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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 198

To prohibit campaign expenditures for services of lobbyists, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1997

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To prohibit campaign expenditures for services of lobbyists,

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 ‘‘Lobbying Conflict of

5 Interest Elimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF FECA.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315 of the Federal Elec8 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended

9 by adding at the end the following new subsection:
2

•S 198 IS

1 ‘‘(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

2 a candidate and the candidate’s authorized committees

3 shall not make disbursements for any services rendered

4 by any individual during any period if such individual was

5 required to register for such period as a lobbyist under

6 the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et

7 seq.).’’.

8 (b) REPORTING.—Section 304(b) of the Federal

9 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is

10 amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ after

12 the semicolon;

13 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at

14 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

15 (3) by adding at the end the following new

16 paragraph:

17 ‘‘(9) for an authorized committee, an identifica18 tion, including the name and address, of any lobbyist

19 (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Lobbying

20 Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602)) who pro21 vided services to the authorized committee, regard22 less of whether disbursements were made for such

23 services.’’.
3

•S 198 IS

1 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF

2 1995.

3 Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

4 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ after

6 the semicolon;

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new

10 paragraph:

11 ‘‘(5) the amount and date of each contribution

12 by the registrant to a candidate, or an authorized

13 committee (as that term is defined in section 301 of

14 the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2

15 U.S.C. 431)) of a candidate, for the office of Sen16 ator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident

17 Commissioner to, the Congress.’’.

Æ
#### Robert Contreras, Respondent, v Allstate Insurance Co., Inc., Appellant.

— In an action to recover under an automobile insurance policy providing collision coverage, the defendant insurer appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), dated June 26, 1985, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $11,592.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case. When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence established that he owned the automobile in question at the time the accident occurred *(see, Cotgreave v Public Administrator,*91 AD2d 600). Where the documents proffered by the plaintiff show that he is the owner of an automobile, the defendant must come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership *(cf. Fulater v Palmer’s Granite Garage,*90 AD2d 685; *Young v Seckler,*74 AD2d 155). Since the defendant failed to present evidence to the contrary, the presumption of the plaintiff’s ownership must stand.

Further, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to amend the answer. The addition of a new defense of fraud after the plaintiff rested his case clearly would have prejudiced the plaintiff’s ability to *439meet the allegations *(see, Linares v Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.,*121 AD2d 606; *Fulford v Baker Perkins,*100 AD2d 861). Moreover, the facts constituting the alleged fraud were set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars dated June 9, 1983, and, thus, were known to the defendant for two years prior to the trial. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting the amendment at such a late stage.

The defendant’s other contentions are similarly without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Ave Reservoir Elevation                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Average Canal Gage Height                    
csv

      Average Secondary Canal Gage Height                    
csv

      Max Water Temperature                    
csv

      Min Water Temperature                    
csv

      Ave Water Temperature                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Ave Reservoir Elevation                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Average Canal Gage Height                    
json

      Average Secondary Canal Gage Height                    
json

      Max Water Temperature                    
json

      Min Water Temperature                    
json

      Ave Water Temperature                    
json

      Flow                    
json
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
(Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota)

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming 
compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian 
Reservation and the State of South Dakota.

DATES: The extension takes effect on September 7, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An extension to an existing Tribal-State 
Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if 
the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 
293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and 
the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the 
expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact 
to April 18, 2022. This publication provides notice of the new 
expiration date of the compact.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-19337 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
#### MILLER BREWING CO., Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by the Miller Brewing Company against the city of Rochester.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 1145.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FOOTNOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,964
<SECURITIES>                                     4,668
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,223
<PP&E>                                           2,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,190
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,446)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,887
<SALES>                                         15,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,220
<CGS>                                            4,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (359)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,226)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)


</TABLE>
#### Rosario LOPEZ-MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71213.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, Law Office of Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*755Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Kristin K. Edison, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rosario Lopez-Mendes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming the ruling of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See Hasan v. Ashcroft,*380 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that we will uphold IJ’s decision unless evidence compels a contrary conclusion). The inconsistencies between petitioner’s asylum application and the testimony presented at the hearing relate to the nature of the conduct that he claims amounted to persecution, and go to the heart of his asylum claim. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Lopez-Mendes failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

---

Exhibit 10.(a).1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Blue Square-Israel Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period
ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the
best of our knowledge:

1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date:
June 23, 2003

| | By: |        | /s/ Yoram Dar                               
| | --- | ------ | --------------------------------------------
| |     |        |                                             
| |     | Name:  | Yoram Dar                                   
| |     | Title: | President and Chief Executive
  Officer     
| |     |        |                                             
| |     |        |                                             
| | By: |        | /s/ Zvi Bochman                             
| |     |        |                                             
| |     | Name:  | Zvi Bochman                                 
| |     | Title: | Vice President and Chief Financial
  Officer



---

---
SCOFIELD RESERVOIRLatitude: 39.777Longitude: -111.051Elevation: 7708

SCOFIELD RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Huntington Horse Site Page...



Huntington Horse

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Clear Creek #1 Site Page...



Clear Creek #1

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mammoth-Cottonwood Site Page...



Mammoth-Cottonwood
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 PUMA
BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. 
 2011 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN 

This Fifth Amendment (“Fifth Amendment”) to the Puma Biotechnology, Inc. 2011 Incentive Award Plan, as amended (the
“Plan”), is adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of April 1, 2021 (the “Effective
Date”). Capitalized terms used in this Fifth Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 

RECITALS 
  

	A.	 The Company currently maintains the Plan. 



 

	B.	 Pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Plan, (i) the Board has the authority to amend the Plan at any time
or from time to time, and (ii) the Board has the authority to amend the Plan to increase the limits imposed in Section 3.1 on the maximum number of shares which may be issued under the Plan (the “Share Limit”), subject to
approval by the stockholders of the Company twelve (12) months before or after such action. 


  

	C.	 The Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to
(i) extend the period under which incentive stock options may be granted under the Plan and (ii) increase the Share Limit. 



AMENDMENT 
 The Plan is
hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date, except as otherwise provided below: 
  

	 	1.	 Section 2.19. Section 2.19 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
with the following: 


 “2.19 “Effective Date” shall mean April 1, 2021.” 

 

	 	2.	 Section 3.1(a). The first sentence of Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is
hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company within twelve (12) months following the Effective Date: 



“Subject to Sections 3.1(b), 13.1 and 13.2 hereof, the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued or transferred pursuant to Awards
under the Plan shall be equal to fourteen million five hundred twenty-nine thousand four hundred twelve (14,529,412) Shares (the “Share Limit”), all of which may be issued as Incentive Stock Options.” 

 

	 	3.	 This Fifth Amendment shall be and, as of the Effective Date, is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the
Plan; provided that the amendments to Section 2.19 and Section 3.1(a) shall be subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. 



 

	 	4.	 Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect. 


 ***** 












 I hereby certify that this Fifth Amendment was duly adopted by the Board on April 1,
2021. 
 ***** 
 I hereby
certify that this Fifth Amendment was approved by the stockholders of the Company on June 15, 2021. 
 Executed on this 15th day of
June, 2021. 
  

			
	PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alan H. Auerbach

	Name:	 	Alan H. Auerbach
	Title:	 	President, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2006207EN.01001101.xml

| 30.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/11

---

Extract of a reorganisation measure decided under Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

(2006/C 207/04)

Urgency measure under article 71, paragraph 2, of the Law of 1992, concerning the supervision of the credit sector

(Wet toezicht kredietwezen 1992)

By decree of 5 July 2006 of the Court in Almelo, at the request of the Netherlands Central Bank on 1 May 2006, the urgency measures that had been decreed on 18 November 2005 for the duration of 18 months by the Court in Almelo under article 71, paragraph 2, of the Law of 1992 concerning the supervision of the credit sector, are extended to 10 October 2006. The extension of the urgency measures concerns:

| A/b Financiën B.V. |
| --- |
| Iepenweg Zuid 4 |
| 7611 KZ Aadorp |
| The Netherlands |

A/b Financiën B.V.

Iepenweg Zuid 4

7611 KZ Aadorp

The Netherlands

Registered at the Chamber of Commerce under No 06043696

Registered in Almelo

By decree of 5 July 2006 of the Court in Zwolle-Lelystad, at the request of the Netherlands Central Bank on 1 May 2006, the urgency measures that had been decreed on 18 November 2005 for the duration of 18 months by the Court in Zwolle-Lelystad under article 71, paragraph 2, of the Law of 1992 concerning the supervision of the credit sector, are extended to 10 October 2006. The extension of the urgency measures concerns:

| Belba B.V. |
| --- |
| Iepenweg Zuid 4 |
| 7611 KZ Aadorp |
| The Netherlands |

Belba B.V.

Iepenweg Zuid 4

7611 KZ Aadorp

The Netherlands

Registered at the Chamber of Commerce under No 06083372

Registered in Schuinesloot

Administrator: Daniëls Huisman Advocaten

| Mr J.A.D.M. Daniëls |
| --- |
| Postbus 31 |
| 7601 JR Almelo |
| The Netherlands |

Mr J.A.D.M. Daniëls

Postbus 31

7601 JR Almelo

The Netherlands

---
EXHIBIT
32.1
  **CERTIFICATION**
 **OF**
 **CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
  Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. do hereby certify that:
  (a) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report“) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  (b) information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
  ****Date: May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Douglas AbelDouglas AbelPresident and Chief Executive
      Officer
  ****Date: May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Nicholas J.
      RossettosNicholas J. RossettosChief Financial Officer and Chief
      Operating Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert W. Van Ness, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
    dates presented and the consolidated results of operations of the Company
    for the periods presented.

Dated: May 16, 2005


                                                  \s\ Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-Q or as separate disclosure statement.
#### VILAS NAT. BANK OF PLATTSBURGH, N. Y., Respondent, v. NEWTON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 29, 1896.)

Action by the Vilas National Bank of Plattsburgh, N. Y., against John M. Newton and others.

No opinion.. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

List of Subsidiaries*

 

Mega Retail Ltd.

 

Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd.

 

Blue Square Real Estate Ltd.

 

Bee Group Retail Ltd.  

 

Naaman Group (N.V.) Ltd.

 

Dor Alon Gas Technologies Ltd.

 

Dor Alon Retail Sites Management Ltd.

 

Alon Cellular Ltd.

 

 

 

*All of our subsidiaries are incorporatedin Israel
#### TRAYNOR, Respondent, v. MURTAGH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20. 1896.)

Action by Frank Traynor against Charles E. Murtagh and others.

Philip L. Wilson, for appellants.

Henry A. Powell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff has recovered a verdict of $400 damages against the defendants by reason of their failure to allow him to complete a contract, into which he had entered, to move their house back from the front to the rear portion of a lot on North Second street, in the Eastern district of the city of Brooklyn. He alleged that the lot at the. rear was not wide enough to receive the building, and it appears to have been conceded that, if such were the fact, the defendants were liable, inasmuch as no exception was taken to the instruction, given to the jury by the learned trial judge, to the effect that, if the plaintiff had been prevented from moving the house back because the defendants did not have land of sufficient width to move it back upon, then the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Whether there was land enough in the rear for the house to stand on, or not, was a question of fact for the jury, the correct determination of which was largely dependent upon the two surveys which yielded " different results,—one favorable to the contention of the plaintiff, the other to that of the defendants. The appellants insist that the plaintiff’s survey should have been excluded, because the surveyor did not take the line mentioned in the conveyances for his starting point; but we are not able to say, from this record, either as matter of law, or as a conclusive inference of fact, that such is the case. The plaintiff’s survey is also criticised because it was made long after the time when the house was to have been moved; but this fact did not render *it*inadmissible, inasmuch as there was other evidence in the case tending to show that, at the time of the survey, the encroachment on the rear of the lot, which rendered it too narrow to receive the house, was just the same as it was when the contract concerning the removal of the building was made. The issues were fairly and clearly left to the jury by the presiding judge, and we cannot interfere with the verdict. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.