alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# Time and Date:

July 14, 2009—10 a.m.

# Place: 

800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

# Status:

 A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.

# Matters To Be Considered:

## Open Session

                    1.                     *FMC Agreement No. 201202:*                     Oakland MTO Agreement.                

                    2.                     *FMC Agreement No. 011275-027:*                     Australia and New Zealand/United States Discussion Agreement.                

                    3.                     *FMC Agreement No. 011275-028:*                     Australia and New Zealand/United States Discussion Agreement.                

## Closed Session

1. Section 15 Order on Competition, Rates and Service in the U.S.-Australia/New Zealand and Northbound and Southbound Trade.

2. FMC Agreement No. 011741-013: U.S. Pacific Coast-Oceania Agreement.

3. Order Initiating Proceeding—Admission to Practice Before the Commission.

4. Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters.

# Contact Person For More Information:

 Karen V. Gregory, Secretary. (202) 523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-16414 Filed 7-7-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

         1) Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form 10-KSB for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) the information contained in Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form
         10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated:  March 27, 2009


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARLAINA KARLA THOMAS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 612 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
11GPAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

JOSHUA S. MIREL 

PR 21-0004 FILED 

DEC 0 3 2021 

BOVVEKI Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State nf Nfinntana 

ORDER 

Joshua S. Mirel has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since March 2017. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, 

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, 

MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of approved Continuing Legal Education to 

be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar o f Montana. 

n 

DATED this day of December, 2021. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

12/03/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0004
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 29 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 147
1

FILED

January 14, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

BARRY ALAN SPRUCE, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9807-CV-00211

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

)

)

v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE

) KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

)

)

)

)

LORI JEAN SPRUCE, )

) HONORABLE RICHARD R. BAUMGARTNER,

Defendant-Appellant.) JUDGE, By Interchange

OPINION AND ORDER ON

PETITION FOR REHEARING

The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39, T.R.A.P. In partial

support of her petition, the appellant relies upon documents in a

supplemental record certified to us by the trial court clerk on

December 7, 1998 -- some 13 days after our opinion was released. 

It should also be noted that the appellant failed to obtain our

permission or the permission of the trial court to supplement the

record. See Rule 24(e), T.R.A.P. Having said all of this, we
2

hasten to add that there is nothing in the supplemental record

that changes our basic holdings, i.e., that the appellant’s Rule

60 motion is an attempt to render the trial court’s divorce

judgment of April 14, 1994, invalid and ineffective; that the

motion was not timely filed; and that the appellant failed to

show a proper basis for Rule 60 relief. Accordingly, the

petition for rehearing is DENIED with costs taxed to the

appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

_________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

CONCUR:

________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________

Don T. McMurray, J.
AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT





This
Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”), dated as of March 27, 2009 (the “Effective
Date”), hereby amends the Employment Agreement dated June 1, 2005 (“the
Agreement”), by and between AmTrust North America, Inc., 59 Maiden Lane, 6th floor,
New York, New York, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Michael J. Saxon,
and individual residing at 514 Brookstone Court, Copley, Ohio 44321
(Executive”).





WHEREAS, in consideration of
good and valuable consideration, which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
herein.





NOW, THEREFORE, the parties
hereto agree as follows:





1. Section 5
(Disability) of
the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:








5.   
Disability.    
In the event that Executive shall be unable to perform because of illness or
incapacity, physical or mental, all the functions, duties and responsibilities
to be performed by him hereunder for a consecutive period of two (2) months or
for a total period of three (3) months during any consecutive twelve (12) month
period, the Company may terminate this Agreement effective on or after the
expiration of such period (the “Disability Period”) upon five (5) business days’
written notice to Executive specifying the termination date (the “Disability
Termination Date”).  Disability under this paragraph shall be
determined by a physician who shall be selected by the Company and approved by
Executive.  Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed, and a physician shall be deemed to be approved unless he or she is
disapproved in writing by Executive within ten (10) days after his or her name
is submitted.  The Company may obtain disability income insurance for
the benefit of Executive in such amounts as the Company may
determine.  Executive shall be entitled to receive his Salary payable
for the remainder of the Employment Period or one year, whichever is greater, at
the rate in effect immediately before such termination and any reimbursement of
expenses due him through the date of termination, except that Salary shall be
offset by the amount of any long term disability benefits the Company may have
elected to provide for him.





2. Section 6
(Death) of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:





6.    
Death.  In
the event of the death of Executive during the Employment Period, this Agreement
and the employment of Executive hereunder shall terminate on the date of death
of Executive.  Executive’s heirs or legal representatives shall be
entitled to receive his Salary payable for the remainder of the Employment
Period or one year, whichever is greater, at the rate in effect immediately
before such termination and any reimbursement of expenses due him through the
date of termination.




3. All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in effect in accordance with
their terms.





AMTRUST
NORTH AMERICA, INC.




By:
              /s/ Stephen Ungar
              
              /s/ Michael J. SaxonStephen
      Ungar
              
              Michael
      J. SaxonSecretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. William I-I. Walls

v. : Criminal No. 2:10cr876

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

TERIEK EDWARDS

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J. Fishman, United States

Attorney for the District ofNew Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant Teriek Edwards (Chester Keller, appearing), for an order granting a continuance ofthe

proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period ofsixty days, from January 22, 2013

through March 23, 2013, to allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize

a plea agreement, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have this matter

brought to trial within seventy (70) days of date the defendants appeared before a judicial officer

ofthis court and that a continuance shall serve to delay a trial in this matter, and the defendants

through their attorneys having waived such rights and consente4 to the continuance; and for good

and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDiNG OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons:

1. The defendants are involved in plea negotiations with the government,

which, ifsuccessful, would render trial ofthis matter unnecessary.

2. Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance.
3. The grant of a continuance will likely conserve judicial resources.

4. Pursuant to Title 18 ofthe United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7), the

ends ofjustice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial.

5 This is the tenth continuance order sought by the parties

WHEREFORE, ‘Us on this çday ofJJj 2013,

ORDERED that the proceedings in the above-caption dkmttcr are continued for

the sixty (60) day period from January 22, 2013, through March 23, 2013;

IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the period between January 22, 2013, through

March 23, 2013, shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy 1Trial Act of 1974.

HON. Wil1L WALLS

United States District Judge

Chester Keller

Attorney Teriek Edward/

Sharon Ashe

Assistant United States Attorney

Andrew Carey

Chief, OCDETF and Narcotics Division
Exhibit 10.38



 Exhibit 10.38 
 AUTOLIV, INC. 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 

Effective January 1, 2012 

The following shall remain in effect until changed by the Board: 
  

					
	 Annual Base Retainer*
	 			
	 All Non-Employee Directors other than Chairman
	 	$	170,000	  
	 Chairman
	 	$	340,000	  
	 Lead Director Annual Supplemental Retainer
	 	$	25,000	  
	 Committee Chair Annual Supplemental Retainers
	 			
	 Audit Committee
	 	$	20,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	 	$	20,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	 	$	10,000	  
	 Compliance Committee
	 	 
 
 
	As determined
by the Board on an
annual basis.
	  
  
  


  

	*	The Annual Base Retainer will be paid in arrears, as follows: 

 Two-thirds (2/3) of the applicable Annual Base Retainer will be paid in cash (the “Cash Payment”). The Cash Payment will be split and paid in two equal payments in each calendar year
(each date a “Cash Payment Date”), and will be prorated using the Proration Factor (as defined below). 
 Subject to share
availability under the Autoliv, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time (the “Plan”), one-third (1/3) of the applicable Annual Base Retainer will be paid in the form of fully-vested shares
of Common Stock (as defined in the Plan) (the “Annual Stock Grant”) on the date in each calendar year when the Company grants its annual incentives for employees for the coming year (the “Grant Date”, typically in
February). The number of shares in the Annual Stock Grant will be determined by multiplying the Proration Factor (as defined below) by the amount determined by (A) dividing the amount that is one-third (1/3) of the applicable Annual Base
Retainer by the Fair Market Value (as defined in the Plan) of the Common Stock on the Grant Date, and (B) rounding to the nearest whole number. The Annual Stock Grants will be granted under, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Plan.

 The “Proration Factor” is a fraction, (a) the numerator of which is the number of full months of service as a
non-employee director during, as applicable, (i) the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year of the Grant Date or (ii) the 6 month period immediately preceding the 6 month period of the Cash Payment Date and (b) the
denominator of which is, as applicable, (i) 12, as to the Annual Stock Grant or (ii) 6, as to the Cash Payment. 
 Non-employee
directors are required to hold shares of Common Stock granted pursuant to the Annual Stock Grants until he or she has met the ownership requirements set forth in the Autoliv, Inc. Stock Ownership Policy for Non-Employee Directors.
Attachment not available electronically.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/5/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

v. ) No. 95-6384

) (D.C. No. CIV-95-375-C)

COLETTE JOE BERNAUGH, ) (W.D. Oklahoma)

)

Defendant-Appellant. )

__________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________

Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

__________________________

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that

oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Bernaugh, who is represented by counsel, appeals the denial of his federal habeas

petition. We exercise jurisdiction and affirm.
3

Mr. Bernaugh entered guilty pleas to three drug violations and was sentenced to 122 months.

Mr. Bernaugh filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming these convictions were barred

by his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and because he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. The trial court carefully analyzed Mr. Bernaugh’s petition and concluded

jeopardy did not attach. The trial court further concluded Mr. Bernaugh’s counsel was not

ineffective.

The trial court, in a concise, well written, and thorough Order correctly analyzed Mr.

Bernaugh’s claims. A copy of this Order is attached.

Mr. Bernaugh appeals this judgment asserting the trial court erred by deciding this matter

without an evidentiary hearing and, by implication, asserted the trial court’s conclusions of law were

incorrect.

No evidentiary hearing was necessary. The record on appeal clearly shows Mr. Bernaugh

never contested the administrative forfeiture proceeding involving property seized at the time of his

arrest. He was never a party to this proceeding and therefore was never punished. See United States

v. German, 76 F.3d 315 (10th Cir. 1996).

It is equally clear Mr. Bernaugh was not denied effective assistance of counsel by virtue of

the alleged failure of his counsel to contest the forfeiture proceedings as the law which could

allegedly support his position was not decided until several years after the forfeiture proceeding was
4

concluded. See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993).

The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in

the Order of the District Court attached hereto.

Entered for the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5017

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved by vinegar 

or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved 

by vinegar or acetic acid.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAPERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.20.02 Capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid, in containers holding 

3.4 kg or less (provided for 

in subheading 2001.90.20) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 
2

•HR 5017 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                EXHIBIT 10.16
<PAGE>   2
                                   MINUTES
                          BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
                            FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1997
           TELEPHONIC MEETING ORIGINATING AT CRITICARE HEADQUARTERS
                            IN WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN


A telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors of Criticare Systems, Inc. was
held on Friday, March 14, 1997, and originated at Criticare's headquarters in
Waukesha, Wisconsin.  Board members present were:  Milton Datsopoulos, Karsten
Houm, N.C. Joseph Lai, Ph.D., and Gerhard Von der Ruhr.  Richard Osowski (Vice
President-Finance) attended the meeting at the request of the Board.  The
meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. CST.

1.  Shareholder Rights Plan
    A Shareholder Rights Plan was a recommendation that Robertson Stephens
    & Co. had made to the Board to ensure that a potential acquirer would be
    dealing with the Board and not investors, thereby giving the Board a better
    tool to reach the right valuation.  Mr. Datsopoulos moved to approve the
    Shareholders Rights Plan, Mr. Houm seconded it, and after due discussion,
    the motion was unanimously carried.

2.  Stock Options for Domestic Sales Force
    The Board then discussed stock options for the domestic sales force. 
    It was agreed that options should only be awarded to associates who have
    proven they are good performers.  Mr. Datsopoulos moved that any stock
    options for the sales force have a vesting period of five years and a
    minimum performance standard of $750,000 in annual sales.  Dr. Lai seconded
    the motion, and it was unanimously carried.

3.  Approval of Employment Agreements
    The Board approved the Employment Agreements for Messrs. Osowski and Von der
    Ruhr.

4.  CCR Warrants Approval
    In response to the efforts Mr. McGuire has undertaken on behalf of
    Criticare to reach expeditious financing, particularly with the Dutchess
    Capital Group, he was awarded the balance of the warrants.





<PAGE>   3
5.  Immtech Financing
    The Board then reviewed Immtech and its financing proposal by Cohen. 
    Cohen indicated that any new investors would insist on having higher
    priority rights for dividends and an earlier redemption rate.  With respect
    to the outstanding note, the Board recommended half be converted into
    equity and half repaid over four quarters after a successful private
    placement.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. CST.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gerhard J. Von der Ruhr
Gerhard J. Von der Ruhr
President









                                      2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDOLPH DENNIS HUTCHENS, II, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00029-WCB; 3:05-cv-00113-WCB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin David Mills, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Randolph Dennis Hutchens, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hutchens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
      21.1






**List
      of Subsidiaries of DOR BioPharma, Inc.**






Enteron
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Corporate
      Technology Development, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Oral
      Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Formulation
      Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Intero
      Corp., a Delaware corporation






Magyer
      Pharmaceuticals, a Delaware corporation






Rx
      Eyes,
      Inc., a Delaware corporation






Orasomal
      Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Wisconsin
      Genetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation






Innovaccines
      Corp., a Delaware corporation






Endorex
      Newco, LTD, a Bermuda corporation






DOR
      BioDefense, Inc., a Delaware corporation