alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET OF  BOSTON  CELTICS  LIMITED  PARTNERSHIP  AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES  AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF
INCOME FOR THE  NINE-MONTH  PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          87,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,893
<PP&E>                                              45
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,509
<BONDS>                                         83,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,173)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,911
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,052)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,256)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,308)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.38)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8349-8350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3656]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FE Docket No. 95-07-NG]


1 Source Energy Services Company; Order Granting Blanket 
Authorization To Import and Export Natural Gas, Including Liquefied 
Natural Gas

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy 
(DOE) gives notice that it issued DOE/FE Order No. 1024 on January 31, 
1995, granting 1 Source Energy Services Company (1SESC) blanket 
authorization to import a combined total of up to 200 Bcf of natural 
gas, including LNG, from Canada and Mexico. In addition, 1SESC is 
authorized to export a combined total of up to 200 Bcf of natural gas, 
including LNG, to Canada and Mexico. This authorization to import and 
export natural gas, including LNG, from and to Canada and Mexico is for 
a period of two years beginning on the date of the initial import or 
export delivery, whichever occurs first.
    This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of 
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, [[Page 8350]] (202) 586-
9478. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 1995.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of 
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-3656 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4185 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4185

       To set forth limitations on exclusivity for orphan drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 11 (legislative day, May 10), 2022

  Ms. Baldwin (for herself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To set forth limitations on exclusivity for orphan drugs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Retaining Access and Restoring 
Exclusivity Act'' or the ``RARE Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE APPROVAL OR LICENSURE OF ORPHAN DRUGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 527 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360cc) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
        (2), by striking ``same disease or condition'' and inserting 
        ``same approved use or indication within such rare disease or 
        condition'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                striking ``same rare disease or condition'' and 
                inserting ``same approved use or indication for which 
                such 7-year period applies to such already approved 
                drug''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, relating to 
                the approved use or indication,'' after ``the needs'';
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``same rare disease 
        or condition as the already approved drug'' and inserting 
        ``same use or indication for which the already approved or 
        licensed drug was approved or licensed''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Approved Use or Indication Defined.--In this section, the 
term `approved use or indication' means the use or indication approved 
under section 505 of this Act or licensed under section 351 of the 
Public Health Service Act for a drug designated under section 526 for a 
rare disease or condition.''.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection 
(a) shall apply with respect to any drug designated under section 526 
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bb), 
regardless of the date on which the drug was so designated, and 
regardless of the date on which the drug was approved under section 505 
of such Act (21 U.S.C. 355) or licensed under section 351 of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262).
                                 <all>
```
#### NELL LUTHER v. MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

(Filed 5 March, 1941.)

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*at September Term, 1940, of Buncombe.

No error.

*Sanford W. Brown for plaintiff, appellee.*

*John 0. Gheesborough for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover for injury to property and consequent damage to the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant, in the operation of its motor vehicle.

The defendant company was the owner of an automobile which, in the service of the defendant, collided with the automobile of plaintiff on the occasion complained of.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the collision was the result of unlawful speeding and failure to keep a proper lookout on the part of defendant’s servant and driver.

Upon careful perusal of the exceptions taken during the progress of the trial, we find

No error.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Frederick K. Minturn, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MSXInternational, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;  b) (reserved)  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004 /s/ Frederick K. MinturnFrederick K. MinturnExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
#### MARCELLUS REDDICK, Deceased, MRS. WINNIE HARRIS, Claimant, v. GREENVILLE CAFE.

(Filed 7 October, 1931.)

Master and Servant F b — Where death of employee results from his wilful intention to injure fellow employee compensation is properly denied.

Under the provisions of section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act the finding of fact by the Industrial Commission supported by evidence that the employee’s death resulted from his wilful intention to injure or kill his *fellow*employee is sufficient to uphold the ruling of the Commission denying the application for compensation.

Appeal by the claimant from *Devin,, J.,*at May Term, 1931, of Pitt.

*J. 0. Lamer for appellant.*

*Albion Dunn for appellee.*

Pee, Cubiam.

This is a proceeding before the Industrial Commission for compensation. The cause was heard by T. A. Wilson, commissioner, who found the following facts:

1. That the deceased was a regular employee of the defendant employer on 12 August, 1930.

2. That the accidental injury and death of the deceased on 12 August, 1930, was due to his wilful intention to injure or kill his fellow employee.

3. That the average weekly wage was $14.50.

4. That Winnie Harris, mother of Marcellus Reddick, was wholly dependent upon the deceased at the time of his accidental injury and death.

Upon the facts found the commissioner dismissed the proceeding and upon appeal the full Commission adopted and affirmed his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The claimant then appealed to the Superior Court and the order of the Industrial Commission was ratified, approved, and affirmed, and the action was dismissed.

The claimant excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law contains this provision: “No compensation shall be payable if the injury or death was occasioned by the intoxication of the employee or by the wilful intention of the employee to injure or kill himself or another.”

Under this provision the facts as found and set out in the record are sufficient to sustain the judgment.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10439

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
---

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, Sandeep Vij, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.




Date: February 8, 2010
By:
/s/ SANDEEP VIJ
Sandeep Vij
President and Chief Executive Officer,
MIPS Technologies, Inc.


































A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3488

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3075

Curtis Instruments, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### LYDIA S. McPHERSON v. MARY FRANCES MORRISETTE and LUCIAN MORRISETTE, Defendants, and F. T. HORNER, Administrator of the Estate of O. E. McPHERSON, Intervenor.

(Filed 29 February, 1956.)

Appeal and Error § 2—

Appeal from tbe order in tbis case allowing a party to intervene dismissed as premature.

*627Appeal by defendants from *Morris, J.,*at December 1955 Term, of PASQUOTANK.

Civil action by plaintiff, widow of O. E. McPherson, deceased, for judgment for money in certain sum and for the possession of certain securities in possession of defendants and for an accounting for rents received.

*Feme*defendant, daughter of 0. E. McPherson, deceased, and her husband and co-defendant, filed answer, setting forth in substance a denial of the allegations of the complaint, and pray that they go hence without day, etc.

Thereafter E. T. Horner, Administrator of the estate of 0. E. McPherson, deceased, petitioning the court, prayed permission to intervene in the action for the protection of the estate, — setting forth, upon information and belief, that a large portion of the property involved in this action is rightfully the property of the estate of 0. E. McPherson, to which petitioner as administrator is entitled.

The court allowed the petition and granted petitioner time in which to file “such pleading, or pleadings,” as he may be advised.

Defendants excepted to the order and appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*John H. Hall for Intervenor Appellee.*

*LeRoy & Goodrich for Defendants, Appellants.*

Per Curiam.

This appeal, as in the case of *Burgess v. Trevathan,*236 N.C. 157, 72 S.E. 2d 231, falls under the ban of “the general rule that ordinarily an order allowing a motion for the joinder of an additional party is not appealable.” In consequence, it must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Industrial Enterprises
      of
      America, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly
      report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (this "Amendment
      No. 1”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in this Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,
      the
      period presented in this Amendment No. 1.





Date: **September
      13, 2006**


By: /s/ James W. Margulies


James
      W. Margulies


Chief
      Financial Officer














The
      foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of this Amendment No. 1 or as a
      separate disclosure document.
Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc.


Board of Directors’ Compensation Policy


 


Each director who is not an employee or officer of the Company (“non-employee director”) receives  an annual cash retainer of $9,000.  Each non-employee director also receives $500 per Board meeting attended and $500 per committee meeting attended.  Additionally, the chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $1,500 and all other committee chairmen receive an additional $750 annual retainer.  Director fees are paid in cash on a quarterly basis.  Additionally, directors are reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses.


 


In addition to cash fees, non-employee directors receive automatic awards of 150,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company (the “restricted shares”) upon election to the Board.  Additionally each non-employee director will receive 5,000 restricted shares annually, granted in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and pursuant to the 2009 Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Unit Plan (the “2009 Plan”).  Shares granted to non-employee directors, under the 2009 Plan, are restricted and fully vest equally over a period of three years, at a rate of 33 1/3% each year, or immediately upon termination by reason of death, disability or retirement from the Board.  The Board has discretion to remove any restrictions on restricted shares in the case of any other circumstance deemed appropriate by the Board.