alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIVIL PENALTY CHARGE SHEETS

Written By Mr. Robert Bruce

The “Details of the Violation” section should contain allegations addressing 

each element of the charged violation(s) and an explanation of how the charged 

party allegedly committed the charged violation(s). In addressing each element, 

the person preparing the Charge Sheet should reference the evidence in the case 

file that establishes that the element has been met. The Civil Penalty Case 

Guide, available on the Hearing Office web page, further explains what should 

be included in the Details of Violation section. 

The allegations in the Details of the Violation section of the Charge sheet are 

assertions; they are not evidence. Every allegation should be supported by 

evidence elsewhere in the civil penalty case file. Statements or other material 

being offered as evidence do not belong in the Charge Sheet. Instead, such 

evidence should be made an exhibit in the case file. The Details of the 

Violation should provide a “roadmap” for the Hearing Officer to locate the 

specific exhibits related to each element. In a simple case, the signed “Narrative 

Overview” and the Boarding Report may contain all of the evidence needed to 

prove the case. 

Hearing Officers do not treat statements included in the Details of the Violation 

as evidence. If a statement in the Details of Violation contains necessary 

information that is not supported by evidence elsewhere in the case file, the 

Hearing Officer will not give any weight to the statement. And without that 

necessary information, the charge will not be found proved. 

The Details of the Violation section of the Charge Sheet is an important tool for 

both the person preparing a civil penalty case and the Hearing Officer. It 

provides a checklist of elements that must be met to prove the alleged violation. 

It is important to recognize, however, that allegations are not evidence and they 

have no evidentiary value. The Details of the Violation should only contain 

allegations and references to the evidence in the case file supporting those 

allegations. Evidence to be weighed by the Hearing Officer, and referred to in 

the charge sheet, must be included elsewhere in the case file.
#### Thomas Murphy et al., Appellants-Respondents, v General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Also Known as GMAC, et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Richard I. Steely, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in memorandum decision at Special Term, Cook, J. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nicholas R. Schacht, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                           
|------------ |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|May 11, 2010 |  |  |  | 
|             |  |  |  | 
|             |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    NICHOLAS R. SCHACHT
|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Nicholas R. Schacht       
|             |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Learning Tree International, Inc. and will
be retained by Learning Tree International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
           ---------------------------------------------------------

     We hereby consent to the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the
year ended December 31, 2000, for Westport Resources Corporation in accordance
with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  We consent to the
inclusion in such Annual Report of our reserve reports incorporated therein,
references to our name in the form and context in which they appear, and
incorporation by reference thereof into the company's Registration Statement on
Form S-1 (No. 333-40422)

                              NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                    By: /s/ Frederic D. Sewell
                                       -----------------------
                                       Frederic D. Sewell
                                       President
Dallas, Texas
March 15, 2001
*

Honorable Levin H. Campbell, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for

the First Circuit, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Nos. 94-3328 and 94-3468 to 94-3470.

Peter J. GRILLI, Special Master,

Julio Gonzalez-Roel, et al.; Ronald Coulter; Anissa Coulter,

Appellants,

Sherry Horton, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Rick Urso, Defendants,

W. R. Cunningham, et al., Claimants.

July 31, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida (No. 93-1849-Civ-T-23A), Steven D. Merryday,

Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and RONEY and CAMPBELL,*

 Senior

Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Appellees' motion to clarify opinion is GRANTED. This court's

opinion is hereby clarified by inserting the following sentence

between the second and third sentences of the last paragraph of the

opinion: "These attorney's fees and double costs shall be paid by

the appellants. Their liability for such fees and double costs

shall be joint and several." The opinion shall remain otherwise

unchanged.
ex4-1.htm










 


Exhibit 4.1


KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd.


(the “Company”)







Special Rights and Restrictions attached to the


Class B Common Shares







The rights and restrictions set out in this Schedule are made in addition to and do not alter or amend the special


rights and restrictions set out in Article 22.1 of the Articles of the Company.







1. Voting Rights







Subject to applicable law and the conditions attaching to the Class B Common Shares (the “Class B Common


Shares”), the holders of the Class B Common Shares (the “Class B Common Shareholders”) shall be entitled to


receive notice and to attend and vote at any meetings of shareholders of any class of common shares of the


Company.







2. Liquidation, Dissolution or Winding-Up







The Class B Common Shareholders shall be entitled, in the event of any distribution of the assets of the Company on


the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, whether voluntary or involuntary, or in the event of any


other distribution of assets of the Company among its shareholders for the purpose of winding-up its affairs (a


“Liquidation Distribution”), to receive, before any Liquidation Distribution is made to the Common shareholders,


Class A Shareholders or any other shares of the Company ranking junior to the Class B Common Shares but after


any prior rights of any preferred shares, the stated capital with respect to each Class B Common Share held by them,


together with all declared and unpaid dividends (if any and if preferential) thereon, up to the date of such


Liquidation Distribution, and thereafter the Class B Common Shareholders shall rank pari passu with all other


classes of common shares in connection with the Liquidation Distribution.







3. Pari Passu







Other than the priority to the stated capital with respect to each Class B Common Share held by a Class B Common


Shareholder, together with all declared and unpaid dividends thereon set out in section 2 above, the Class B Common Shares shall rank pari passu with all other classes of common shares.
I

U.

L]NITED STATES OF AMERICA

S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UI\-ITED STATES COAST GUARI)

Address of Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center:

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 21 2024022

Email: alidocketcenrer n uscg,mil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7 524 [6lA-SKCG]

Fax: (410) 962-1746

Toll Free Fax: (817) 243-3453 [CGE-FILE]

COMI'LAINANT:

UNITED STATES COASI' CIJARI)

RESPONDENT: Richard Alan Gonzales DOCKET NL\4BER 20].].I}O ].]

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NI'MBER

na

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on February 1,

2023, seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On February 8, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as

The withdrawal seeks to correct a clerical error when the Administrative Law Judge Docketing

Center issued a new docket number for a previously filed complaint, not realizing that the unil

was submitting an executed copy ofthe complaint to comply with the regulations and ensure a

complete administrative record.

Done and Dated February 8,2023 at

Baltimore. MD

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge

This matter is removed from the docket and closed effective this date.
Exhibit 8.1
 
 List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 
 Company


Ownership1


LocationSerono International S.A.


100
%

SwitzerlandAres Trading S.A.


100
%

SwitzerlandLaboratoires Serono S.A.


100
%

SwitzerlandMILVIA S.A.


72
%

ArgentinaSerono Argentina S.A.


100
%

ArgentinaSerono Australia Pty Ltd


100
%

AustraliaSerono Austria GmbH


100
%

AustriaSerono Produtos Farmaceuticos Ltda


100
%

BrazilSerono Canada, Inc.


100
%

CanadaSerono International Services Limited


100
%

Cayman IslandsSerono 92 Limited


100
%

Cayman IslandsSerono de Colombia S.A.


100
%

ColombiaApplied Research Systems ARS Holding N.V.


100
%

CuraçaoSerono Pharma Services, s.r.o.


100
%

Czech RepublicSerono Genetics Institute S.A.


100
%

FranceSerono France S.A.


100
%

FranceSerono France Holding S.A.


100
%

FranceSerono GmbH


100
%

GermanySerono Hellas A.E.


100
%

GreeceSerono Hong Kong Ltd.


100
%

Hong KongSerono Israel Ltd


100
%

IsraelInterPharm Laboratories Ltd


100
%

IsraelInter-Lab Ltd


100
%

IsraelInterPharm Industries (1991) Ltd


100
%

IsraelIndustria Farmaceutica Serono S.p.A.


96.67
%

ItalyIstituto di Ricerche Biomediche "Antoine Marxer" RBM S.p.A.


96.82
%

ItalySerono Japan Co. Ltd


100
%

JapanSerono Korea Co. Ltd


100
%

KoreaSerono de Mexico S.A. de C.V.


100
%

MexicoSerono Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda


100
%

PortugalSerono Singapore Pte Ltd


100
%

SingaporeSerono South Africa (Pty) Ltd


100
%

South AfricaSerono España S.A.


100
%

SpainSerono Nordic AB


100
%

SwedenSerono (Thailand) Co., Ltd


100
%

ThailandIstituto Farmacologico Serono Nederland B.V.


100
%

The NetherlandsSerono B.V.


100
%

The NetherlandsSerono TRI Holding B.V.


100
%

The NetherlandsSerono Benelux B.V.


100
%

The NetherlandsSerono Ilaç Pazarlama ve Ticaret A.S.


100
%

TurkeySerono UK Ltd.


100
%

United KingdomBourn Hall Clinic


100
%

United KingdomSerono Europe Ltd


100
%

United KingdomSerono Holding, Inc.


100
%

Massachusetts, USASerono, Inc.


100
%

Delaware, USASerono Reproductive Biology Institute, Inc.


100
%

Massachusetts, USAAres Trading Uruguay S.A.


100
%

UruguaySerono de Venezuela S.A.


100
%

Venezuela
 _________________________________________________
 1As of December 31, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

# AGENCY:

Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Working Group A (Microwave Devices) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0900, Friday, April 28, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, Inc., 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Cox, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The Working Group A meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This microwave device area includes programs on developments and research related to microwave tubes, solid state microwave devices, electronic warfare devices, millimeter wave devices, and passive devices. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that his Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: April 11, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-9413  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20506-20507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9642]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Tennessee Valley Authority (Meeting No. 
1518).

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (CDT), April 19, 2000.

Place: Pontotoc Electric Power Association, Conference Room, 12 South 
Main Street, Pontotoc, Mississippi.

Status: Open.

Agenda

    Approval of minutes of meeting held on March 29, 2000.

New Business

B--Purchase Award
    B1. Contract with Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., for use of 
retail and mail pharmacy networks, claims/benefits management, and cost 
containment services.
C--Energy
    C1. Contract with Holtec International, Inc., for design and 
construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation and dry 
cask storage system for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
    C2. Supplement to Contract No. 99NNQ-251786-001 with Siemens 
Westinghouse to add rewinding the Browns Ferry Unit 2 main generator to 
the contract's scope.
    C3. Contracts with Numanco, LLC; Canus Corporation; Westaff; and J. 
Givoo Consultants, Inc., for instrument mechanic services and with 
Numanco, LLC, for health physics personnel.
    C4. Supplement to Contract No. 98P6D-195379 with General Electric 
Company for the manufacture and turnkey installation of eight 85-MW

[[Page 20507]]

simple cycle dual fuel combustion turbine generating units for the year 
2002 peaking power.
E--Real Property Transactions
    E1. Abandonment of flowage easement rights above the 820-foot 
contour affecting approximately 0.5 acre of land in Montgomery Cove 
Subdivision on Fort Loudoun Reservoir in Knox County, Tennessee (Tract 
No. FL-215F).
    E2. Modification of certain deed conditions affecting approximately 
7 acres of former TVA land (Tract No. XNR-56) on Norris Reservoir in 
Campbell County, Tennessee, in exchange for 8 acres of shore land on 
Norris Reservoir (Tract No. NR-5474), difference in value, and 
administrative and shoreline restoration costs associated with this 
modification.
    For more information: Please call TVA Public Relations at (423) 
632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's 
Washington Office (202) 898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting 
and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000.

    Dated: April 12, 2000.
Edward S. Christenbury,
General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9642 Filed 4-13-00; 2:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      111,146
<SECURITIES>                                1,021,279
<RECEIVABLES>                               879,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,768)
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                      14,032
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,106,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    476
<OTHER-SE>                                  538,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,106,534
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            134,023
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            51,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            1,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          35,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             45,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                18,641
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         26,873
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                26,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.59
        

</TABLE>
#### A. McLamore, Adm’r v. James Heffner, Adm’r.

The 140th section of the district court act, in reference to the service of a writ of error, reads as follows: “And if the party is a non-resident of the state or cannot be found, the citation may be served on the attorney of record.’’ (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1495, Note 587, p. 371.) The fact to authorize service on the attorriey must be averred in the petition. The mere fact that the defendant cannot be found is not enough.

Ebboe from Panola. The case was tried before Hon. J. B. Williamson, one of the district judges.

*Drury Field,*for plaintiff in error,

filed a brief upon the merits.

*A. W. De Berry,*

on whom the service was had, moved to dismiss the writ of error, because the defendant in error had not been served.

Mobeill, C. J.

—The citation to defendant in error directs the sheriff to summon the defendant in error, and, in case *190he cannot he' found in the county, then to summon A. W. De Berry, esq., his attorney of record. The citation was served on the attorney of record, and not on defendant in error. The petition contains no allegation of the non-residence of the defendant in the state.

The statute provides that, in case the defendant in error is a non-resident of the state or cannot he found, the citartion may be served on the attorney of record. [Paschal's Dig., Art. 1495, Note 587.]

Before a citation can be served on an attorney of record, the petition therefor should disclose that the defendant is a non-resident or cannot he found. It is not non-residence of a particular county, or the fact that the defendant cannot be found in a particular county, that authorizes service on the attorney of record.

Agreeably to the principles established in the cases of Holloman v. Middleton, 23 Tex., 538, and cases there cited, the service in this case is bad, and does not give this court jurisdiction of the person of defendant in error; therefore the motion of defendant to dismiss the cause from the docket is

.Granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,934,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,438,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                   313,890
<INVENTORY>                                    170,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,624,154
<PP&E>                                       1,721,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                 579,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,539,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,382,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,877
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,086,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,539,644
<SALES>                                     13,042,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,042,065
<CGS>                                        2,502,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,502,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,550,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                35,040
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,965,793)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,965,793)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,965,793)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.78)
        

</TABLE>
#### PEOPLE ex rel. VANDERHOOF, Respondent, v. PALMER, Comptroller, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Application by John Vanderhoof for a writ of mandamus against George W. Palmer, Comptroller of the city of Brooklyn.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 651, and 39 N. Y. Supp. 1131.