alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 47.10 How is the local educational financial plan developed? ( a ) The following deadlines apply to development of the local educational financial plan: ( 1 ) Within 15 days after receiving the tentative allotment, the school supervisor must consult with the local school board on the local educational financial plan.
( 2 ) Within 30 days of receiving the tentative allotment, the school board must review the local educational financial plan and, by a quorum vote, ratify, reject, or amend, the plan.
( 3 ) Within one week of the school board action under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the supervisor must either: ( i ) Send the plan to the education line officer (ELO), along with the official documentation of the school board action; or
( ii ) Appeal the school board's decision to the ELO.
( 4 ) The ELO will review the local educational financial plan for compliance with laws and regulations and may refer the plan to the Solicitor's Office for legal review. If the ELO notes any problem with the plan, he or she must: ( i ) Notify the local board and local supervisor of the problem within two weeks of receiving the plan;
( ii ) Make arrangements to assist the local school supervisor and board to correct the problem; and
( iii ) Refer the problem to the Director of the Office of Indian Education if it cannot be solved locally.
( b ) When consulting with the school board under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the school supervisor must: ( 1 ) Discuss the present program of the Bureau-operated school and any proposed changes he or she wishes to recommend;
( 2 ) Give the school board members every opportunity to express their own ideas and views on the supervisor recommendations; and
( 3 ) After the discussions required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, present a draft plan to the school board with recommendations concerning each of the elements.
( c ) If the school board does not act within the deadline in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the supervisor must send the plan to the ELO for ratification. The school board may later amend the plan by a quorum vote; the supervisor must transmit this amendment in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
Exhibit 10.2
​
EXECUTION COPY
​
Churchill Capital Corp V
640 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10019
​
	November 16, 2021

	​

	​

	M. Klein Associates, Inc.

	640 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor

	New York, NY 10019

	​

	Re: Administrative Services Agreement - Amendment

	​

	Ladies and Gentlemen:



​
Reference is made to that certain letter agreement (the “Original Agreement”) by and between Churchill Capital Corp V, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and M. Klein Associates, Inc., a New York corporation (the “Services Provider”), dated as of December 15, 2020.
​
The Company and Services Provider agree that from and after January 1, 2022, the Company shall no longer be required to pay to the Services Provider the $30,000 per month fee as set forth in Section 1 of the Original Agreement. However, the $30,000 per month fee will continue to accrue as a contingent liability, payable only upon the consummation of the Company’s initial business combination.
​
Except as expressly modified by this letter agreement, the Original Agreement and the parties’ rights and obligations thereunder shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Original Agreement as modified by this letter agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of its subject matter and supersedes all prior understandings, agreements, or representations by or among the parties hereto, written or oral, to the extent they relate in any way to the subject matter hereof or the transactions contemplated hereby.  This letter agreement and any litigation between the parties (whether grounded in contract, tort, statute, law or equity) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.  This letter agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same letter agreement.
​
[Signature page follows]
​
​



	​


	​


	​



	​
	Very truly yours,

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORP V

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	By: 
	/s/ Jay Taragin

	​
	Name:
	Jay Taragin

	​
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer



​
​
	​


	​


	​



	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	​

	​
	​

	M. KLEIN ASSOCIATES, INC.
	​

	​
	​

	​
	​

	By:
	/s/ Jay Taragin
	​

	Name:
	Jay Taragin
	​

	Title:
	Authorized Signatory
	​



​
[Signature Page to Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement]
### §917. Art. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures

Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 72.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 917 | 50:711. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 117), 64 Stat. 139. |
#### § 700.717 Stocking rate.

The Commissioner will determine livestock carrying capacity for each range unit and set the stocking rate and adjust that rate as conditions warrant. The Commissioner may consult with the Tribe when making adjustments to the stocking rate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
               <LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE LIL MARC, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                           <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,948           
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,948           
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,816
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,109
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
157 So.2d 228

#### Eugene LAWSON v. STATE.

8 Div. 154.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 31, 1963.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roy E. Hicks, Legal Research Aide, Montgomery, for petitioner.

Harold T. Pounders, Florence, opposed.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Lawson v. State, Ala.App., 157 So.2d 226.

Writ denied.

SIMPSON, MERRILL and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1  IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James Collas, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IdeaEdge, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) [Paragraph omitted]; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 14, 2008/s/ James CollasJames CollasChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
§ 700.265 Conduct of employees. ( a ) *Handling of records subject to the Act.* Employees whose duties require handling of records subject to the Privacy Act shall, at all times, take care to protect the integrity, security and confidentiality of these records.
( b ) *Disclosure of records.* No employee of the Commission may disclose records subject to the Privacy Act unless disclosure is permitted under § 700.267 or is to the individual to whom the record pertains.
( c ) *Alteration of records.* No employee of the Commission may alter or destroy a record subject to the Privacy Act unless ( 1 ) such alteration or destruction is properly undertaken in the course of the employee's regular duties or
( 2 ) such alteration or destruction is required by a decision under §§ 700.287-700.295 or the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.
#### Randolph Smith et al., Appellants, v Sears, Roebuck & Co., Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 547]

*1309Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (Norman W. Setter, Jr., J.), entered September 13, 2005. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Randolph Smith (plaintiff) when four fingers on his left hand were lacerated by a circular saw designed and manufactured by defendant. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of its motion, defendant submitted an expert’s affidavit stating that the saw was equipped with an “extended travel switch,” which was “ ‘state of the art’ in the industry,” and that trigger locks were not state of the art. Defendant thus “met [its] initial burden of demonstrating that, when [the saw] left the manufacturer’s hands, [it] was in a condition reasonably contemplated by the consumer and was reasonably safe for its intended use” *(Lamb v Kysor Indus. Corp.,*305 AD2d 1083, 1084 [2003]; *see Lauber v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*273 AD2d 922 [2000]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted an expert’s affidavit stating that plaintiff would not have been injured if the saw had been equipped with a trigger lock. Notably, however, plaintiffs’ expert did not state that trigger locks were state of the art in the industry or that the saw was defective or not reasonably safe because of the absence of a trigger lock. We thus conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the product was defectively designed *(see Rodriguez v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*22 AD3d 823, 824 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
# C_2006331EN.01000801.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim

(Case C-97/05) (1)

1

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement - Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there - Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal - Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit)

(2006/C 331/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Gattoussi

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Administrative Court, Darmstadt) — Interpretation of Art. 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) — Worker of Tunisian nationality employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as regards working conditions and remuneration — Curtailment of the period of the validity of residence permit bringing the worker's employment to an end

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, done at Brussels on 17 July 1995 and approved on behalf of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998, that provision may have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the territory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
# DATA BOOK LISTING

2015 Data Tables
https://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-data-tables-final.xlsxhttps://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/2015-pbgc-data-tables-multiemployer-graphical-supplement.pdf

# Overview

2015 Data Tables
https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/data-books.html

# GLANCE

# S-1

2015 Data Tables

# S-2

2015 Data Tables

# S-3

2015 Data Tables

# S-4

2015 Data Tables

# S-5

2015 Data Tables

# S-6

2015 Data Tables

# S-7

2015 Data Tables

# S-8

2015 Data Tables

# S-9

2015 Data Tables

# S-10

2015 Data Tables

# S-11

2015 Data Tables

# S-12

2015 Data Tables

# S-13

2015 Data Tables

# S-14

2015 Data Tables

# S-15

2015 Data Tables

# S-16

2015 Data Tables

# S-17

2015 Data Tables

# S-18

2015 Data Tables

# S-19

2015 Data Tables

# S-20

# S-21

# S-22

# S-23

# S-24

# S-25

# S-26

# S-27

# S-28

# S-29

# S-30

2015 Data Tables

# S-31

2015 Data Tables

# S-32

2015 Data Tables

# S-33

2015 Data Tables

# S-34

2015 Data Tables

# S-35

2015 Data Tables

# S-36

2015 Data Tables

# S-37 

2015 Data Tables

# S-38

2015 Data Tables

# S-39

2015 Data Tables

# S-40

2015 Data Tables

# S-41

2015 Data Tables

# S-42

2015 Data Tables

# S-43

2015 Data Tables

# S-44

2015 Data Tables

# S-45

2015 Data Tables

# S-46

2015 Data Tables

# S-47

2015 Data Tables

# S-48

2015 Data Tables

# S-49

2015 Data Tables

# S-50

2015 Data Tables

# S-51

2015 Data Tables

# S-52

# S-53

2015 Data Tables

# M-1

2015 Data Tables

# M-2

2015 Data Tables

# M-3

# M-4

# M-5

2015 Data Tables

# M-6

2015 Data Tables

# M-7

2015 Data Tables

# M-8

2015 Data Tables

# M-9

2015 Data Tables

# M-10

2015 Data Tables

# M-11

2015 Data Tables

# M-12

2015 Data Tables

# M-13

2015 Data Tables

# M-14

2015 Data Tables

# M-15

2015 Data Tables

# M-16

2015 Data Tables

# M-17

2015 Data Tables

# M-18

# M-19

# M-20
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 403 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 27, 2000.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday, May 15, 2000, the 
hour of daily meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; 11 a.m. on 
Tuesdays; and 10 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from Monday, May 15, 
2000, until the end of the second session, the hour of daily meeting of the 
House shall be noon on Mondays; 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays; 
and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Workers & Retirees 
-  Delphi Corporation Pension Plans 

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.

# Delphi Corporation Pension Plans

In August 2009, PBGC assumed responsibility for Delphi Corporation's six pension plans. Click on the links below to see the plan's status, frequently asked questions, videos and related information.

**I am eligible for an early-retirement benefit from a Delphi pension plan, and am still working for a successor firm. Now that PBGC has ended the restriction on working retirement, can I start my pension benefit?**

Yes. All Delphi participants can start their benefit as soon as they’re eligible and continue to work.

In fact, the working retirement restriction applied only to Delphi participants who work for certain companies. Affected by the rule change are:

Delphi hourly plan participants who work for Inteva Products, LLC; Kyklos, Inc.; Tenneco Automotive Operating Co., Inc.; TRW Integrated Chassis Systems, LLC.

Delphi salaried plan participants who work for American Axle & Manufacturing Inc.; Chassis Components Inc.; Delco Remy America Inc.; Guide Corporation; Inteva Products Solution; ITT Automotive Electrical Systems Inc. /Valeo; Lear Seating; Magnequench International; Peregrine U.S.

If you work for one of these companies and you satisfy the eligibility requirements for early retirement, you can now start your PBGC benefit and keep working. If you were working on June 1, 2021, PBGC will allow you to start your benefit as of that date and pay you for missed payments since that date. There’s no rush, however: you can choose the June 1, 2021, starting date and get a back payment even if you apply months or years from now.
                          - Current Delphi Salaried Participant Report
                          - Delphi Plans Documents and Processing Reports
                          - PBGC Ends Working Retirement Restriction on Starting Early Retirement Benefits: FAQs

 

     

#### Delphi Plans

     

     

     

*Last updated: February 9, 2016*

## Delphi Resources

Delphi Home Page

Latest Developments

Delphi FAQs - Hourly Plan

PBGC Payments and GM’s Top-Up

Delphi FAQs - Salaried Plan

Delphi Plans Processing Reports

Archived Delphi Information

##                   CONTACT US              

Call us at 1-800-400-7242

TTY/ASCII users may call 711.

More contact information for workers and retirees

## Announcements

Fraud Alerts

IRS Income Tax Form 1099-R

Annual Funding Notice for Defined Benefit Pension Plans

Requesting a Summary Plan Description
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Diagenesis and reservoirquality of the upper Mississippian Aux Vases Sandstone, Illinois Basin**
 
Report | Plate 1
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.16:1609
Item Number:0624 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001046835
 
March 6, 2018