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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1725

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify provisions intended

to protect the Corporation from having bank loans or other assets diluted

by secret side agreements.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, and Mr. FAIRCLOTH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify provisions intended to protect the Corporation from having

bank loans or other assets diluted by secret side agreements.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION.

4 Section 11(d)(9)(A) of the Federal Deposit Insurance

5 Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(9)(A)) is amended by striking

6 ‘‘any agreement which does not meet the requirements set

7 forth in section 13(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘any agreement

8 which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the Cor-
2

•S 1725 IS

1 poration in any asset acquired by the Corporation as secu2 rity for a loan, by purchase, or as receiver of an insured

3 depository institution, and which does not meet the re4 quirements of section 13(e).’’.

5 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

7 amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any claim

8 pending, under judicial review, or on appeal on or after

9 October 1, 1993.

Æ
# C_2010025EN.01001801.xml

| 2.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/18

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5739 — EQT V/Springer Science + Business Media)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 25/09

On 26 January 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5739. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5739. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13108]


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

DEPARTMEMT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries; 
Notice of Meeting

SUMMARY: A meeting of the Board has been scheduled to execute the 
provisions of Chapter 101, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 2006 
et. seq.). The Board shall review DoD actuarial methods and assumptions 
to be used in the valuation of the G.I. Bill. Persons desiring to: (1) 
Attend the DoD Education Benefits Board of Actuaries meeting or, (2) 
make an oral presentation or submit a written statement for 
consideration at the meeting must notify Wendie Powell at (703) 696-
7400 by July 23, 1998. Notice of this meeting is required under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: August 14, 1998, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Pentagon, Room 1E801--Room 4.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Doyle, Deputy Chief Actuary, DoD Office of the Actuary, 
1555 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209-2405, (703) 696-
7407.

    Dated: May 12, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-13108 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
## I 

# I 1 

# l j i .I ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- A&D General Contracting, Inc. Under Contract No. N62473-09-D-1658 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCANo. 61885

Nowell A. Lantz, Esq.

Finch. Thorton & Baird. LLP San Diego. CA Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Anthony K. Hicks, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: April 9, 2019

Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals Icertify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61885, Appeal ofA&D General Contracting, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
No. 12-79.

No. 12-86.

No. 12-88.

#### Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al.; Willis of Colorado Inc. et al. *v.*Troice et al.; and Proskauer Rose LLP *v.*Troice et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of Breazeale, Sachse *&*Wilson, LLP, and DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar for leave to file briefs as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari in No. 12-79 granted limited to Ques*1141tion 1 presented by the petition. Certiorari in No. 12-86 granted. Certiorari in No. 12-88 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 675 F. 3d 503.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Garcia, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 597]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered February 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of forgery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (five counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied the challenges for cause at issue, since, as to each of the two panelists, the colloquy, read as a whole, establishes that each panelist unequivocally stated that she would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence *(see People v Chambers,*97 NY2d 417 [2002]).

Defendant’s contention that the court deprived him of several peremptory challenges when it misstated the number of challenges remaining requires preservation, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice *(People v Mathis,*272 AD2d 250 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 936 [2000]). We note further that the court afforded defendant additional peremptory challenges which defendant did not use.

*303Defendant’s sentence was not based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing it. Defendant’s contention that the aggregate prison term imposed upon resentencing was vindictive is not supported by the record. We note that, after two resentencing proceedings, the court ultimately imposed the same aggregate term that it had imposed at defendant’s original sentencing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
No. 12-7707.

#### McCullen *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

**The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:**

(1) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2003, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Date: September 12, 2003 |  | /s/ J. RUSSELL DUNCAN  
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | J. Russell Duncan      
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer

|Date: September 12, 2003 |  | /s/ DENNIS J. STEVERMER
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | Dennis J. Stevermer    
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
| Dated: | March 1, 2012 |   | /s/ Donald W. Duda |
|   | Donald W. Duda |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |
|   |   |
| Dated: | March 1, 2012 |   | /s/ Douglas A. Koman |
|   | Douglas A. Koman |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
No. 12-6996.

#### Birdette et vir *v.*American Home Shield et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 [Croghan Bancshares, Inc. Letterhead] 
 March 29, 2012 

Securities and Exchange Commission 
 100 F
Street, NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20549 
 Re: Croghan Bancshares, Inc. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Croghan Bancshares, Inc., an Ohio corporation
(“Croghan”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (“Croghan’s 2011 Form 10-K”). 

Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Croghan hereby agrees to furnish to
the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of holders of long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiary, which are not being filed as exhibits to Croghan’s 2011 Form 10-K. None of
such long-term debt exceeds 10% of the total assets of Croghan and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,


  

	
	 CROGHAN BANCSHARES, INC.

	
	 /s/ Kendall W. Rieman

	 Kendall W. Rieman

	 Treasurer




  
 39
Exhibit
10.1


 


Amendment No.1 to the Restricted Unit Plan for Non-Employee Members of
the Board of Directors of Covance Inc.


 


1.               Section 2.01(a) of the Restricted
Unit Plan for Non-Employee Members of the Board of Directors of Covance Inc. shall be amended by deleting the second
sentence in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


“On every
anniversary of May 20, 2003, each non-employee Director who is a member of the
Board on that date shall receive an Award of such number of Hypothetical Shares
as is approved by the Board in advance of such date.”


 


2.               Section 2.01(b) of the Restricted
Unit Plan for Non-Employee Members of the Board of Directors of Covance Inc. shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:


 


“Any person, who
becomes a non-employee member of the Board after the date of one Award and
before the next Award, shall receive an Award in an amount equal to the number
of months such person is a Director prior to the next award date, divided by
twelve (12), and multiplied by the number of Hypothetical Shares most recently
granted pursuant to paragraph 2.01(a) hereof.”
#### In the Matter of Mid City Electrical Corp., Appellant, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Respondents.

[48 NYS3d 580]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 24, 2016, denying the petition to annul a determination of the New York State Unified Certification Program, dated February 12, 2016, which removed petitioner’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise certification, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498Contrary to its contention, petitioner was afforded due process *(see Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco,*20 NY3d 540, 559 [2013]; *see also Matter of Daxor Corp. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Health,*90 NY2d 89, 98 [1997], *cert denied*523 US 1074 [1998]). Thus, it cannot avoid the consequences of its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies *(see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth.,*46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; *see*49 CFR 26.87 [g]; 26.89).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Marquez, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 818]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 5, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no reason to depart from our prior determination denying defendant’s motion for a reconstruction hearing. Although the minutes of certain preliminary proceedings have been lost, defendant has not established that he is entitled to a reconstruction hearing since he has not shown that any appeal-able issue may exist with respect to those proceedings *(see People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283, 286 [1977]; *People v Parris,*1 AD3d 134 [2003]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation, and his procedural and substantive attacks on the court’s response to a note from the deliberating jury, all require preservation and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of dELiA*s Inc.: (a) Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-43665), (b) Form
S-8 (Registration No. 333-42135), (c) Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-22449) and
(d) Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-61289) of our report dated March 30, 1999
(April 14, 1999 as to Notes 1 and 15), appearing in the annual report on 
Form 10-K of dELiA*s Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
April 15, 1999
No. 12-6762.

#### Terry *v.*Warren, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: Z.E.A.F., a Minor

887 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/25/2017

CP-51-AP-0000147-2017, CP-51-DP-0002593-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jawaun Francis, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 662]

*488Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered May 23, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 23 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the People’s principal witness’s explanation for his initial identification of a person other than defendant as the assailant.

The court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that defendant could not, in the absence of additional evidence, argue that the person initially identified by the witness was the actual perpetrator *(see generally People v Primo,*96 NY2d 351 [2001]), and this ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or the right to present a defense. The court did not preclude defendant from introducing evidence of third-party culpability; on the contrary, it expressly invited defendant to introduce certain evidence of that nature. Rather than precluding a third-party culpability defense, the court providently ruled that such a defense could not, without more, be supported by the disavowed identification, which the witness explained as a deliberate falsehood. Defendant received a full opportunity to explore the misidentification and all surrounding circumstances, and to use these matters to attack the witness’s credibility. While defendant cites additional evidence that would have supported the claim that the misidentified man was the actual perpetrator, he was free to introduce this evidence at trial but failed to do so. Even if the court had permitted defendant to specifically argue third-party culpability in summation, defendant would not have been entitled to argue about matters not in evidence. Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court applied the wrong standard in evaluating proffered third-party culpability evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s ruling, when viewed in the context of the entire record, essentially applied the correct standard even if the court and prosecutor used imprecise nomenclature in referring to the standard.

The evidentiary rulings challenged by defendant were provident exercises of the trial court’s discretion that did not, in any event, cause defendant any prejudice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|No chart available.                                               
|No chart available.                                               
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|New Mexico Natural Gas International Receipts (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1293 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1293

 To suspend temporarily the duties on ondansetron hydrochloride (bulk 
                           and dosage forms).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 27 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duties on ondansetron hydrochloride (bulk 
                           and dosage forms).

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

SECTION 1. ONDANSETRON HYDROCHLORIDE (BULK AND DOSAGE FORMS).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new headings:
      

       ``  9902.31.12   1,2,3,9-tetrahydro-9-methyl-3-           No change      No change      On or before     
                         [(2-methyl-1H-imidazol-1-                                              12/31/95        
                         yl)methyl]-4H-carbazol-4-one                                                           
                         hydrochloride dihydrate                                                                
                         (ondansetron hydrochloride-                                                            
                         bulk form) (provided for in                                                            
                         subheading 2933.90.35)......  Free                                                     
           9902.31.13   1,2,3,9-tetrahydro-9-methyl-3-           No change      No change      On or before     
                         [(2-methyl-1H-imidazol-1-                                              12/31/95      ''
                         yl)methyl]-4H-carbazol-4-one                                                          .
                         hydrochloride dihydrate                                                                
                         (ondansetron hydrochloride-                                                            
                         dosage form) (provided for                                                             
                         in subheading 3004.90.60)...  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-7988.

#### Thomas *v.*Michigan.

Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.