respect; and
Whereas October 20, 1994, marks the 50th anniversary of the historic landing: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That October 20, 1994, is 
designated as ``Leyte Landing Day'' and the President is authorized and 
requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United 
States to observe such day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and 
activities.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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
Quarterly Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
Juliano, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ MARK JULIANO                                            
|                       |  |  |  | Mark Juliano                                                
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.