alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30937]



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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Community Development Revolving Loan Program for Credit Unions

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration.

ACTION: Notice of application period.

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

SUMMARY: The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will accept 
applications for participation in the Community Development Revolving 
Loan Program for Credit Unions throughout calendar year 1996, subject 
to availability of funds. Application procedures for qualified low-
income credit unions are set forth in Part 705, NCUA Rules and 
Regulations.

ADDRESSES: Applications for participation may be obtained from and 
should be submitted to: NCUA, Office of Community Development Credit 
Unions, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

DATES: Applications may be submitted throughout calendar year 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Community Development 
Credit Unions at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 705 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations 
implements the Community Development Revolving Loan Program for Credit 
Unions. The purpose of the Program is to assist officially designated 
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial services to 
residents in their communities which result in increased income, 
ownership and employment. The Program makes available low interest 
loans and deposits in amounts up to $300,000 to qualified participating 
``low-income'' credit unions. Program participation is limited to 
existing credit unions with an official ``low-income'' designation.
    This notice is published pursuant to Part 705.9 of the NCUA Rules 
and Regulations which states that NCUA will provide notice in the 
Federal Register when funds in the program are available.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on December 
14, 1995.
Becky Baker,
Secretary, NCUA Board.
[FR Doc. 95-30937 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-U
#### Mary J. Dorr, Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Respondent.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinions by

Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.05 MB)

Tags:SMDC, JFCC IMD, Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defens, Space and Missile Defense Command, retirement, change of command, promotion, James Dickinson, USSPACECOM, Daniel Karbler, Randy George, Sean Gainey

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 573

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
 Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American 
                                 Samoa.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    (a) In General.--The first section and section 2 of Public Law 93-
435 (48 U.S.C. 1705, 1706) are amended by inserting ``the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam,'' each place it 
appears.
    (b) References to Date of Enactment.--For the purposes of the 
amendment made by subsection (a), each reference in Public Law 93-435 
to the ``date of enactment'' shall be considered to be a reference to 
the date of the enactment of this section.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 573

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
 Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American 
                                 Samoa.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30773]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Antidrug Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation 
Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT,

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that the minimum annual random drug 
testing rate for the period January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, 
will remain at 25 percent of covered aviation employees since the 
industry-wide random drug testing positive rate continues to be below 
1.0 percent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie B. Murdoch, Office of 
Aviation Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM-800), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 
(202) 366-6710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Administrator's Determination of 1996 Random Drug Testing Rate

    In a final rule published on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62218), the 
FAA announced that is will set future minimum random drug testing rates 
according to the aviation industry's positive rate, which is determined 
using annual aviation antidrug program data taken from the FAA's 
Management Information System. (The term ``positive rate'' for tests 
required under 14 CFR part 121, appendix I, means the number of 
positive results for random drug tests plus total number of random drug 
tests plus the number of refusals to take random drug tests.) Using 
this performance-based system, the FAA can lower the minimum random 
drug testing rate to 25 percent whenever the positive rate is less than 
1.0 percent of two calendar years while testing at 50 percent. The FAA 
must return the rate to 50 percent if the positive rate is 1.0 percent 
or higher in any subsequent calendar year. Each year, the Administrator 
will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the minimum 
annual random drug testing rate for the following year. (There is a 
similar provision in the alcohol testing rule. Since alcohol testing 
only commenced in January 1995, there is insufficient data to modify 
the current alcohol testing rate of 25 percent; industry-wide data on 
which to make the required determination will not be available until 
1997.)
    In 1994, the FAA set the 1995 minimum random drug testing rate at 
25 percent because 1992 and 1993 aviation industry drug testing data 
indicated a positive rate below 1.0 percent. In this notice, the FAA 
announces that the minimum random drug testing rate will continue to be 
25 percent of covered aviation employees for the period January 1, 
1996, through December 31, 1996, since the aviation industry positive 
rate for 1994 was approximately 0.5 percent.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
Jon. L. Jordan,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 95-30773 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

         CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report of Transition Auto Finance II (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kenneth C. Lowe, the Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 30, 2005                /s/ Kenneth C. Lowe
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Kenneth C. Lowe
                                    Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

                                       17
#### Mart L. Ditch et al. v. The People, for use, etc.

*Administration—Action on Bond—Pleading—Practice.*

1. It is improper to proceed to trial and judgment on the issues of fact in a given case, without disposing of a question of law raised by demurrer to plea filed.

2. It is error to enter a default and judgment against a defendant who has neither been served nor entered his appearance.

[Opinion filed August 28, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monroe County; the Hon. B. H. Canby, Judge, presiding.

Mr. William Winkelmann and Charles Morrison, for appellants.

Mr. E. P. Slate, for appellees.

*369Phillips, J.

This is an action brought on administrator’s bond. Six pleas were filed; issue joined on the first, second and sixth and demurrer to third, fourth and fifth. The demurrer to the third and-fourth pleas was sustained, but as to the fifth the demurrer stands without being disposed of in any way.

The fifth plea is a plea of payment, and is to the whole declaration. The c mrt proceeded to trial and judgment on the issues of fact, without disposing of the question of law raised by that demurrer to the fifth plea. In this there was error. Merriweather v. Gregory, 2 Scam. 50; Nye v. Wright, Ibid. 222; Bradshaw v. McKenny, 4 Scam. 54; Richeson v. Ryan, 15 Ill. 13.

It further appears that a default and judgment was entered against a defendant not served, and who entered no appearance. This was error. It is not necessary to discuss the question whether the parties appealing may raise this question, as the errors which they assign that are well taken must reverse the judgment. We do not deem it necessary to discuss other questions presented by the assignment of errors. _ The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### G. G. GALLOWAY and Wife, et al., v. I. D. STONE and C. L. SMITH.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Injunctions E b — It is error to decree permanent injunction upon hearing of order to show cause.

It is error for the court, upon the hearing of an order to show cause, to decree a permanent injunction, although the facts found are sufficient to continue the temporary restraining order to the hearing, defendants being entitled to a day in court to determine in some proper way the issues raised by the pleadings, and a permanent injunction being a final judgment which settles the rights of the parties.

*740Appeal by defendants from *Harding, J.,*at April Special Term, 1935, of MECKLENBURG.

This was ,an action to enforce certain restrictive covenants in defendants’ deed limiting the character of buildings to be erected on the lots conveyed, and to restrain defendants from erecting a gasoline filling station thereon.

A temporary restraining order was issued 11 March, 1935, by Judge Clement, with order to show cause before Pless, J., at Gastonia, 30 March, but by consent it was agreed to be heard by Harding, J., at Charlotte, at the 22 April Special Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court.

Upon consideration of the complaint and answer, and the supporting affidavits offered by the plaintiffs and defendants, judgment was rendered decreeing a permanent injunction, and from this judgment defendants ajopealed.

*John M. Robinson and Hunter M. J ones for plaintiffs.*

*Stewart <& Bobbitt for defendants.*

Devin, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether a permanent injunction was proper. Defendants concede that the facts found by the court below are sufficient to justify a continuance to the hearing, but they maintain they are entitled to a day in court to determine in some proper way the issues raised by the pleadings; and in this we concur.

A j>ermanent or perpetual injunction issues as a final judgment which settles the rights of the parties, after the determination of all issues raised. McIntosh N. C. Prac. & Proc., secs. 848, 849; *Abernethy v. Burns,*206 N. C., 370.

This disposition of the appeal renders unnecessary a discussion of the other questions presented on the argument and by brief.

Error and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,663
<PP&E>                                         546,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 599,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,817
<BONDS>                                        355,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   599,320
<SALES>                                        160,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,523
<CGS>                                           90,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Amendment Number Two to License Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 AMENDMENT – NUMBER TWO 
 LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment Number Two (this “Amendment 2”) is entered into this 5th day of June, 2009 by and between the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH
CENTER, having a place of business at the Center for Science and Technology Commercialization, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, Connecticut 06030-6207 (“UCONN”), and ANTIGENICS INC., having offices at 3 Forbes Road, Lexington,
Massachusetts 02421 (“ANTIGENICS”) (each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”). 
 WITNESSETH

 WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a License Agreement dated May 25, 2001, as amended March 18, 2003 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 3.1(b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

 (b) Annual License Fee Maintenance. Starting at the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Effective Date, ANTIGENICS shall pay UCONN the following annual license maintenance fees, payable in
advance semi-annually, against which royalties otherwise due UCONN pursuant to Section 3.3 may be credited: 
  

					
	 5th Anniversary:
	  	$	[	**] 
	 6th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 7th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 8th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 9th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 10th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 11th Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 
	 12th Anniversary & Each Subsequent Anniversary
	  	$	[	**] 

  

	 	2.	Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 

 [**] = Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request. An unpredicted version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Commission. 








	 	3.	The parties further acknowledge and agree that, except as set forth in this Amendment 2, the Agreement shall remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


  

	 	4.	This Amendment 2 shall be deemed to have been entered into in Connecticut and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with Connecticut law without regard for any choice or
conflict of laws or principle that would result in the applications of the domestic substantive law of any other jurisdiction. 

  

	 	5.	This Amendment 2 may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall
together constitute one and the same instrument. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties each have caused this Amendment 2 to be
executed by their respective duly authorized representative as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael F. Newborg
	Name:	 	Michael F. Newborg
	Title:	 	Executive Director
	
	ANTIGENICS INC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Garo Armen
	Name:	 	Garo Armen
	Title:	 	CEO

 [**] = Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a confidential treatment request. An
unpredicted version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Commission.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 573 

To amend Public Law 93–435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, 

providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. 

DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MORAN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. PETERSON, Ms. LEE

of California, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. GRAYSON, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. COSTA, Mr. PIERLUISI, Ms. HANABUSA, Mr. GEORGE

MILLER of California, Ms. CHU, Mr. TONKO, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Ms. 

GABBARD, Mr. FARR, Mr. HOLT, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and Mr. CASTRO of 

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 93–435 with respect to the Northern 

Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin 

Islands, and American Samoa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section and section 2 of 

5 Public Law 93–435 (48 U.S.C. 1705, 1706) are amended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 573 IH

1 by inserting ‘‘the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

2 Islands,’’ after ‘‘Guam,’’ each place it appears. 

3 (b) REFERENCES TO DATE OF ENACTMENT.—For 

4 the purposes of the amendment made by subsection (a), 

5 each reference in Public Law 93–435 to the ‘‘date of en6 actment’’ shall be considered to be a reference to the date 

7 of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### G. M. FISH and W. P. EVANS v. W. R. KILLIAN.

(Filed 23 December, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from *Finley, J.,*and a jury, January Term, 1925, Haywood. No error.

Tbe plaintiffs’ action was originally brought in tbe nature of a processioning proceeding for tbe purpose of settling and locating tbe boundary line between plaintiffs and defendant.

Tbe defendant, in bis answer, claimed tbe land and denied tbat plaintiffs bad any title. Tbe case was tried out on tbe theory of an action of ejectment.

Tbe issues submitted to tbe jury and their answers thereto were as follows :

“1. Is tbe plaintiff tbe owner and entitled to tbe possession of tbe land described in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.

*“2.*Is tbe defendant in tbe wrongful possession of tbe said lands or any part thereof? Answer: Yes, 37 feet from center of railroad.”

*John M. Queen and Alley & Alley for plaintiff.*

*Smothers, Robinson & Gogburn for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

From a careful reading of tbe record, we tbink tbe question of tbe ownership of tbe land was one of fact. Tbe facts on both sides indicate to some extent “No man’s land.” On tbe whole, tbe evidence of plaintiff was sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury. From a critical examination of tbe assignments of error and tbe charge of tbe court below, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error.

No error.