alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 273.141 Will funding be prorated?

All monies provided by a contract may be expended only for the benefit of eligible Indian students. Where students other than eligible Indian students participate in programs contracted, money expended under the contract will be prorated to cover the participation of only the eligible Indian students, except where the participation of non-eligible students is so incidental as to be *de minimis.* Such *de minimis* participation must be approved by the Indian Education Committee.
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Wendell Henry, appellant.

240 N. W. 2d 39

Filed March 25, 1976.

No. 40448.

T. Clement Gaughan and George R. Sornberger, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Harold Mosher, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Boslaugh, Newton, and Clinton, JJ., and Reagan, District Judge.

Newton, J,

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of shooting with intent to kill, wound, or maim. The victim was his wife. He appeals the sentence of 6 to 12 years as excessive.

The defendant was 31 years of age at the time of the offense and was separated from his wife and three *677children. His past history discloses an unstable temperament and a tendency toward violence, verging on the psychotic. He had one prior felony conviction for which he had been placed on probation. The crime committed is a violent one with a maximum penalty of 50 years and might well have resulted in first degree homicide.

Under the circumstances it does not appear that there was an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 170.917 Can Tribes receive direct payment of Tribal employment taxes or fees?

This section applies to non-tribally administered TTP projects. Tribes can request that BIA pay Tribal employment taxes or fees directly to them under a voucher or other written payment instrument, based on a negotiated payment schedule. Tribes may consider requesting direct payment of Tribal employment taxes or fees from other transportation departments in lieu of receiving their payment from the contractor.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About PBGC 
-  How The Bankruptcy Date Rule Can Affect Your Benefits 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# How The Bankruptcy Date Rule Can Affect Your Benefits

There are many ways the bankruptcy date rule can affect your benefits.

As an example, assume an employee of Company X has 20 years of service as of July 1, 2009, when Company X files for bankruptcy. July 1, 2009, is the bankruptcy filing date. Let's also say the plan ends July 1, 2011, at which point the employee has completed 22 years of service.

In this example, PBGC would not guarantee any benefits the employee earned after July 1, 2009. These pension benefits earned after the bankruptcy filing date are "non-guaranteed benefits" that generally are payable to plan participants only if their plan has sufficient plan assets for them. Thus, in this example, PBGC will guarantee a pension benefit based only on the employee's first 20 years of service (and not the full 22 years). This limitation also applies to your salary or any other factor that changes between the bankruptcy filing date and the date your plan ends, if your plan uses them to determine your benefit.

The bankruptcy filing date — not the date your plan ends — also becomes the basis for applying the legal limitations on your guaranteed pension benefit. In the above example, the maximum insurance limitation would be based on the 2009 levels, not the 2011 levels, because the plan's sponsor filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Also, the phase-in limitation would be calculated using the bankruptcy filing date, not the date the plan ends.

Lastly, the bankruptcy filing date — not the date your plan ends — is the date PBGC uses to determine who is eligible for a benefit in Priority Category 3 and the amount of that benefit. (This means that your PC3 benefit will be the plan benefit payable three years before the bankruptcy filing date, based generally on the plan provisions in effect five years before the bankruptcy filing date.)  You can find more information on our Priority Categories page.

March 2, 2021
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News

Yokota Airmen support Pacific Airlift Rally 23August 24, 2023 — Yokota Airmen have returned from Pacific Airlift Rally 23, a multinational, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief exercise involving the U.S., Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, and Malaysia Air Forces at Clark Air Base, Philippines, Aug. 14-18... MORE 

----

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
SI()-|()():,()4-()46 

WESTERN WISCONSIN'S FINEST AVIATION FACILITY 

Mf^^ ^ 

February 24,2010 

2850 Airport Road Phone (606)789-7464 

La Crosse, Wl 54603-1264 Fax (608-789-7469 

Assl Airport Manager 

Clinton R. Toip 

AVIATION BOARD 

John J. Satory, Ctiairman 

Chris E. Olson, Vice Chairman 

Carol Kratz 

Jon M. Olson 

Thomas T. Rauk 

Eugene G. Roesler 

Jerome H. Rusch 

Michael J. Scaletta 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear IVIr, Secretary; 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the application for antitrust immunity and 

proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance 

between these two airlines is vital for the oneworld alliance to compete effectively with the Star and 

SkyTeam alliances. This increased alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy-first by solidifying U.S. -Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a 

foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a review, I encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it would 

enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air 

transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a positive Impact on air travel by offering 

customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue 

to benefit from the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Respectfully submitted, 

>i^uLttJ^ 

Dan Wruck 

Airport Manager
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Graham Packaging Holdings Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 3, 2009



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David W. Bullock   
|    |  | David W. Bullock       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
156 So.2d 647

#### Lloyd LASSITER et al., Councilmen, City of Prichard, v. William Holcombe WERNETH, Jr.

1 Div. 148.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 26, 1963.

Stone & Howard, Mobile, for appellants.

*556Collins, Galloway & Murphy, Mobile, for appellee.

LAWSON, Justice.

This is an appeal by respondents from a judgment of the circuit court granting a peremptory writ of mandamus.

Petitioner for mandamus applied to the City of Prichard for a license to sell beer at retail, at a certain location, for off-premises consumption. The respondents are the councilmen of the City of Prichard. Respondents refused to issue the license applied for and petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to require respondents to issue the license. The circuit court awarded the writ and respondents have appealed.

Respondents insist that the court erred in granting the writ for the reason that petitioner, Werneth, failed to meet the requirements as to character and reputation required of licensees by the applicable city ordinance. The ordinance provided, as one of the conditions for issuance of a license, that an applicant “must be of good character and reputation.”

The application filed by the appellee, Werneth, with the City of Prichard was accompanied by several affidavits to the effect that he was a man of good character and reputation. However, the application showed on its face that he had been convicted on more than one occasion of violating the prohibition laws.

At the trial of the mandamus proceeding, two witnesses testified that Werneth bore a good reputation and there was no evidence to the contrary presented by the respondents. The trial judge in ordering the issuance of the peremptory writ apparently acted on the theory that the convictions for violating the prohibition laws occurred many years ago and that at the time the application for the license was filed with the City, Werneth then bore a good reputation.

It has been said: “To warrant the issuance of mandamus, not only must there be a legal right in the relator, but, owing to the extraordinary and drastic character of mandamus and the caution exercised by courts in awarding it, it is also important that the right sought to be enforced be clear and certain, so as not to admit of any reasonable controversy. The writ does not issue in cases where the right in question is doubtful. * * * ” 34 Am.Jur., Mandamus, § 55, pp. 847-848; Fosdick v. Terry, 270 Ala. 226, 117 So.2d 397.

We do not believe that the action of the respondent City councilmen should be overridden by the courts, in view of the fact that Werneth, in years gone by, had violated the prohibition laws on numerous occasions, according to his own admission. We view the record as showing that the application for the license on which the respondents acted showed on its face a number of these prior convictions.

In our opinion, Werneth’s right to the issuance of the writ of mandamus was at least doubtful. We hold that the peremptory writ should not have issued.

.Reversed and remanded.

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

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News

DOD, Coast Guard Continue Support to Maui August 23, 2023 — Nearly 700 Defense Department personnel and 157 Coast Guardsmen are currently engaged with the U.S. Army Pacific Command and Joint Task Force 5-0 mission... MORE 

----

DOD Mobilizes Support in Response to Hawaii WildfireAugust 11, 2023 — The Defense Department will continue to work closely with state and local officials to protect lives and battle the destructive wildfires that have swept through the Hawaiian island of Maui, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said today... MORE 

----

Oregon's Adjutant General Visits New School, Emergency Shelter in VietnamOctober 22, 2015 — QUANG NAM PROVINCE, Vietnam -- Oregon National Guard Brig. Gen. Michael E. Stencel, Adjutant General, Oregon, participated as the senior U.S. representative during a ribbon cutting ceremony, October... MORE 

----

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS RIVAS;

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

January 29, 1999

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion 10/2/98, 5 Cir., 157 F.3d 364)

Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petition for panelrehearing is DENIED. In denying rehearing the panel emphasizes that

we do not suggest that there are no circumstances under which force might be appropriate to

effectuate a border search. These are fact intensive inquiries.

The court having been polled at the request of one ofits members and a majority ofthe judges

who are in regular active service not having voted in favor (Fed. R. App. P. 35, 5th Cir. R. 35) the

suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
No. 9816.

#### The Board of Liquidation vs. The New Orleans Waterworks Company.

In an action for tlie transfer of stock and the payment of dividends, brought against the stockholder in whose name the shares stand, and against the corporation, the latter has no interest at stake, and has no right to prosecute an appeal from a judgment rendered contradictorily with both parties defendant, in favor of plaintiff, where the real party in interest — the stockholder — has not appealed, and the judgment has become final and executory.

In such a case the Court, *proprio motu,*will dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. *Lazarus,*J.

*Henry O. Miller*for Plaintiff and Appellee.

*Jr R. Beclcwith*for Defendant and Appellant.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

This is an action for three thousand shares of the capital stock of the Waterworks company, and of the dividends declared thereon, under allottmeut of same to the city by the charter of the company.

Both the city and the company were cited and answered.

The city filed a general denial, while the company urged that the board has no authority to claim the stock and dividends, and that the same are to be affected to a special trust, etc.

There was judgment in favor of plaintiff. From this judgment the city does not appeal. It is brought up for review by the Waterworks company only.

The judgment against the city has become final and executory.

*203In this matter the Waterworks company is a meie stockholder and has no interest to attack the correctness of the judgment, where the city, to whom the stock and dividend belong, does not.

Undoubtedly a stock corporation has the right to require the transfer of its stock to be made by the party in whose name it stands, or by his authority. This right it has to protect itself from the injury which it might be subjected to, in case the transfer was unwarranted. The company, in an action against it for such transfer, would have a right to ask that the stockholder be made a party; but this is unnecessary in the present case, in which the city and the company were both cited and joined issue, and where the judgment was Contradictorily rendered.

We therefore conclude that the company, under the circumstances,— the city, the real party concerned, not having appealed, and the judgment in favor of plaintiff having become executory,- — has no interest in the controversy, and that, by making the transfer and payment decreed by the judgment appealed from, the company is fully protected. State ex rel. Plaisent vs. Railroad Company, 38 Ann. 312.

It is therefore ordered, *proprio motu,*that the appeal in this case be dismissed at appellant’s cost.
#### § 173.1 Terms used.

When used in this part “Secretary” refers to the Secretary of the Interior; “project” to the Federal Indian irrigation project on which concession, lease or permit is granted, and “project engineer” to the engineer in charge of said project.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 45

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One

Hundred Sixth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1999

Mr. DREIER (for himself and Mr. MOAKLEY) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Rules in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Rules (here4 after in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’),

5 including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be

6 paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more

8 than $5,069,424 for the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

9 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

10 Of the amount specified in section 1—
2

•HRES 45 IH

1 (1) not more than $2,488,522 shall be available

2 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

3 noon on January 3, 1999, and ending immediately

4 before noon on January 3, 2000; and

5 (2) not more than $2,580,902 shall be available

6 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

7 noon on January 3, 2000, and ending immediately

8 before noon on January 3, 2001.

9 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

10 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

11 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

12 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

13 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

14 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

15 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

16 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

17 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
#### § 168.11 Range improvements; ownership; new construction.

Except as provided by the Relocation Act, range improvements placed on the permitted land shall be considered affixed to the land unless specifically excepted therefrom under the permit terms. Written permission to construct or remove improvements must be obtained from the Hopi Tribe.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of NovaCopper Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick
Van Nieuwenhuyse, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

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

|Date: February 12, 2013 | By: | /s/
      Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse            
|----------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                        |     | Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse                      
|                        |     | President and Chief Executive
      Officer

---
#### § 273.171 Can a contractor make changes to a program approved by an Indian Education Committee?

No program contracted may be changed from the time of its original approval by the Indian Education Committee to the end of the contract period without the prior approval, in writing, of the Indian Education Committee.