alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 700.843 Permitting procedures for Navajo Nation Lands. ( a ) Pursuant to the Act and this subpart, the written consent of the Navajo Nation is required. Written consent shall consist of a Navajo Nation permit issued in accordance with the Navajo Nation Code or a resolution of the Navajo Nation Council or delegated committee of that Council.
( b ) When Indian tribal lands are involved in an application for a permit or a request for extension or modification of a permit, the consent of the Indian tribal government must be obtained. For Indian allotted lands outside reservation boundaries, consent from only the individual landowner is needed. When multiple-owner allotted lands are involved, consent by more than 50 percent of the ownership interest is sufficient. For Indian allotted lands within reservation boundaries, consent must be obtained from the Navajo Nation and the individual landowner(s).
( c ) The applicant should consult with the Office concerning procedures for obtaining consent from the appropriate Indian tribal authorities and submit the permit application to the Office. The Office shall ensure that consultation with the Navajo Nation or individual Indian landowner regarding terms and conditions of the permit occurs prior to detailed evaluation of the application. Permits shall include terms and conditions requested by the Navajo Nation or Indian landowner pursuant to § 700.817 of this part.
( d ) The issuance of a permit under this part does not remove the requirement for any other permit by Indian tribal law.
### Special Provisions of Farm Loan Bonds
#### § 213.33 Diligence and prevention of waste.

The lessee shall exercise diligence in drilling and operating wells for oil and gas on the leased lands while such products can be secured in paying quantities; carry on all operations in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with approved methods and practice, having due regard for the prevention of waste of oil or gas developed on the land, or the entrance of water through wells drilled by the lessee to the productive sands or oil or gas-bearing strata to the destruction or injury of the oil or gas deposits, the preservation and conservation of the property for future productive operations, and to the health and safety of workmen and employees; plug securely all wells before abandoning the same and to shut off effectually all water from the oil or gas-bearing strata; not drill any well within 200 feet of any house or barn on the premises without the lessor's written consent approved by the Area Director; carry out at his expense all reasonable orders and requirements of the supervisor relative to prevention of waste, and preservation of the property and the health and safety of workmen; bury all pipelines crossing tillable lands below plow depth unless other arrangements therefor are made with the Area Director; pay the lessor all damages to crops, buildings, and other improvements of the lessor occasioned by the lessee's operations: *Provided,* That the lessee shall not be held responsible for delays or casualties occasioned by causes beyond his control.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-21 

July 28, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044(a) Allocation of Assets. Requirement of Following Statutory Allocation Provisions 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter concerning a pension plan (the "Plan") maintained by * * * Company * * * of the

* * * (the "Union"). You request the opinion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") with respect

to the treatment of certain contributions to the Plan. We think that those contributions must be considered employee

contributions and hence benefits derived from them are nonforfeitable for purposes of Title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). 

As you represent the facts, the Union entered into a group insurance contract * * * in 1960 with the * * * Policy *

* * was financed solely by employee contributions. Approximately half of the contributions were allocated to a

Contractholder Fund and under the contract were not recoverable by participants ceasing employment with * * * 

In 1967 Policy * * * was terminated and replaced by the present Plan, which is noncontributory and which is funded

through a new contract issued by * * * to the Plan's joint Board of Trustees. The amount in the Contractholder Fund,

totaling $108,000, was transferred [*2] to * * * and has been commingled by * * * with contributions to the Plan

received from * * * Participants who became eligible for retirement benefits under Policy * * * received an additional

benefit of fifty cents per month per year of participation under the terminated Policy * * * On February 6, 1979, the

Internal Revenue Service issued a letter ruling that contributions allocated under Policy * * * the Contractholder Fund

and subsequently transferred to the Plan constituted employee contributions within the meaning of I.R.C. § 411(a)(1)

and thus benefits derived from them were nonforfeitable. 

 PBGC has concluded that the amount in the Contractholder Fund should be treated as employee contributions.

Thus, the amount transferred in 1967 from the Contractholder Fund that existed pursuant to Policy * * * to the Plan

constitutes voluntary employee contributions to the Plan within the meaning of Section 4044(a)(1) of ERISA, 29

U.S.C.A. § 1344(a)(1) (1975 and Supp. 1976-80). Benefits derived from those contributions are nonforfeitable for

purposes of Title IV of ERISA. 

This determination is subject to reconsideration under the PBGC administrative review regulation (the "Regulation"),

[*3] a copy of which is enclosed, as a determination with respect to allocation of assets. 29 C.F.R. § 2618.1(b)(4)

(1980). You may seek reconsideration within thirty days of the date of this letter by following the procedure set forth

in Subpart C of the Regulation. 

I hope I have been of assistance. If you have any questions please contact the staff attorney assigned to the matter,

* * * at (202) 254-3010. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made
to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2012, by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp.,
as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National
Association, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and
Custodian and Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2012-C1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned
in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11
of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from May 1, 2012 through December
31, 2012, and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations
under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the period May 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 13thday of March 2013.







|Daniel Bober             | 
|------------------------ | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 











|Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. | 
|-------------------------- |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable U. A. Devle, State Regletrar 

Bureau of Vital Statistics 

Stat4 Department of Health 

Austin, Texan 

A 

Dear Sir; 

We received your letter re 

fOllolmlg QuestloMI 

'(1) 18 the fee 

or death cortifioate a 

4477, 8. 0. s., 1936, 

08 0n the day 

ill the state 

money ordern, 

Vital Statlatiae 

at 31, 1941, am aarthe Departmental Appropriation Blll,mne 

23, Acts 4'7th Leglrlature, Regular seef8lon, 

0 the limltationm appear- at the end 

of this Aat all fees received under the provieionn 

of Article 4477, Rule 548, and deposited to the Vital 

Statistics Fund are hereby appropriated for eaah year 

al the biennium beginning September 1, 1941, for the 
Ecmorabls W. A. D)clvio, State Registrar, Page 2 

uaea and purpoaea presarlbed by the above Aat, and 

any aiuendmmt~ thereto, incltidiag aalarleei, maintenanoe, travel and aontIngant expense. Thl.0 approprlatlon shall be In addition to the itmIxed app-rlatlona herein made for the Bummu of StatIstlas. 

we ham oarefully examlnod the above quoted provlslon 

of the Departmental Approptiatlon Bill. It aoem aloar to ua 

that said proviolon approprlatos all fumlm legally oontained in 

the Vital statlrtiar Puwl on September 1, 1941, an veil am all 

funda legally depoalted In Bald fund on or rubsequent to that 

date. Howver, mmh appropriation is limited to tha feor reaeived 

under the provirlona of Rule 5&a of Artiale 4477, V~rnon~s Annotated Civil Statutes. 

We vlrh to point out that In detem&Gng vhat funda are 

legally aontalned in the Vital Statlrtiar Pund, our OpInIona Hon. 

O-1394 and O-2720 must be aomldered. Oopiea OS the80 oplnlonr am 

attached. 

Although w do not have aufflclent facts to anaver your 

firat queatlon, ve think it tamwesaary for 8ame to be anuvex-ed in 

view of our ansver to your seaadd queatlon.
#### § 162.534 May the parties amend, assign, sublease, or mortgage a WEEL?

The parties may amend, assign, sublease, or mortgage a WEEL by following the procedures and requirements for amending, assigning, subleasing, or mortgaging a WSR lease.
### Capital Stock and Participation Certificates
#### John C. Rust, Respondent, *v.*Charles Hauselt, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

An order of General Term reversing a judgment entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury, which order does not direct a new trial and upon which no judgment has been entered, is not reviewable in this court; it is not an order granting or refusing a new trial, nor is it a final judgment.

(Argued March 22, 1877;

decided May 22, 1877.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city and county of Hew York reversing a judgment in favor of appellant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, but without granting a new trial.

The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion.

*Lewis Sanders,*for the appellant.

*Joseph M. Dixon*for the respondent.

The questions passed upon by the General Term are reviewable in this *486court. *(Mason*v. *Lord,*40 N. Y., 484; *Bradley*v. *Aldrich,*id., 508.)

Rapallo, J.

This action was tried before the court without a jury, and the judge made findings of facts which, upon their face, disclosed no error in his conclusions of law. There were no requests to find any further facts, and but two exceptions are relied upon, viz., exceptions to the fifth and sixth findings of facts.

On appeal to the General Term the judgment was reversed. No new trial was ordered, and the order of reversal does not state that it was made upon any question of fact. I have carefully examined the case upon its merits, and have come to the conclusion that, from the manner in which it is presented to this court, no judgment can be rendered by us, consistently with established rules of practice, which would not in all probability do injustice to one side or the other. I am, therefore, of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that it is not an appeal from an order granting or refusing a new trial, nor from a final judgment of the court below. The order appealed from is a simple order of reversal, upon which no judgment appears to have been entered. From such an order an appeal does not lie to this court.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur ; Andrews, J., absent.

Appeal dismissed.
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2002 
 THIS
AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), effective as of May 22, 2008 (the “Effective Date”), amends that certain Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement dated as of February 8, 2002 (the “2002 Option
Agreement”), by and between Zebra Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Christopher G. Knowles (the “Participant”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the 2002 Option Agreement, or, if not defined therein, then the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Zebra Technologies Corporation 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the
“Plan”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Company and Participant desire to amend the 2002 Option Agreement to accelerate the vesting and extend the exercise period for the Option issued thereunder; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan permits the amendment of the 2002 Option Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the mutual benefits to be gained by the
performance thereof, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and accepted, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 AGREEMENT 
  

	1.	Effective as of May 22, 2008, Section 1(b) of the 2002 Option Agreement is amended in it entirety by replacing it with the following: 

  

	 	“(b)	Vesting. The Option granted hereunder shall be 100% vested and exercisable until the Expiration Date (as hereinafter defined).” 

  

	2.	Effective as of May 22, 2008, Section 1(f) of the 2002 Option Agreement is amended in its entirety by replacing it with the following: 

  

	 	“(f)	Expiration. The “Expiration Date” shall be the ten (10) year anniversary of the Grant Date.” 

  

	3.	In all other respects, the 2002 Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by an officer
thereunto duly authorized, and the Participant has hereunto set his hand, all as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION	 		 		 	Participant
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Noel Elfant
	 		 		 	 /s/ Christopher G. Knowles

		 	Noel Elfant	 		 		 	Christopher G. Knowles
		 	Vice President and General Counsel
# C_2006326EN.01000102.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

Election of the President of the Court

(2006/C 326/02)

At their meeting on 9 October 2006, the Judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities elected, under Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Skouris as President of the Court for the period from 9 October 2006 to 6 October 2009.

---
# C_2006165EN.01003302.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2006 –Corvoisier and Others v European Central Bank

(Case F-13/05) (1)

1

(Staff of the European Central Bank - Vacancy notice - Act adversely affecting staff - Pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 165/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sandrine Corvoisier, Roberta Friz, Hundjy Peurd'Homme and Elvira Rosati (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: H. Weenink and K. Sugar, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of European Central Bank vacancy notice ECB/156/04 aimed at filling six posts as Record Management Specialists; second, application for annulment of all decisions taken in implementation of the vacancy notice; third, application for damages for the losses allegedly caused as a result of all of the aforementioned decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The parties are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 132 of 28.5.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Case T-126/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
Next 60 Days

Key Events

FEbruary 2024 March 2024 tRANSITION

RESIDUAL FUEL tracker 

GALLONS rEMOVED 

CRI: Community Representation Initiative

DLNR: Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DISF: Defueling Information Sharing Forum

NB: NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD

Joint Task Force – Red Hill

RESIDUAL FUEL TRACKER

As of February 26, 2024 

Subject to Revision

Dashboard Legend

March:

5-8 MAR - REGULATORY DEFUELING 

 INSPECTION 

7 MAR - FUEL TANK ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

19 MAR - DLNR COMMISSION ON WATER 

 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETING

21 MAR - (Tentative) CRI MEETING

28 MAR - jtf-rh stands down 

February:

2 feb - governor’s water committee

8 FEB - Rh Remediation RoundTable

8 Feb - Salt lake NB AND ewa beach NB

13 Feb - Aiea NB

15 FEB - CRI meeting

20 feb - nanakuli nB

22 feb - DISF meeting 

26 feb - wahiawa NB

27 feb - pearl city NB

residual fuel

click on thumbnail to view video

5 9 5 5 2

Visit the Navy Closure Task Force-Red Hill

Website by Scanning or clicking

the QR code below

*AMOUNT IS APPROXIMATE JTF-RH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING approximately 60,000 gallons of residual fuel
#### F. A. Cobleigh v. A. C. Spitznagle, et al.

The decision in this case is controlled by the opinion filed in Spitznagle v. Cobleigh, *post,*p. 191.

Bill in chancery. Error to the Circuit Court of Fulton County; the Hon. J. A. Gray, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the May term, 1904.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 20, 1905.

Daniel Abbott, for plaintiff in error.

Lucien Gray, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

The controlling questions involved in this case are sub*111stantially the same as those urged and argued by counsel, and considered and determined by this court, in the case of Spitznagle v. Cobleigh, *post,*p. 191, in which an opinion was tiled at the present term. Upon the dismissal by the City Court of the bill' to foreclose the mortgage there involved, Cobleigh, plaintiff in error herein, filed another bill in the Circuit Court of Fulton County, against the same defendants and one Jesse Heylin. The bill after setting up the proceedings had in the City Court in the former suit, the bankruptcy of Spitznagle, the appointment of Perkins as his trustee, the sale and conveyance of the equity of redemption by said trustee to Heylin, and the failure to make said trustee a party defendant to said former suit, prays that all proceedings in the City Court, relative to the mortgage in question, be vacated and annulled, and f'or a foreclosure of the same. The Circuit Court on hearing decreed that the bill be dismissed for want of equity, holding that the decree of the City Court was valid and binding, and that the mortgage indebtedness was fully satisfied thereby; whereupon the complainant sued out this writ of error.

The decree of the Circuit Court is in full accord with the views expressed in Spitznagle v. Cobleigh, *supra,*and is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### Michael Monahan, Respondent, v. Thompson Starrett Company, Appellant, Impleaded with The Wells & Newton Company, Defendant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, F. J., not voting.
### §1519. Relief that may be granted upon filing petition for recognition

(a) From the time of filing a petition for recognition until the court rules on the petition, the court may, at the request of the foreign representative, where relief is urgently needed to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors, grant relief of a provisional nature, including—

(1) staying execution against the debtor's assets;

(2) entrusting the administration or realization of all or part of the debtor's assets located in the United States to the foreign representative or another person authorized by the court, including an examiner, in order to protect and preserve the value of assets that, by their nature or because of other circumstances, are perishable, susceptible to devaluation or otherwise in jeopardy; and

(3) any relief referred to in paragraph (3), (4), or (7) of section 1521(a).

(b) Unless extended under section 1521(a)(6), the relief granted under this section terminates when the petition for recognition is granted.

(c) It is a ground for denial of relief under this section that such relief would interfere with the administration of a foreign main proceeding.

(d) The court may not enjoin a police or regulatory act of a governmental unit, including a criminal action or proceeding, under this section.

(e) The standards, procedures, and limitations applicable to an injunction shall apply to relief under this section.

(f) The exercise of rights not subject to the stay arising under section 362(a) pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (17), or (27) of section 362(b) or pursuant to section 362(o) shall not be stayed by any order of a court or administrative agency in any proceeding under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title VIII, §801(a), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 140; amended Pub. L. 111–327, §2(a)(46), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3562.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 111–327 substituted "362(o)" for "362(n)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About PBGC 
-  PBGC Performance Measures 

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.

# PBGC Performance Measures

PBGC’s customer satisfaction performance measures provide key insights into the agency's delivery of services to its customers. These measures allow PBGC to track its progress and identify areas that need improvement. Recent results and targets by fiscal year are noted below.

​1 The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Customer Experience Analytics (CXA) are indices of customer satisfaction that use a 0-100 scale.​2 This measure reflects the first three quarters of the fiscal year.

April 4, 2024