alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 4, 2009, 8 a.m. to June 
4, 2009, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on May 
5, 2009, 74 FR 20712-70715.
    The starting time of the meeting on June 4, 2009 has been changed 
to 1:30 p.m. until adjournment. The meeting date and location remain 
the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: May 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12264 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 10.14**

 

 

AUDITORS’ REPORT TO THESHAREHOLDERS 

 

OF 

 

**LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD.**

 

 

Wehave audited the accompanying balance sheets of LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and cash flows for the yearsthen ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. 

 

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditingstandards in Israel and in the United States, including those prescribed under the Auditors’ Regulations (Auditor’s Mode of Performance), 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance aboutwhether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principlesused and significant estimates made by management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial positionof the Company as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the results of its operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Israel.

 

Without qualifying our opinion we draw attention to Note 1Cregarding the Company’s dependence on financing from external sources for its operations. 

 

 

**LUBOSHITZ KASIERER**

**An affiliate member of Ernst & Young International**

 

Haifa, Israel 

April 2, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Banyan Mortgage Investment Fund's 10Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Form 10Q."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,171,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (53,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,087,293
<PP&E>                                     117,356,197
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,929,991)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,239,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,202,610
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    86,394,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,316)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               122,239,954
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,174,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,134,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,793,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (495,591)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,916,817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,328,813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,328,813)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,328,813)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
NAL |,
4,° ND,

a %
a =
7%, iS

3
Z S
VG come

March 5, 2012

Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule
Dear Tribal Chairman:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite
you to participate in a consultation meeting on the Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule
Groups One and Three regulations. Specifically, we seek input on the following
regulations:

Group 1:
(a) Part 542 Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II] Gaming

Group 3:
(a) Part 543 — Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming; and
(b) Part 547— Minimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used
with the play of Class II Games.

This schedule is the result of the NIGC’s review and consideration of comments received
in response to the Notice of Inquiry published on November 18, 2010 and subsequent
Notice of Regulatory Review Agenda published on April 4, 2011 in the Federal Register.
We know that the best results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian
tribes and we look forward to your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-
to-government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order
13,175 prior to and during any rulemaking process.

As such, we invite all Tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission on Groups
One and Three regulations at a consultation scheduled for April 5, 2012 in San Diego,
CA, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the following location:

San Diego Convention Center
111 W. Harbor Dr.

San Diego, CA 92101

Room 5 AB

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Wash 1 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.Gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For those Tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit
written comments by e-mail to reg.review@nige.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian
Gaming Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100.
Washington, DC 20005.

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation
on the NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of
the NIGC home page, www.nige.gov.

For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation,
please RSVP to Rita Homa, Executive Secretary, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at
consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of each tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to
maximize the results of this regulatory review process. We look forward to meeting with
you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation in this regulatory review process.

Sincerely,

Tracie L. Stevens Steffani A. Cochran Daniel J. Little
Chairwoman Vice-Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elwood Shepard, Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge:



(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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Date: November 8, 2005

By: /s/ Elwood Shepard

Elwood Shepard

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
#### Mirna Samuel et al., Appellants, v Macy’s Northeast, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted March 7, 2011;

decided May 10, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion from the order of the Appellate Term (see CPLR 5602 [a]).
II 

Calendar No. 534 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2830 

[Report No. 111–264] 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 

use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. UDALL of New 

Mexico, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, with an amendment 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal reclamation projects. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2830 RS

1 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

2 (a) LIMITATION ON FUNDS.—Section 409(b) of the 

3 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

4 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 

5 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

6 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

7 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

8 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

9 409’’ after ‘‘section 403’’. 

10 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

11 (a) RECLAMATION FEE.—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the 

12 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

13 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and section 

14 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

15 (b) FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS.—Section 

16 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

17 of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

18 section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

19 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

20 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

21 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘section 

22 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 534 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2830 

[Report No. 111–264] 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation projects. use certain payments for certain noncoal rec- States and Indian tribes have the authority to lamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Reported with an amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q 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-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                    2,854
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            20,942
<ALLOWANCES>                              8,994
<INVENTORY>                              26,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         60,042
<PP&E>                                   26,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          100,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    30,358
<BONDS>                                   6,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     73
<OTHER-SE>                               43,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            100,096
<SALES>                                  84,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         84,931
<CGS>                                    67,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            67,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         13,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           2,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                646
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       1,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              1,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.22
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Silicato et al., Appellants, v Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc. et al., Defendants, and New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 205]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered October 1, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant-respondent New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to serve the City of New York with a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, which, upon granting plaintiffs’ motion to renew, adhered to its aforementioned October 1, 2012 determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking to recover for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff Joseph Silicato in the course of a construction project, plaintiffs’ service of a notice of claim on the law department of a City agency failed to satisfy the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (a). The statute permits service on the “person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action in the supreme court issued against such corporation may be delivered, or to an attorney regularly engaged in representing such public corporation.” The New York City Comptroller and the Corporation Counsel are persons designated to receive service of process (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [a]; CPLR 311 [a] [2]), and, as a rule, the Corporation Counsel is the “attorney and counsel for the city and every agency thereof and shall have charge and conduct of all the law business of the city and its agencies” (NY City Charter § 394 [a]). *465While we have recognized in particular cases that an attorney who is actually representing a public corporation in the very matter in issue may be an appropriate person to receive service of a notice of claim *(Rosenbaum v City of New York,*24 AD3d 349, 353-354 [1st Dept 2005], *revd on other grounds*8 NY3d 1 [2006]; *Losada v Liberty Lines Tr.,*155 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1989]), in the instant matter involving Labor Law and negligence causes of action, the Corporation Counsel ordinarily represents the City and service on the agency’s legal department was therefore ineffective *(see Khela v City of New York,*91 AD3d 912 [2d Dept 2012]; *Acevedo v City of N.Y. Dept. of Transp.,*227 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 1996]; *Herrera v Duncan,*13 AD3d 485 [2d Dept 2004]).

There is no basis for finding estoppel *(Acevedo,*227 AD2d at 245), and plaintiff did not establish a basis for excusing a defect in service under General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c). Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FRESH CHOICE
INC.'S REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           5,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,833
<PP&E>                                          40,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,104)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,070
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,329)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,166
<SALES>                                         76,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,691
<CGS>                                           21,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,001)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
November 16, 2015

Helga M. Woods, Attorney General
The Mohegan Tribe

13 Crow Hill Road

Uncasville, CT 06382

Via U.S. Mail and E-mail

Re: _ Review of financing documents for the Mohegan Tribe

Dear Ms. Woods:

This letter responds to your request on behalf of the Mohegan Tribe for the
National Indian Gaming Commission’s Office of General Counsel to review the Facility
Agreement, Note Purchase Agreement, and Covenants (Agreements) between the Tribe
and USB Securities LLC. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion whether the
Agreements constitute management contracts requiring the NIGC Chair’s approval under
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. You also asked for an opinion whether the
Agreements violate IGRA’s requirement that a tribe have the sole proprietary interest in
its gaming operation.

In my review, I considered the following documents:

Facility Agreement (GDC Draft 10-30);

Note Purchase Agreement (GDC Draft 10/30/2015);
Covenants-NPA;

Fee Letter; and

November 19, 2015 email message from Helga Woods, Mohegan
Attorney General regarding fixed interest rate.

The Agreements contain terms similar to other agreements the Office of General
Counsel has already reviewed and analyzed. See
www.nige.gov/Reading_Room/Management_Review_Letters_Declination_Letters.aspx.
Applying the same analysis here, it is my opinion that the Agreements do not constitute a
management contract and do not require the Chair’s approval. It is also my opinion that
the Agreements do not violate IGRA’s sole proprietary interest requirement.

NEW MAILING ADDRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop # 1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa OK; Oklahoma City, OK
WWW.NIGC.GOV


It is my understanding that the Agreements are represented to be in substantially
final form with respect to terms affecting this opinion, and if such terms change in any
material way prior to closing or are inconsistent with assumptions made herein, this
opinion shall not apply. Further, this opinion is limited to the Agreements. This opinion
does not include or extend to any other agreements or documents not submitted for
review.

I anticipate that this letter will be posted to the NIGC’s website. Prior to posting,
NIGC will notify you and give you an opportunity to identify and request that
information subject to the exemptions under FOIA be redacted or withheld. A list of the
FOIA exemptions may be found at 25 U.S.C. § 552(b).

If you have any questions, please contact NIGC Senior Attorney Maria Getoff at
(202) 632-7003.

Sincerely,

Mecha X pee

Michael Hoenig
General Counsel