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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 575 

Reaffirming a strong commitment to United States producers and 

commodities made in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2020 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. 

BOOKER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming a strong commitment to United States producers 

and commodities made in the United States. 

Whereas the farmers and ranchers of the United States raise 

the best beef in the world; 

Whereas consumers have a right to knowingly buy products 

made in the United States; 

Whereas farmers, ranchers, workers, and consumers in the 

United States benefit from transparency regarding the 

origin of food; 

Whereas Congress overwhelmingly supported country-of-origin labeling (also known as ‘‘COOL’’) in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246; 

122 Stat. 1651) because 87 percent of consumers want 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 575 IS 

to know the country of origin of the meat those consumers purchase; 

Whereas, in 2015, Congress repealed the law requiring country-of-origin labeling for beef, reducing the competitive 

advantage of products born, raised, and slaughtered in 

the United States; 

Whereas there is no standardized definition of the term 

‘‘truth in labeling’’, disadvantaging producers in the 

United States; 

Whereas Congress supports products made in the United 

States, and consumers deserve to know where their food 

comes from; 

Whereas the United States has the highest phytosanitary 

standards in the world, while other countries place less 

emphasis on food safety; 

Whereas foreign commodities, such as beef, are misleadingly 

labeled ‘‘Product of USA’’ if those commodities are processed or packed in the United States; 

Whereas technological advancements make it possible to accurately and efficiently identify the origin of beef without 

costly segregation of imported and domestic commodities, 

giving producers and consumers the ability to distinguish 

between beef actually produced in the United States and 

foreign, imported beef; and 

Whereas country-of-origin labeling is good for farmers, ranchers, workers, and packers because it allows those individuals to identify their products as born and raised in the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate urges the President to re2 quire the United States Trade Representative to enter into 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 575 IS 

1 the trade negotiations necessary to implement mandatory 

2 country-of-origin labeling for beef, in order to allow con3 sumers to make an informed and free choice about where 

4 their food comes from. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Stock Agreement, dated February 19, 2009



 Exhibit 4.8 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT 
 TO 
 PURCHASE COMMON STOCK 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 19th day of February
2009, by and between ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) and Boulder Ventures IV, L.P. 
 Recitals

 A. The Holder was previously issued a Warrant to Purchase Common Stock dated as of October 10, 2008 (the “Warrant”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment, but not otherwise defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Warrant. 
 B. The
Holder and ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) desire to amend the Warrant to reflect the closing of the Merger and the exchange of the common stock of the Corporation (as defined below) for the common stock of ARCA
biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a ARCA biopharma, Inc.) in connection with such closing. 
 Amendments 

 1. The definition of the term “Exercise Price” in Section 1(b) of the Warrant shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: 
 “(b) “Exercise Price” shall mean $9.7406, subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms of the
Warrant, including Section 5 of the Warrant.” 
 2. The definition of the term “Exercise Shares” in Section 1(c) of the Warrant
shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “(c) “Exercise Shares” shall mean 1,897
shares of common stock of the Corporation (the “Common Stock”) issuable upon the exercise of the Warrant, subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms of the Warrant, including Section 5 of the Warrant.” 
 3. The following defined term shall be added to Section 1 of the Warrant: 
 “(e) “Corporation” shall mean ARCA biopharma, Inc. a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.).” 
 4. Except for revisions expressly set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby ratify and confirm the terms of the Warrant in their entirety. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set
forth above. 
  

									
	Corporation:	 		 	Holder:
			
	ARCA BIOPHARMA, INC.	 		 	Boulder Ventures IV, L.P.
			
		 		 	By: BV Partners IV, L.L.C., its General Partner
					
	By:	 	/s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Kyle Lefkoff
		 	Christopher D. Ozeroff, Executive Vice	 		 	Print Name: Kyle Lefkoff
		 	of Business Development and General Counsel	 		 	Title:	 	Managing Member
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0125 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM119AD

777 - 34A0191 --- 9/20/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0029

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MAX ELIAS CORRIGAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 6, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 28 2022

07/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0029
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-121940, No.
333-102765, No. 333-102764, and No. 333-85194) of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. of our report dated March
15, 2005 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this
Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated March 15, 2005 relating to the financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 15, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jeffrey Johnson,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-584

Stelner and Associates, et al., Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Deavers

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a pro se

Complaint in this case. EOF No, 1. The Complaint expressly invokes this Court's

subject matterJurisdiction.

Upon initiai screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Deavers

issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss this

case for iack of subject matter jurisdiction because in the Compiaint, Plaintiffspecificaily

stated, "i am citing The Ohio Civii Rights act (1515.39) on retaiiation as the basis for my

complaint to the courts." Compi., ECF No. 1-1. As the Compiaint failed to allege a

claim under federal law, the R&R correctly concluded that the Court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.''

Plaintiffobjects to the R&R. ECF No. 4. The objection does not argue that the

Magistrate Judge's R&R was incorrect in any way, however. Rather, it purports to be a

"revised compiaint," Obj., ECF No. 4, and argues that the revised compiaint brings

•• Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded in the R&R, ECF No. 2, it

appears there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case, and none has been alleged in the

Complaint.
federal claims. The "objection" then restates the Complaint in a slightly more robust

manner and alleges violations of TitleVII, the Americans with Disabilities Act("ADA"),

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Obj., EOF No. 4.

Because the R&R is correct that the original Complaint fails to invoke a federal

claim or allege diversity jurisdiction, the Court ADOPTS the R&Rand DISMISSES this

case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs purported Amended Complaint, filed as an objection to the

R&R, does not preclude dismissal of this action. Moniz v. Mines, 92 F. App'x 208 (6th

Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)." (citations omitted)).

The Clerk shall terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:18-cv-584 Page 2 of 2
#### Dillard *v.*Wilson.

4-2739

Opinion delivered November 21, 1932.

*Feasel*i& *Steel,*for appellant.

*Garrigan $ Monroe,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

This suit was brought by appellant against appellee in the circuit court of Hempstead County to recover $472.74 for supplies furnished to her tenants, J. L. Rogers and Wyatt Rogers, during the year 1930, on written order of appellee addressed to appellant. The order was in the form of a letter, and is as follows:

“Mr. Dillard: Luther and Wyatt Rogers are renting land from me. I bought pair of mules, wagon, &c, for them to work; of course, I have mortgage on a team and also on crop. They say you furnished them last year and would like to trade with you this year. I have tried to see you so we could talk this matter over, but *504weather prevents. So yon talk with them; let them have what they need. I am willing to do what yon require, that is, in a reasonable way. Their note for mules &c is $240 with int. Mr. Wilson is to sell their cotton. I will gladly collect your acet. You can call me if I have not made myself clear. I will hack them up in their trade.

(Signed) “Mrs. David Wilson.”

Appellee filed an answer interposing the defense that appellant furnished unreasonable and excessive amounts of supplies.

The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, testimony adduced by the parties, and instructions of the court, resulting in a verdict and judgment in the sum of $250 against appellee, from which is this appeal.

During the progress of the trial, and over the objection and exception of appellant, the court admitted the testimony of E. E. Hughes, S. H. Bryant and Ralph Rou-ten, to the effect that it was the custom of the trade amongst merchants in this locality to limit the amounts furnished tenants from $100 to $150, situated as appel-lee’s tenants were. The court construed the written order as authorizing appellant to furnish appellee’s tenants only such amounts as were customarily furnished by other merchants to tenants similarly situated, and, over the objection and exception of appellant, instructed the jury that, if it found appellant furnished appellee’s tenants unreasonable and excessive amounts, it should deduct this excess from appellant’s claim.

There is no dispute in the testimony as to the amount and value of the supplies actually furnished by appellant to said tenants.

A reversal of the judgment is sought upon the ground that the court misconstrued the order and erroneously admitted evidence contradicting the terms thereof. It is argued that, under the express terms of the order, appellant was authorized to furnish appellee’s tenants with supplies in unlimited amounts provided no collusion was shown to exist between appellant and the tenants to furnish and receive unreasonable amounts.

*505Our construction of the order is that it authorized appellant to furnish only such supplies as were reasonably needed by the tenants to pitch and cultivate a one-team crop. Under this interpretation of the order, the court properly admitted testimony as to the customary needs of the tenants, and correctly instructed the jury.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 640 

To express the sense of the Senate on United States-Israel cooperation on 

precision-guided munitions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Mr. ROUNDS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

To express the sense of the Senate on United States-Israel 

cooperation on precision-guided munitions. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the Department of Defense has cooperated 

3 extensively with Israel to assist in the procurement 

4 of precision-guided munitions, and such cooperation 

5 represents an important example of robust United 

6 States support for Israel; 

7 (2) to the extent practicable, the Secretary of 

8 Defense should take further measures to expedite 

9 deliveries of precision-guided munitions to Israel; 

10 and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 640 IS 

1 (3) regularized annual purchases of precision2 guided munitions by Israel, in accordance with exist3 ing requirements and practices regarding the export 

4 of defense articles and defense services, coordinated 

5 with the United States Air Force annual purchase of 

6 precision-guided munitions, would enhance the secu7 rity of both the United States and Israel by— 

8 (A) promoting a more efficient use of de9 fense resources by taking advantage of econo10 mies of scale; 

11 (B) enabling the United States and Israel 

12 to address crisis requirements for precision13 guided munitions in a timely and flexible man14 ner; and 

15 (C) encouraging the defense industrial 

16 base to maintain routine production lines of 

17 precision-guided munitions. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


              INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


      Section 11 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of material fact, or omits a material
fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein
not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the
registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection
with the registration statement.


      The Trust dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as its independent
auditors, effective June 18, 2002. For additional information, see the Trust's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 18, 2002. After reasonable efforts, the
Trust has been unable to obtain Andersen's written consent to the incorporation
by reference into the Trust's registration statements on Form S-8 (File No.
033-56843), (File No. 333-57815) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-81763), (File No.
333-60638) (the "Registration Statements") of Andersen's audit report with
respect to the Trust's consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2001
and for each of the three years then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a
under the Securities Act permits the Trust to file this Annual Report on Form
10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements,
without a written consent from Andersen. As a result, with respect to
transactions in the Trust's securities pursuant to the Registration Statements
that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen will not have any liability
under Section 11 (a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a
material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or any
omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you
would be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11 (a) of the
Securities Act.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Tina M. Dobbins,

Piaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-725

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate JudgeVascura

ORDER

On March 6, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Vascura issued a

Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), EOF No. 13, concerning the deniai of Tina

M. Dobbins' ("Piaintiff) appiication for Sociai Security disabiiity insurance

benefits and suppiementai security income. The R&R recommended the Court

reverse the Commissioner of Sociai Security's ("Commissioner") non-disability

finding and remand this case to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law

Judge Under Sentence Four of § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with

the R&R. R&R1,ECFNo. 13.

The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Id. at 15. The R&R further specificaliy

advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days

would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R.
Id. The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were

filed.

Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. The

Commissioner's non-disability finding is REVERSED, and this case is

REMANDED to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge under

Sentence Four of § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 12.4


TREESOURCE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF REGISTRANT'S AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY (DEFICIT) TO AVERAGE TOTAL ASSETS
(In Thousands, Except Ratios)


<TABLE>
                                                              YEAR ENDED APRIL 30,
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           1999          1998          1997           1996          1995
                                        ----------    ----------    ----------     ----------    ----------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
  (DEFICIT)
 Beginning of period                    $   4,093     $  18,434     $  11,686      $  20,076     $  18,512
 End of period                             (7,816)        4,093        18,434         11,686        20,076

   Average                              $  (1,862)    $  11,264     $  15,060      $  15,881     $  19,294

                                        ==========    ==========    ==========     ==========    ==========


AVERAGE TOTAL ASSETS
 Beginning of period                    $  65,311     $  86,486     $ 77,396       $  88,944     $  97,100
 End of period                             54,987        65,311       86,486          77,396        88,944

   Average                              $  60,149     $  75,899     $ 81,941       $  83,170     $  93,022

                                        ==========    ==========    ==========     ==========    ==========


RATIO OF AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS'
 EQUITY (DEFICIT) TO AVERAGE
 TOTAL ASSETS                               (3.1)%         14.8%        18.4%           19.1%         20.7%
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.; 

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

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 5, 2009 

 

 

20
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-65550) pertaining to the 1999 Stock IncentivePlan and Options Granted Pursuant to Agreements of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-89828) pertaining to the registration of 2,067,298 shares of Class A common stock, the Registration Statement (FormS-3, No. 333-97159) pertaining to the registration of 1,718,580 shares of Class A common stock and the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-101706) pertaining to the registration of 225,000 shares of Class A common stock of our report datedFebruary 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ BDO Seidman LLP 

 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 15, 2005