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

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-628-001]

Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-B, the following sheet, with an effective date of November 1, 2000:

Sub. First Revised Sheet No. 54A

KMIGT states that the filing is being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order dated October 25, 2000 in this docket.

KMIGT states that it has served copies of the filing upon the company's transportation service and storage customers.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30350 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
 To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
 Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc.
 Salt Lake City, Utah
 
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. on Form S-8 No. 333-125732, of our report dated July 30, 2010, which is included in the Form 10-K for Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2009.
 
 Our report covering the June 30, 2009 and 2008 consolidated financial statements of Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. contains an explanatory paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
 
 
 
 
 HJ &Associates, LLC
 Salt Lake City, Utah
 July 30, 2010
Description of Bonus Program



 Exhibit 10.29 
  
 Description of Bonus Program 
  

On March 17, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board approved a bonus program pursuant to which the registrant’s executive officers, senior
employees and other employees would be eligible to be paid incentive compensation for 2005. Employees below the director level would be eligible to participate in an available bonus pool equal to 5% of the aggregate salaries for all such employees
to be allocated among such employees at the discretion of the officers of the registrant. 
  
 For executive officers, vice presidents and director-level employees, the bonus program provides for an incentive cash compensation target equal to a percentage of each such participant’s base salary as follows:

  

				
	 Title

	  	 Target Percentage
 of Base Salary

	 
	 Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  	50	%
	 Chief Financial Officer, Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Medical Officer
	  	35	%
	 Vice Presidents
	  	25	%
	 Director-level employees
	  	15	%

  
 Under the bonus
program, after the completion of the 2005 fiscal year, each such participant will be eligible for a bonus that will be equal to an amount from 0 to 150% of the applicable target amount based on the level of achievement of specific criteria. These
criteria include the achievement of total revenue and maximum cash burn targets and MassARRAY system sales and product launch milestones, completion of specified compliance objectives, and other criteria the disclosure of which would reveal
confidential business information and plans of the registrant.
#### Baron & Gleich, Appellant, v Mark Epstein et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover legal fees for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated August 4, 1989, which granted the motion of the defendants Epstein and Izmo Productions, Inc., to vacate a judgment in the amount of $68,816.71, entered by the clerk of the same court on January 18, 1989, against them, upon their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this long-standing dispute between attorney and client over fees for services rendered, the parties agreed that, because of settlement negotiations, the respondents, who had appeared in the action, were not required to serve an answer until 20 days after service by the plaintiff of written notice to do so. Inasmuch as the record is at best unclear as to whether the agreed-to notice was properly given, the respondents’ counsel acted promptly upon learning that a default judgment had been entered, and the courts have a special interest in contracts between attorneys and clients *(see, Cohen v Ryan,*34 AD2d 789; *cf., Matter of First Natl. Bank v Brower,*42 NY2d 471), the Supreme Court properly vacated the default judgment entered by the clerk *(see,*CPLR 3215 [a]; *cf.,*CPLR 5015; *Sortino v Fisher,*20 AD2d 25, 32).

There are no bills or detailed statements of services included in the record, and, given the patent and long-standing objection by the respondents to the plaintiff’s demands for fees, it is evident that an action on an account stated will not *590lie *(cf., Law Firm of Liebowitz, Lasky & Peterson v Sikowitz,*129 AD2d 774; *Sandvoss v Dunkelberger,*112 AD2d 278). Under the circumstances presented here, a default judgment should not have been entered against the respondents by the clerk *(cf., Cohen v Ryan, supra).*Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11

                     FOOTSTAR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                            PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED
                     ($ in Millions, except per share data)


                                                Three Months       Six Months
                                                   Ended              Ended
                                               June 28, 1997      June 28, 1997
                                               --------------     --------------
Primary earnings per share:
   Net income                                  $         15.1     $         20.1
                                               ==============     ==============
   Average common shares outstanding               30,323,009         30,434,925
   Dilutive effect of outstanding options              69,827             67,928
                                               --------------     --------------
                                                   30,392,836         30,502,853
                                               ==============     ==============
   Earnings per common share--primary          $         0.50     $         0.66
                                               ==============     ==============
Fully diluted earnings per share:                                 
   Net income                                  $         15.1     $         20.1
                                               ==============     ==============
   Average common shares outstanding               30,323,009         30,434,925
   Dilutive effect of outstanding options              70,635             70,635
                                               --------------     --------------
                                                   30,393,644         30,505,560
                                               ==============     ==============
   Earnings per common share--fully                               
      diluted                                  $         0.50     $         0.66
                                               ==============     ==============
                                                              


                                       20
#### John Puntoriero et al., Respondents, v Daniel Vecchio et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and cross motion denied. Memorandum: The court granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment granting specific performance of an oral contract for the conveyance of real property, holding that the unrebutted proof established part performance sufficient to take the contract out of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). We note that defendant husband also admitted at his deposition that an agreement to transfer the property existed.

The court erred, however, in granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of the oral agreement. The moving party must show proof of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). The agreement alleged by plaintiffs was that they were entitled to conveyance of title "upon our qualifying for a mortgage and repaying them the money they paid toward the down payment and closing costs plus one dollar.” In the absence of a showing that they qualified for a mortgage, plaintiffs failed to establish that they were able to tender performance *(see, Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza,*60 NY2d 997). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — summary judg*967ment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1449 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1449

 To prohibit any State or local government from requiring any disabled 
veteran to reside for a minimum period within the jurisdiction of such 
government as a condition of receiving benefits under any real property 
                 tax relief program of such government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1993

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit any State or local government from requiring any disabled 
veteran to reside for a minimum period within the jurisdiction of such 
government as a condition of receiving benefits under any real property 
                 tax relief program of such government.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY OF 
              DISABLED VETERANS FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
``Sec. 114. Prohibition of residency requirement for eligibility of 
              disabled veteran for real property tax relief.
    ``No State or local government may require any disabled veteran to 
reside within the jurisdiction of such government for any minimum 
period as a condition of receiving benefits under any real property tax 
relief program of such government.''
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such chapter 4 
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

``114. Prohibition of residency requirement for eligibility of disabled 
                            veteran for real property tax relief.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: August 14, 2006 By:  /s/ William C. Stone    William C. Stone    Chief Executive Officer      Date: August 14, 2006 By:  /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti    Patrick J. Pedonti    Chief Financial Officer
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott D. Kantor, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.

|                 |  |     |  |                        
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|February 9, 2004 |  | /s/ |  | Scott D. Kantor        
|                 |  |     |  |                        
|                 |  |     |  | Scott D. Kantor        
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP00-412-000]


Cross Bay Pipeline Company, L.L.C. and Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation; Notice of Site Visit

November 22, 2000.
    On November 30, 2000, staff from the Office of Energy Projects 
(OEP) will conduct a pre-certification site visit of the proposed Cross 
Bay Project at Cross Bay Pipeline Company, L.L.C.'s (Cross Bay) 
proposed and alternative sites for the Cross Bay Compressor Station in 
Middlesex County, New Jersey, Representatives of Cross Bay will 
accompany the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend the site visit. Those planning to 
attend must provide their own transportation. For further information 
on attending the site visit, please contact the Commission's Office of 
External Affairs at (202) 208-0004.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30594 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Ex parte MORRELL.

No. 19916.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1938.

Howth, Adams & Hart and Gaston H. Wilder, Jr., all of Beaumont, for appellant.

*316Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

It appears from the record that the appellant was charged in the Justice Court of Jefferson County with having violated the stock laws of that county. The complaint seems to he sufficient to charge that offense.

A warrant was duly issued by. the Justice Court, in pursuance of the complaint, commanding the sheriff of said county to arrest appellant and bring him before said court to answer to the charge. It seems that before his trial and during the pend-ency of the complaint, appellant applied to the county judge of said county for a writ of habeas corpus, praying that upon a hearing thereof he be discharged from custody. The court granted the writ and upon a hearing thereof, declined to discharge him, from which order he has appealed to this court.

Appellant contends that the order for the stock law election was made by the Commissioner’s Court at a special term; that notice of said election was not given in the manner and form and for the length of time required by law, etc. It is obvious that these matters could have been presented as a defense by the appellant upon his trial. Whether or not the proceedings relating' to the adoption of the stock law were regular, were questions of fact to be determined by the trial court. If they were not regular the trial court would have, no doubt, given him the relief to which he was entitled.

This court has consistently held that a writ of habeas corpus will not lie where the remedy at law is adequate; nor will it lie after an indictment to prevent a trial on the merits. See Ex parte Meers & King, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 465, 88 S.W.2d 100, and authorities cited.

Inasmuch as appellant has an adequate legal remedy, this court will not interfere with the jurisdiction of the trial court over the person and subject matter. The judgment of the trial court remanding appellant to the custody of the sheriff will therefore be 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.
Exhibit 10.5


2005 Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers

On March 2, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company approved the following 2005 base salaries, which were effective March 1,
2005, for the Company's named executive officers: Joseph R. Gromek ($950,000);
Lawrence R. Rutkowski ($550,000); Roger A. Williams ($680,000); Frank Tworecke
($700,000); and Stanley P. Silverstein ($525,000). Roger A. Williams was the
only named executive officer to receive a base salary increase for 2005. His
prior salary was $650,000.
Exhibit 32.4

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 Holdings, L.P. (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, John P. Burke, the Chief Financial 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/ JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                                      
|                       |  |  |  | John P. Burke                                                                                                          
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Treasurer of Trump Entertainment Resorts
Holdings, L.P.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1485 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1485

   Making appropriations for the House of Representatives committee 
    funding, salaries, and expenditures for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1993

 Mr. Inglis of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   Making appropriations for the House of Representatives committee 
    funding, salaries, and expenditures for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums 
are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely:

                           committee funding

    For employees, expenses, studies by committees of the House of 
Representatives, $28,950,000: Provided, That for each committee, the 
amount allocated shall be allocated to reflect the ratio of the 
majority party to the minority party in the House.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Kirby, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly determined that the *Aguilar-Spinelli*test *(see, Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108; *Spinelli v United States,*393 US 410) does not apply to this situation, where the identity of the citizen informant was disclosed to the Magistrate and a deposition signed by the informant and based upon personal observation was submitted in support of the application for a search warrant *(see, People v Hicks,*38 NY2d 90, 93). We agree with the suppression court that defendant failed to carry his burden of proving that the allegations contained in the application were perjurious *(see, People v Tambe,*71 NY2d 492, 504; *People v Alfinito,*16 NY2d 181, 186), and that the application for the search warrant was supported by probable cause. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — attempted criminal possession of marihuana, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.