alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Lillie H. Pollard, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mae H. Smith, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Fulton County,

June 4, 1958.

*Franlc Vetro*for Lillie H. Pollard, petitioner.

*William E. Walsh*for Commissioner of Public Welfare of Fulton County.

*Edward 8. Lomanto,*special guardian for Luella G. Graham.

A. Page Smith, S.

On final accounting of the administratrix of Mae H. Smith, deceased, it appears that the assets of the estate are insufficient to pay the funeral expenses, the expenses of administration and debts. A claim has been filed by the commissioner of public welfare of Fulton County for moneys advanced as assistance to the decedent prior to her death and the question has been raised as to whether or not the commissioner’s claim has a preference as against general creditors.

An examination of the adjudicated cases indicates that in 1941, in *Matter of Clonan*(176 Misc. 557) the Surrogate of Orange County held in a like situation that the claim of the welfare commissioner had a preference, basing his decision on subdivision 1 of section 212 of the Surrogate’s Court Act and on what are now sections 104 and 105 of the Social Welfare Law as amended. Later, in 1942, Surrogate Foley of New York County, passed upon the same question in *Matter of Andrews*
      *658(179 Misc. 876), and he decided that the claim of the commissioner did not have a preference over general creditors even though section 105 of the Social Welfare Law does give the commissioner a preference as against insurance moneys belonging to the estate of a deceased. Section 104 gives the commissioner a claim against the estate of a deceased person up to the cost of whatever assistance has been rendered to the deceased prior to his death, but fails to give the commissioner a preference such as is given in the case of insurance moneys. Judge Foley reasoned that he was not entitled to read something into section 104 which is not there and this court adopts the same reasoning, particularly since the Legislature has amended section 104 since Judge Foley’s decision and has failed to provide for a preference. As stated in Judge Foley’s decision, “ When the Legislature amends or enacts a statute anew it will be assumed that it did so with full knowledge of decisions theretofore made interpreting and construing it ”. *(Matter of Andrews,*179 Misc. 876, 878, *supra.)*

This court accordingly determines that the claim of the welfare commissioner against this estate does not have a preference as against the general creditors. The fee of the attorney for the estate is hereby fixed at $250 and the fee to special guardian at $10. Submit decree.
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





Certification of Chief Executive Officer



In connection  with the Quarterly Report of Igen Networks Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Monty Ormsby, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.













: August 10, 2010               /s/

“Monty Ormsby”

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



Monty Ormsby



Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consentto the incorporation by reference in the registration statements onForm S-3 (File No. 333-130315, File No. 333-132489 and File No. 333-138341) andon Form S-8 (File No. 333-122737 and File No. 333-129781) of Copano Energy, L.L.C., of (1) ourreport dated March 26, 2007, except as to note 3, which is as of October 9, 2007, with respectto the consolidated balance sheetsof Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, member’s equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2006,(2) our report dated March 16, 2007 with respect to the balance sheets of Bighorn Gas Gathering, LLC as of December 31, 2006and 2005, and the related statements of operations, members’ equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and (3) our report dated March 16, 2007 with respect to thebalance sheet of Fort Union Gas Gathering,LLC as of December 31, 2006 and the related statements of operations, members’ equity,and cash flows for the year then ended, which reports appear in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A ofCopano Energy, L.L.C. dated October 29, 2007.Our report with respect to the financial statementsof Cantera Natural Gas, LLC referred to above refers to note 3, which addresses certain restatements thathave been made to those financial statements.**KPMG LLP   Denver, Colorado  October 29, 2007  
 **
Exhibit 1.4

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Herbert E. Jones, III, President, certify that;

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Pittsburgh & West
   Virginia Railroad;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
   the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
   registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
      within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
      report is being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
      Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
   committee of registrant's Board of Trustees:

   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
   in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.

Date: March 29, 2007	/s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
			Herbert E. Jones, III
			President
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.8




CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT WERE OMITTED AND REPLACED WITH “[***]”.  A COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.




FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT


This First Amendment to the Distribution Agreement ("Amendment") is between Vericel Corporation ("Vericel") and Orsini Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (“Orsini"). This Amendment is effective as of August 10, 2017 ("Effective Date").


Whereas, Vericel and Orsini are parties to a Distribution Agreement dated May 15, 2017 (the "Distribution Agreement"), under which Vericel appointed Orsini as a specialty pharmacy distributor for Carticel® and MACI®;


Whereas, Vericel has discontinued the sale of Carticel and added an additional National Drug Code for MACI;  


Whereas, the Parties now wish to update the Distribution Agreement to reflect these changes; 


Therefore, the Parties agree to amend the Distribution Agreement as follows:


		
	1.
	Exhibit A.   In order to remove Carticel and add an additional NDC for MACI (corresponding to an order of two cases per pack, with each case containing one implant), the Parties agree to delete and replace in its entirety the table “Products and Prices” with the following:




	
			
	Product
	NDC Number
	List Price*

	MACI
	69866-1030-01
	[***]

	MACI
	69866-1030-02
	[***]








		
	2.
	No Other Changes. Except as provided in this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Distribution Agreement will continue in full force.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this First Amendment as of its Effective Date.




	
		
	Vericel Corporation




By:  /s/ Daniel Orlando
Name:  Daniel Orlando
Title:  Chief Operating Officer


Date:  11 August 2017 
	Orsini Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.




By:  /s/ Michael Fieri
Name:   Michael Fieri
Title:  President and CEO


Date:  08.10.2017
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

1:06 p.m. on Friday, September 20, 2024.

# PLACE: 

The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's corporate activities. In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), by the unanimous vote of Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman Travis Hill, Director Jonathan McKernan, Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable;                               ( print page 77865)                            that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2) and (c)(6), of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and(c)(6)).                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2024.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024-22010 Filed 9-20-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

THE RECREATION AND PARK NO. 

### 2023 CW 0220 COMMISSION FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE VERSUS SID J. GAUTREAUX, III, IN HIS CAPACITYAS SHERIFF OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 

### JUNE 20, 2023

In Re: Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, IIi, 

### in his capacity as

Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish and as Ex Officio 

### Collector of East Baton Rouge Parish Ad Valorem Taxes, 

## applying forsupervisorywrits, 19th Judicial 

### District 

### Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 725439.

BEFORE: 

### GUIDRYI C.J., MCCLENDONANDWELCH, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial court' s 

### February 6, 

### 2023 judgment 

## denying the motion to recuse Judge Johnson filed 

### by Sid J. Gautreaux, III, In His 

## Capacity As Sheriff Of East Baton Rouge Parish ( Sheriff) 

### is vacated. 

### Pursuant to 

### La. Code Civ. P. art. 154(B), 

### if a motion to recuse sets forth a ground for recusal under Article 151, the judge shall either recuse 

### himselformake awritten requestto the Louisiana Supreme Court for the appointment of an ad hoc 

### judge. The Sheriff's motion 

### set forth grounds of recusal under La. Cade Civ. P. art. 151(B), 

### asserting a substantial and objective basis for recusal based on Judge Johnson's previous service as a 

### board member on the 

### defendant's board. This matter 

### is remanded to the trial court with 

### instructions to make a written request to the Louisiana Supreme Court pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 154(B) for the 

### appointment of an ad hocjudge to hearthe motion to recuse.

JMG PMC JEW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LJ 

### N/) i' D U Y CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CEO PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K
      By:
    /s/  Rene
    R. Joyce   Title:
    Chief Executive Officer of Targa Resources GP
    LLC, the general partner of the Partnership  Date: March
    30, 2007
#### JACOBS v. GASOW HOWARD MOTOR CO.

No. 2315.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 22, 1932.

O. M. Lord and D. E. O’Fiel, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

C. E. Pool, of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

In the court below appellant, A.. Jacobs, was plaintiff, and appellee, Gasow Howard Motor Company, was defendant. At the close of the evidence appellee moved for an instructed verdict. The following docket entry shows the ruling of the court on this motion: “10-19-31 Deft has leave to amend 10/19/31 both sides announce ready jury empaneled and sworn. Trial proceeds 10/21/31 both sides close. Defendant presents motion for instructed verdict at close of argument on said motion and not in presence of juiy. Trial judge said the motion for instructed verdict is granted bring in the jury. Plaintiff’s counsel moved a non suit. Court refused a non suit, on ground that it came after he had announced his decision on motion for instructed verdict, though he had not entered said decision on the docket; to which plaintiff excepts. Instructed verdict given to which plaintiff excepts.” Appellant’s request for a nonsuit was refused, the instructed verdict given, and judgment entered accordingly.

Appellant’s only assignment complains of the court’s refusal to grant his nonsuit. This assignment is overruled. In Texas Electric Ry. v. Cox, 49 S.W.(2d) 725, the Commission of Appeals said: “Where the defendant moves for a peremptory instruction, the plaintiff’s right to a nonsuit is controlled by that portion of the statute applicable to cases tried before the court without the intervention of a jury.” Article 2182, R. S. 1925, expressly provides: “When the case is tried by the judge, such non-suit may be taken at any time before the decision is announced.” Where the court, trying the case without a jury, announces his judgment, it is too late to ask for a nonsuit. This is the direct holding of the court in the case cited. See, also, Adams v. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 137 S. W. 437; Wood v. Moers (Tex. Civ. App.) 289 S. W. 1017.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2765 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2765

To prohibit the National Science Foundation from obligating amounts for 
     the Polar Learning and Responding Climate Change Educational 
                              Partnership.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2015

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the National Science Foundation from obligating amounts for 
     the Polar Learning and Responding Climate Change Educational 
                              Partnership.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING PROHIBITION.

    The National Science Foundation may not obligate any amounts on or 
after the date of enactment of this Act for the Polar Learning and 
Responding Climate Change Educational Partnership.
                                 <all>
```
From: Cogliano, Gerain 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:26 PM

To: 'Jones, Danielle' <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: RE: Follow-up Question re EO 12866 Interagency Review: EPA's Modernization of the Accidental 

Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act 

Thanks!

From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:10 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: Follow-up Question re EO 12866 Interagency Review: EPA's Modernization of the Accidental 

Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act 

Hi Gerain,

The reviewer confers with no further comment.

Thanks,

Danielle

From: Cogliano, Gerain [mailto:Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:51 AM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: Follow-up Question re EO 12866 Interagency Review: EPA's Modernization of the Accidental 

Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act 

Hi Danielle,

For comment #8, it’s not clear what more we need to do. Where the comment says “the challenge will 

be some of the processes that improve security may actually impede safety, and the reverse,” - we 

agree and have already acknowledged this tension in the preamble. In the IST discussion on page 83 we 

state (mid-way in the paragraph):

“Because an option may be inherently safer with regard to some hazards and inherently less safe with 

regard to others, the decision process must consider the entire life cycle, the full spectrum of hazards 

and risks, and the potential for transfer of risk from one impacted population to another.”

Later in the same section (last 3 sentences of the paragraph):

“Few technologies will be inherently safer with respect to all hazards, and other approaches will usually 

be required to manage the full range of hazards and risks. As an example, the [DHS] report points out 

that an IST with respect to a catastrophic release hazard may conflict with methods to minimize other 

hazards, such as theft or diversion of materials, contamination of product, or degradation of 

infrastructure. It may not address other hazards at all, or it may create new hazards.”
(Emphasis added) Here we’re specifically referring to the DHS report prepared by CCPS, and we clearly 

highlight the concern. As such, we’re unclear as to what more we should do to address comment 8. Any 

clarification on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Gerain
# Official Journal C 258/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 258 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 636 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 258

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 636 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 258/01 | Euro exchange rates — 5 August 2020 | 1 |
| | Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations |
| 2020/C 258/02 | Decision of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations of 24 July 2020 concerning public access to documents held by the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 258/01

Euro exchange rates — 5 August 2020

1

Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations

2020/C 258/02

Decision of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations of 24 July 2020 concerning public access to documents held by the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN