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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 526 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the public disclosure 

by trusts established under section 524(g) of such title, of quarterly 

reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos; and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2015 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself and Mr. MARINO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require 

the public disclosure by trusts established under section 

524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain 

detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition 

of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos; 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Furthering Asbestos 

5 Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 526 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 524(g) of title 11, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject 

5 to section 107— 

6 ‘‘(A) file with the bankruptcy court, not later 

7 than 60 days after the end of every quarter, a report 

8 that shall be made available on the court’s public 

9 docket and with respect to such quarter— 

10 ‘‘(i) describes each demand the trust re11 ceived from, including the name and exposure 

12 history of, a claimant and the basis for any 

13 payment from the trust made to such claimant; 

14 and 

15 ‘‘(ii) does not include any confidential med16 ical record or the claimant’s full social security 

17 number; and 

18 ‘‘(B) upon written request, and subject to pay19 ment (demanded at the option of the trust) for any 

20 reasonable cost incurred by the trust to comply with 

21 such request, provide in a timely manner any infor22 mation related to payment from, and demands for 

23 payment from, such trust, subject to appropriate 

24 protective orders, to any party to any action in law 

25 or equity if the subject of such action concerns li26 ability for asbestos exposure.’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 526 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub3 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

4 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

5 Act. 

6 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend7 ments made by this Act shall apply with respect to cases 

8 commenced under title 11 of the United States Code be9 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cascading Hazards

Filters

              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - (-)arizona(3)
              - california(41)
              - colorado(2)
              - hawaii(70)
              - idaho(11)
              - montana(6)
              - nevada(1)
              - oregon(52)
              - utah(1)
              - washington(107)
              - west virginia(2)
              - wyoming(12)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

staff profileTimothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

National News Release        February 26, 2024        USGS provides easy access to Colorado River science with new online portal

Presentations and Events        March 25, 2021        PubTalk 3/2021 - A Jaguar's Field of Dreams
# C_2020383EN.01000301.xml

| 13.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9929 — EDP/Viesgo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 383/02)

On 28 October 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
### Eleventh Court of Appeals Mandate

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS

T O T HE 35 TH D ISTRICT C OURT O F B ROWN C OUNTY

, G REETINGS :

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, on December 22, 2016, the

cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Nelson Carl Thomas

11th Court of Appeals No. 11-14-00355-CR and

35th District Court Case No. CR22754

The State of Texas

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ 

### This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. "

WHEREFORE WE COMMAND YOU To observe the order of our said Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

W ITNESS

, the H ON

. J IM R. W RIGHT

, Chief

Justice of our said Court, with the seal

thereof annexed at the City of Eastland, on

June 7, 2017.

S HERRY W ILLIAMSON

, C LERK

By: Myrna McGough, Deputy
Naisha Tynesha Ashakee JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1354

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

First Amendment to Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement 

This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement (this “First Amendment”) is made effective as of
October 16, 2015 (the “First Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Altimmune, Inc. (f/k/a Vaxin Inc.), a (“Licensee”) and The UAB Research Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation incorporated in the State of
Alabama and an affiliate of UAB (“UABRF”). Company and UABRF may be each individually referred to as a “party” and collectively, the “parties”. 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS,
Company and UABRF previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement dated effective as of June 2, 2014 (“Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend Section 9.3 of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 

AGREEMENT 
 1. All
capitalized terms used herein shall bear the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. 
 2.
Section 9.3(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 
 (d) if by the end of the third (3rd) calendar year after the First Commercial Sale occurred, or by January 1, 2023, whichever comes first, fifty percent (50%) of the minimum royalty payment described in Section 5.8
of this Agreement due in that calendar year is not originating from Net Sales; 
 3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. 
 [Signatures on following page] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and UABRF have each caused its duly authorized representative to execute this First
Amendment, effective as of the date written above. 
  

							
	UABRF:	  	Company:
	The UAB Research Foundation	  	Altimmune, Inc.
				
	 By: 
	 	 /s/ Kathy Nugent
	  	By: 	 	 /s/ William Enright



							
	 Name: 
	 	Kathy Nugent, Ph.D.	  	Name: 	 	William Enright


							
	 Title: 
	 	Executive Director	 	Title: 	 	President and CEO
		
	Date Signed: 10-16-15	 	Date Signed: 16 October, 2015


  
 2
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

37) IV-C-3 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:52 AM Sheet 3 7 of 232 
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

P.2 

/9--S7-_?_Z 

TjL - c-0 3 

3 ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AR AND RADIATION 

£ Samuel A. Leonard, Director 

Automotive Emission control 

General Motors Technical Center 

30400 Mound Road 

Warren, Michigan 48090-9015 

Dear Mr. Leonard: 

I would like to thank you for your June 16, 1987 letter 

relaying further details of General Motors' position on the 

effects of onboard refueling emission control systems on 

increases in vehicle weight, vehicle lifetime fuel consumption, 

and the net cost of onboard controls. EPA is always receptive 

to manufacturers' comments on its regulatory actions and 

encourages such interactions. Your comments will be considered 

along with any others we receive on this topic as we formulate 

our final rulemaking action. 

The key differences between GM and EPA continue to be in 

the areas of the weight compounding effect, the adjustment for 

acceleration performance, and the incremental weight of onboard 

vapor recovery systems. The weight compounding effect and 

acceleration performance adjustment definitely do not affect 

current models in which the onboard system is retrofitted on 

the vehicle. In this situation, no structural changes would be 

expected to be made to accommodate the new hardware. For new 

vehicle models, EPA still questions whether the weight 

compounding effect and acceleration performance adjustments are 

appropriate for onboard. This is because of the very small 

weight increase due to onboard systems, which EPA believes is 

well within the range of such things as normal design tolerance 

and vehicle to vehicle weight variability. However, we will 

consider these issues further in the course of our onboard 

refueling emission control rulemaking. 

Finally, in your letter you have indicated that General 

Motors' estimate of an additional 7 pounds for an onboard 

refueling emission control system is indeed the incremental 

weight gain which you anticipate compared to current 

evaporative systems. EPA's estimate, based on an in-depth 

analysis of component weights, is 4.9 pounds. We believe this 

estimate, which is similar to values supplied by manufacturers 

other than GM, is an accurate one. Therefore, we cannot accept 

the 7 pound value which you suggest. 
P.3 

«Vr5 

Thank you again for your letter. As always EPA is open to 

any new information General Motors may have regarding these 

issues and would appreciate receiving further comments during 

the public comment period on our onboard proposal. We will 

fully consider the GM comments in our ongoing deliberation on 

refueling emissions controls. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile sources 

cc: Public Docket #A-87-ll
STATE EX REL. Larry Dean ROBERTSON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2018-KH-0212

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, it is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record *461a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Mary LACKEY, Appellant, v. MOONEY COLVIN, P.L. and Thomas E. Mooney, Esquire, Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-3438

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.
(Formerly Pultronex Corporation),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November
30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "REPORT"),  the undersigned,  Joseph Batty,  Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: November 22, 2005


/s/ Joseph Batty
Joseph Batty
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification By Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Walter Thomas Price III, Co-Chairman, President and Director of Price
Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By: /s/ Walter Thomas Price IIIWalter Thomas Price IIICo-Chairman, President and DirectorMarch 30, 2004




E-2
STATE of Louisiana v. Brian K. ALLEN, Jr.

NO. 2018-KO-0191

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

Denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSHUA GLOSTON

, Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 23

- 391 LT Case No. 16

- 2015

- CF

- 00618

- A

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. ________________________________/
Opinion filed March 31, 2023
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

, Kevin A. Blazs , Judge.
Joshua Gloston, Bonifay, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heather Flanagan Ross , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.2 Appellant, Joshua Gloston, appeals the order summarily denying his

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We affirm the order as to

all claims, except A ppellant’s Claim 6. That claim asserts that defense
counsel failed to investigate the existe nce of a potential alibi witness who
Appellant claimed he d isclosed to counsel. Appellant claims that this witness
would have placed him with that witness on a bus, rather than at the hotel

where and at the time the crime was committed. The documents att ached
to the order of summary denial certainly are relevant to Claim 6 and suggest
that the testimony of the alibi witness may not refute Appellant’s presence at
the crime scene, given that Appellant’s DNA was found there. However, the

attached documents do not conclusively refute Claim 6. See Smith v. State

, 150 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to Claim 6 for the court to
either attach documents conclusively refuting Claim 6 or to conduct an
evidentiary hearing with regard to that claim. We affirm the balance of the
order in its entirety.

REVERSED AND REMA NDED, with instructions.

HARRIS and MACIVER , JJ., concur.
Sydney M. GARTRELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
ECTR, LLC, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0707

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
# C_2021362EN.01015201.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/152

---

P9_TA(2020)0136

Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Guinea-Bissau (2019-2024) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 June 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (2019-2024) (08928/2019 — C9-0011/2019 — 2019/0090(NLE))

(Consent)

(2021/C 362/21)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (08928/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (08928/2019),

| — | having regard to the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (08894/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (08894/2019),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43, Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0011/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43, Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0011/2019),

| — | having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 18 June 2020 (1) on the draft decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 18 June 2020 (1) on the draft decision,

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0012/2020), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0012/2020),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0137.

---
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2286

Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CA-015270-O

_____________________________

U.S BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity but solely 

as Owner Trustee for VRMTG ASSET TRUST,

Appellant, 

v.

RENEE L. FYE, NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., EASTWOOD COMMUNITY 

ASSOCIATION, INC., and DOUGLAS A. FYE,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Jeffrey L. Ashton, Judge.

January 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., concur.

David Rosenberg, of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Boca 

Raton, for Appellant.

Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik, of DPW Legal, Tampa, for Appellee, Renee L. Fye.

No Appearance for Appellees, Northwood Association, Inc., Eastwood Community 

Association, Inc., and Douglas A. Fye.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED