alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of applications delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected 
                        ( print page 26271)
                        completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,  SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application M—Modification request PM—Party to application with modification request Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2009. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials,  Special Permits and Approvals.
 Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion**MODIFICATION TO SPECIAL PERMITS**14167-M
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
4
06-30-20098723-M
Alaska Pacific Powder Company, Anchorage, AK
1
06-30-200914562-M
The Lite Cylinger Company, Franklin, TN
1
06-30-2009**NEW SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS**14689-N
Trinity Industries, Inc., Dallas, TX
2, 3
06-30-200914733-N
GTM Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, CA
1,3
06-30-2009


[FR Doc. E9-12621 Filed 5-29-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
No. 49.

#### Morton Salt Co. *v.*G. S. Suppiger Co.

March 30, 1942.

Ordered that the last three lines on page 1 of the opinion in this case be amended to read: “The Clayton Act authorizes those injured by violations tending to monoply to main — ”.

Opinion reported as amended, 314 U. S. 488.
PREPARING A NEWS ARTICLE

I. ACCURACY

A. Double space the article so that it can be edited

B. Name of organization at top, contact name and phone number where can be reached if there are questions.

C. Give important information first; leave less important information for the end of the story.  Sometimes the last paragraph or two will be cut if there is not enough room.

D. Put a release date at the top or type in “For immediate release”

E. Check and double check name spellings, even seemingly obvious name spellings.  Check with the person, with a relative or look in the phone book.

II. TIMELINESS

A. Turn in the story promptly after the event.  Some news media will not accept a story about something that happened several weeks prior.  All newspapers have different policies.  A timely story will be given a more prominent position in a newspaper.

B. Observe the deadlines. To be safe, don’t wait until the deadline, but turn it in a day ahead.  Some paper will require at least 2 days.

C. For best press exposure, send copies of your release to all the media at the same time.  A newspaper will not play up a story which everyone knows about from other sources

D. Don’t expect the paper to run your story twice prior to an event.  All media have differing policies. The only time a paper may run something twice is if there is some new element is reported.  Also, don’t send the newspaper a pamphlet and ask the reporter to develop several stories.

III. STYLE

A. Include “who, what, where, and when” in the first paragraph. You can explain “why” in the first or second paragraph.

B. Give the facts in simple and straightforward language.  Use short paragraphs.  Opinions should be attitubuted to a named person. Use quotation marks for direct quotes.

C. Start out with important facts and work your way down in incidental information. A meeting should not be reported in chronological order; many newspaper readers only scan stories, or just read the beginning paragraphs.

D. Use the active form of a verb, rather than the passive form.  For example, write: “The State Dept. of Parks announced....”, and not “It was announced by the State Dept. of Parks that...”

E. Leave out “puffery”, self-promoting or editorializing material; it will be cut out anyway by the editor

F. Leave out detailed accounts of fund raising events which should be published in the form of a paid ad.  Every paper has different criteria.  In most cases, even for charitable cases.

IV. LIFE PRESERVER

Make sure all potentially affected interested people understand that:

A. You are addressing a serious problem

B. You are the right agency to address the problem in question (mission, responsibility, duty, and not just because I want....)

C. The problem solving/decision making process you are using is a reasonable one (fairness)

D. You are listening (and care)

E. Although it’s going to hurt...on the whole, it’s better than the null alternative.
**EXHIBIT
      23.01**





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Forms
      S-3 (Registration No.'s 333-1314, 333-15959) and Forms S-8 (Registration No.'s
      333-1136, 333-1138) of Sandston Corporation of our report dated March
      5, 2008
      on
      the financial statements of Sandston Corporation as of and for the years ended
      December 31, 2007 and 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
      Sandston Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.




/s/
                  Plante & Moran, PLLCAuburn
                  Hills, MichiganMarch
                  5, 2008
#### PRICE v. REYNOLDS METALS CO., Inc.

Civil Action No. 7324.

District Court, SS. D. New York.

June 9, 1947.

Austin & DuPont, of Jamaica, N. Y. (Stephen J. Masse, of Jamaica, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff, opposed.

Lundgren, Bartels & Lincoln, of New York City, for defendant (for the motion).

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c. The facts have been stated in connection with a similar motion based on the original complaint (69 F.Supp. 82).

It is the amended complaint 'which is here under examination; the plaintiff alleges :

*293“Third: That heretofore and on or about the 5th day of April, 1946, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement * * **”*

Thus he avoids alleging a written contract (as in the original complaint) which the defendant failed to execute, although clearly there was such a requirement if the contract were to come into existence.

It is stated in his affidavit in opposition to this motion that he sues for breach of an oral agreement to employ.

The defendant urges that, under the facts as heretofore portrayed and as now alleged, there is insufficient evidence of an oral contract to allow plaintiff’s case to go to the jury, and hence this motion must be granted.

Considering the relatively long relationship of the parties, the conversations that began in January of 1946 and continued at intervals until April 5, 1946, on the subject of a new employment contract, and the undisputed incident of the latter date when the President of the defendant and the plaintiff shook hands upon the proposition that the negotiations had resulted in “a deal”, it seems to me that it would unduly extend the power of the Court under Rule 56 to deny to the plaintiff the opportunity to present his case. It is true that inconsistencies can be pointed out in his present theory as contrasted with his conduct during the critical months; but the defendant’s handling of the situation scarcely bristles with candor and stability of purpose.

If the plaintiff chooses to rely upon an oral contract after once pleading a written one, that is his lookout; perhaps a full disclosure of the evidence may even vindicate his choice.

As to the second aspect of the motion, which is addressed to the Second to Eighth causes of action, the relief sought under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate, and the motion is granted. Otherwise denied.

Settle order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ASIA MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LTD. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000823190
<NAME> ASIA MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       170,132
<OTHER-SE>                                   (190,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KAREN M. MOORE , Defendant Below , Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE , A ppellee. § § § No. 73, 2022 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 20060112508 ( K ) § § §
Submitted: September 30, 2022 Decided: October 11 , 2022
Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.
ORDER Upon consideration of the opening brief, the motion to remand, and the

response , it appears to the Court that: (1) T he appellant, Karen M. Moore , filed this appeal from her October
2021 convictions for aggravated menacing

. The convictions arose from a verbal confrontation between Moore and her neighbors. In her opening brief, Moore argue s that the Superior Court erred by: (i) declining to give the jury instruction she requested under 11 Del. C. § 466 for the defense of justification; and (ii) permitting
the State to introduce evidence that a firearm Moore surrendered to the authorities

was loaded

.2

(2) Instead of filing an answering brief, the State filed a motion to remand

. The State laudably concedes that under the facts of this case the Superior Court erred in declining Moore’s request for a jury instruction under Section 466. The State asks that Moore’s October 2021 convictions for aggravated menacing be vacated and this matter remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial

. Moore does not oppose the
motion. (3) The Court agrees that the proper course of action is to vacate Moore’s October 2021 convictions for aggravated menacing and to remand this matter to the Superior Court for a new trial. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Moore’s October 202 1
convictions for aggravated menacing are VACATED. This matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for a new trial . Jurisdiction is not retained

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
-  Home 
        -  Health Information 
        -  Weight Management 
        -  Body Weight Planner 

Weight Management
-  Binge Eating DisorderShow child pages    -  Definition & Facts 
  -  Symptoms & Causes 
  -  Diagnosis & Treatment 
  -  Clinical Trials 
-  Body Weight Planner 
-  Choosing a Safe & Successful Weight-loss Program 
-  Food Portions: Choosing Just Enough for You 
-  Healthy Eating & Physical Activity for LifeShow child pages    -  Health Tips for Adults 
  -  Health Tips for Pregnant Women 
  -  Health Tips for Older Adults 
  -  Clinical Trials 
-  Helping Your Child Who Is Overweight 
-  Keep Active & Eat Healthy to Improve Well-being & Feel Great 
-  Prescription Medications to Treat Overweight & Obesity 
-  Some Myths about Nutrition & Physical Activity 
-  Staying Active at Any Size 
-  Take Charge of Your Health: A Guide for Teenagers 
-  Tips to Help You Get ActiveShow child pages    -  Benefits 
  -  Starting Physical Activity 
  -  Keep Moving 
  -  Clinical Trials 
-  Weight-loss (Metabolic & Bariatric) SurgeryShow child pages    -  Types of Weight-loss Surgery 
  -  Weight-loss Surgery Benefits 
  -  Weight-loss Surgery Side Effects 
  -  Potential Candidates for Weight-loss Surgery 
  -  Clinical Trials 

# About the Body Weight Planner

The Body Weight Planner allows users to make personalized calorie and physical activity plans to reach a goal weight within a specific time period and to maintain it afterwards.

Launch the Body Weight Planner

Watch a video to see how to use the Body Weight Planner

Disclaimer: This information is for use in adults defined as individuals 18 years of age or older and not by younger people, or pregnant or breastfeeding women. This information is not intended to provide medical advice. A health care provider who has examined you and knows your medical history is the best person to diagnose and treat your health problem. If you have specific health questions, please consult your health care provider.

Share this page
FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest

### Additional Links

          -  ChooseMyPlate.gov 
          -  Research Behind the Body Weight Planner 
          - NIDDK’s  Weight Management health information
          - NIDDK’s  Diet & Nutrition health information

        This content is provided as a service of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases(NIDDK), part of the National Institutes of Health. NIDDK translates and disseminates research findings to increase knowledge and understanding about health and disease among patients, health professionals, and the public. Content produced by NIDDK is carefully reviewed by NIDDK scientists and other experts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
         This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's  Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  at  March  31,  1998  and  Consolidated
Statement of Operations  for the 6 months ended March 31, 1998, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (59)
<INVENTORY>                                        453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,189
<PP&E>                                          16,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,052)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,506
<BONDS>                                         10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              231
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,611
<SALES>                                          4,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,873
<CGS>                                            3,893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                569
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,405
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40
        

</TABLE>
#### ROBBINS v. NAGELBERG et al.

Civ. A. No. 5445.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania,

March 10, 1948.

Samuel J. Marks,- of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Harry Friedman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This is a suit for damages for an overcharge under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. Service of the summons and complaint was made upon Rose Nagelberg, 7032 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa. The complaint states in Paragraph 3 that suit is against “defendants, husband and wife, residing at 7032 No. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pa.,” who “sold and delivered to plaintiff, other than in the course of plaintiff’s trade or business, a used mechanical household refrigerator, known as a 1940 Norge Refrigerator, Model V. R. S. 6, * * at a price of Two Hundred and Sixty ($260.00) Dollars.” The caption of the complaint and summons incorrectly states the name of defendant Rose Nagelberg’s husband as Sydney, rather than Irving, Nagelberg. At the hearing, attorney for plaintiff stated that the suit is unopposed, that counsel for Rose Nagelberg so informed him, and that Irving, not Sydney, Nagelberg is the name of Rose Nagelberg’s husband. An affidavit setting forth information supporting the last assertion has been filed. Accordingly, therefore, he moved to amend the caption of the process and of the complaint to correctly state the name of Irving Nagelberg. Since the original complaint gave adequate notice that suit was actually against husband and wife, and since it was served upon a proper person, as to both defendants, I am allowing the amendment. Cf. Commentaries, 2 Fed. Rules Svc., 150, 5 Fed.Rules Svc. 4h.l. Accordingly, therefore, after hearing and testimony in open Court, I, also made the following:

Findings of Fact

1. On December 28, 1944, plaintiff, A. Allen Robbins, purchased for the sum of $260 a 1940 Norge household refrigerator, Model V. R. S. 6, “As is’’ from the defendants, Rose Nagelberg and Irving Nagel-berg.

2. Irving Nagelberg was and is the husband of the defendant, Rose Nagelberg.

3. Said consideration of $260 was paid to the defendants on December 28, 1944.

4. Under the OPA Maximum Price Regulation No. 139, the maximum legal price for sale of said 1940 Norge refrigerator, Model V. R. S. 6, was $100.50.

Conclusions of Law

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action.

*372. Judgment will be entered for plaintiff against Rose and Irving Nagelberg in the sum of $194.50 which includes an attorney’s fee of $35.00.
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT**

This Amendment No. 1 to Agreement (this “Amendment”) ismade as of the 1st day of May, 2009, by and between ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and C. Kirk Peacock (hereinafter called “Executive”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, theCorporation and Executive previously entered into an Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2008 (the “Agreement”) for Executive to serve as the Corporation’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; 

WHEREAS, the Corporation wishes to amend the Agreement pertaining to the Executive’s salary; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

1. Amendment to Compensation Payment. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in full as follows: 

“4. **Compensation.** As payment in full for your services during the term of this Agreement, the Company shall grant toyou options to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “New Options”), which shall vest monthly pro rata over the one-year term of this Agreement and shall pay you $8,000 per month through April 30, 2009 and$6,000 per month thereafter for the remainder of the term of this Agreement. The cash compensation shall be paid monthly on the first business day of each month. The New Options will have a seven-year term commencing on the date of grant (whichshall be the date of approval of the grant by the Board); will have an exercise price of the last reported trading price of the Company’s common stock on the OTC Bulletin Board on the date of grant; will be exercisable within the term of thoseoptions during the period of your services to the Company and for 24 months after termination for any reason except termination for cause by the Company; and will have such other terms and conditions as are included in the Company’s standardnonqualified stock option agreement under its 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). All of your outstanding options granted under the Plan will be included in the Company’s Form S-8 registration statements.” 

2. Agreement Continues in Force. Subject to the amendment set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment, all of the provisions of the Agreementshall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement to be dulyexecuted as of the date first above set forth. 

 

/s/    C. Kirk Peacock

C. Kirk Peacock

IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS, LTD.

By:
 
/s/    Manish Singh
 Manish Singh, Ph.D.
Its:
 President and Chief Executive Officer