alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### [§§9537, 9538. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §823(6), (7), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1707]

Section 9537, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 576; Nov. 2, 1966, Pub. L. 89–718, §8(a), 80 Stat. 1117; Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §514(13), 94 Stat. 2936, related to assistance of United States mapping agencies in making and developing military surveys and maps.

Section 9538, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 576; Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §514(14), 94 Stat. 2936, related to exchange and reclamation of unserviceable ammunition by Secretary of the Air Force.
§ 158.204 Employees in the DHS-CS. ( a ) *DHS-CS employees.* DHS-CS employees serve in the excepted service, and the Department hires, compensates, and develops DHS-CS employees using CTMS.
( b ) *Mission execution and assignments.* DHS-CS employees execute the DHS cybersecurity mission by applying their CTMS qualifications to perform the DHS-CS cybersecurity work of their assignments.
( c ) *Mission impact and recognition.* Application of a DHS-CS employee's CTMS qualifications to successfully and proficiently perform DHS-CS cybersecurity work results in mission impact attributable to that employee. The Department reviews a DHS-CS employee's mission impact as described in § 158.805, which may result in recognition as described in § 158.630.
( d ) *Compensation.* In alignment with the compensation strategy described in § 158.601, the Department provides compensation to a DHS-CS employee as described in § 158.603.
( e ) *Recruitment and development.* The Department strategically and proactively recruits individuals as described in § 158.510 and develops DHS-CS employees under the career development program, described in § 158.803, that emphasizes continual learning.
( f ) *Core values.* The Department uses the core values, described in § 158.305, to manage the DHS-CS.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES CONTAINED IN THIS FILING AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,295
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                       719
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,587
<PP&E>                                           2,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                     805
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,382
<SALES>                                         11,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,764
<CGS>                                              819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)
        

</TABLE>
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

# PD-3(F): Washington RAM Highway Routing Restrictions
# C_2006331EN.01002502.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-88/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 331/49)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
#### Joseph A. Nesteriak et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Seymour

*Roy H. Scharf,*in support of the petition.

*Richard 8. Bruchal,*in opposition.

Submitted June 3

decided June 25, 1974

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas for the judicial district of Waterbury is denied.
**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

**Report of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

The Board of Directors

The Trust &Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche

Bank Trust CompanyAmericas:

 

Wehave examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Trust& Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectivelythe “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for the Honda Auto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the Honda Auto Receivables2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv),1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determinedare not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015.With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Managementis responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company*’*s compliance with the servicingcriteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examinationincluded testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determinewhether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculatedor reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. Webelieve that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, is fairlystated, in all material respects.
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




FOURTH AMENDMENT




TO




EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Fourth Amendment”) is made to be
effective as of June 4, 2008 by and between Daniel D. Viren (“Executive”) and R.G. Barry
Corporation (the “Company”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement dated June
5, 2000, as amended by that First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement dated June 5, 2003,
that Second Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement dated May 16, 2005 and that Third Amendment
to Executive Employment Agreement dated May 30, 2006 (the Employment Agreement, as amended, being
herein referred to as the “Agreement”).



     WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement now expires on June 5, 2008;



     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to extend the term of the Agreement;



     WHEREAS, such extension of the term of the Agreement has been approved by the Board of
Directors of the Company;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable
consideration, the Company and Executive agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
	 
	 	 	 	Section 2. Term of Employment. The term of employment of Executive by the
Company under this Agreement shall commence on June 5, 2000 (the “Agreement Date”) and
end on August 30, 2009 (the “Term of Employment”).




 









 






	 	2.	 	Except as otherwise amended hereby, the Agreement, as amended by this Fourth
Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.
	 
	 	3.	 	This Fourth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each
of such counterparts, when so executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all such
counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fourth Amendment, to be effective as of the
day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:	 
	 
	 	R. G. BARRY CORPORATION
 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Greg A. Tunney
 	 
	 	 	Greg A. Tunney 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Daniel D. Viren
 	 
	 	Daniel D. Viren
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 204 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 9, 1999.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Resources: Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
    Committee on Science: Mr. Baird of Washington, Mr. Hoeffel of Pennsylvania, 
and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Hill of Indiana and Mr. Udall of New 
Mexico.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 29.3 FOIA exemptions and restrictions on use of PCII. ( a ) *Freedom of Information Act disclosure exemptions.* Information that is separately exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or applicable State, or Local law does not lose its separate exemption from public disclosure due to the applicability of these procedures or any failure to follow them.
( b ) *Restriction on use of PCII by regulatory agencies and other Federal, State, and Local agencies.* A Federal, State, or Local government agency that receives PCII may utilize the PCII only for purposes appropriate under the CII Act, including securing critical infrastructure or protected systems. Such PCII may not be utilized for any other collateral regulatory purposes without the written consent of the PCII Program Manager and of the submitting person or entity. The PCII Program Manager or the PCII Program Manager's Designee will not share PCII with Federal, State, or Local government agencies without instituting appropriate measures to ensure that PCII is used only for appropriate purposes.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-102 

August 23, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate

4048 Date of Termination

4082(b). Effective Date; Special Rules. Applicability of Title IV to Plan Terminations Occurring Between July 1, 1974

and September 2, 1974 

OPINION: 

 Thank you for your letters of August 4 and 10, 1976. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC")

been asked to determine whether this corporation has any jurisdiction over the above plan, which is at present the subject

of the application of your client, * * * for appointment of an appropriate person to effect final windup of the plan and

distribution of assets held by * * * as trustee. 

We have discussed the possibility that if the plan were a covered defined benefit pension plan which terminated on

or after September 2, 1974, the PBGC would seek to intervene and remove the pending application from state to federal

district court. The PBGC's intervention would seek appointment of a trustee to administer the plan under § 4042 of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1342 (Supp. IV, 1974) ("the Act"), or both appointment of a

trustee and termination under that provision of the Act. 

The PBGC has determined [*2] that, based upon the information you gave me by telephone on August 4 and you

submitted in your letters, coupled with information from * * * attorney for some plan participants, conveyed in an August

10 phone call, the subject pension plan terminated well before the September 3, 1974 date on which. * * * ("the

Company") was adjudicated bankrupt. 

 We have learned from * * * that the plant ceased operations in the summer of 1972. You informed me that the

Company's last contribution to the trust was made on April 9, 1970, as evidenced by the accounting submitted with your

application. Since benefits accrued based on actual service, benefit accruals ceased as of the next half year. Thereafter,

according to an exhibit to your application, the Company's certificate of incorporation became inoperative and void under

the laws of * * * on April 15, 1973. Another exhibit shows that the company was adjudicated bankrupt on September

3, 1974, having filed for bankruptcy on April 8, 1971. 

In these circumstances, the only event related to plan activity occurring after the September 2, 1974 effective date

of this Act was the adjudication of bankruptcy on September 3. All the indicia of plan [*3] activity - work by

participants, operation of the plant, benefit accruals, and employer contributions-ceased between 1970 and 1972.

Accordingly, the discharge in bankruptcy alone does not demonstrate that the plan terminated on September 3, 1974.

Based on the foregoing determination, the Act does not give the PBGC any interest in the final termination, or windup, procedure you have initiated. We will not, therefore, undertake to intervene in the pending state court proceedings

or other proceedings related thereto. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Christine O. Cook 

Attorney 

Office of the General Counsel
### §1715t. Voluntary termination of insurance

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter and with respect to any loan or mortgage heretofore or hereafter insured under this chapter, except under section 1703 of this title and except as specified under section 1715z–15 of this title and subtitle B of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987,,1 the Secretary is authorized to terminate any insurance contract upon request by the borrower or mortgagor and the financial institution or mortgagee and upon payment of such termination charge as the Secretary determines to be equitable, taking into consideration the necessity of protecting the various insurance Funds. Upon such termination, borrowers and mortgagors and financial institutions and mortgagees shall be entitled to the rights, if any, to which they would be entitled under this chapter if the insurance contract were terminated by payment in full of the insured loan or mortgage.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title II, §229, as added Pub. L. 86–372, title I, §113, Sept. 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 662; amended Pub. L. 87–70, title VI, §612(l), June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 183; Pub. L. 89–117, title XI, §1108(k), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 505; Pub. L. 90–19, §1(a)(3), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 101–235, title II, §202(d)(2), Dec. 15, 1989, 103 Stat. 2037.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, 48 Stat. 1246, which is classified principally to this chapter (§1701 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, referred to in text, is title II of Pub. L. 100–242, Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1877, which, as amended by Pub. L. 101–625, is known as the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990. Subtitle B of title II, which was formerly set out as a note under section 1715l of this title and which amended section 1715z–6 of this title, was amended generally by Pub. L. 101–625 and is classified generally to subchapter I (§4101 et seq.) of chapter 42 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4101 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–235 inserted "and except as specified under section 1715z–15 of this title and subtitle B of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987," after "section 1703 of this title".

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner" wherever appearing.

1965—Pub. L. 89–117 struck out "and Accounts" after "various Insurance Funds".

1961—Pub. L. 87–70 amended section generally, authorizing voluntary termination of insurance contracts with respect to loans insured under this chapter.

1 So in original.
### §1429. Eligibility to secure advances

Any member of a Federal Home Loan Bank shall be entitled to apply in writing for advances. Such application shall be in such form as shall be required by the Federal Home Loan Bank. Such Federal Home Loan Bank may at its discretion deny any such application, or may grant it on such conditions as the Federal Home Loan Bank may prescribe.

(July 22, 1932, ch. 522, §9, 47 Stat. 731; Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §§701(b)(1), (3)(A), 710(a), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 412, 418; Pub. L. 106–102, title VI, §606(f)(1), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1455.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–102 struck out "with the approval of the Board" after "Federal Home Loan Bank" in second sentence and struck out ", subject to the approval of the Board," after "deny any such application, or" in third sentence.

1989—Pub. L. 101–73, §710(a), struck out "or nonmember borrower" after "Any member".

Pub. L. 101–73, §701(b)(1), (3)(A), substituted "Board" for "board" wherever appearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30593

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES JOSEPH, also known as Lil James, also known as Trump,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:09-CR-64-7

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On the fourth day of a jury trial, James Joseph pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He was sentenced

to 220 months in prison. He appeals; we affirm.

Joseph first contends that the district court committed a clear error by

increasing his offense level due to his aggravating role as a leader, manager,

supervisor, or organizer of the conspiracy. The unrebutted presentence report,

as well as evidence adduced at trial, indicated that Joseph directed the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 13, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-30593 Document: 00511538516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2011
No. 10-30593

transportation activities of at least one other person and that he otherwise

“exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of

a criminal organization.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2) (Nov. 2009). Because

the district court’s finding was plausible in light of the record, the aggravatingrole adjustment was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Posada-Rios,

158 F.3d 832, 878 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th

Cir. 1998). 

In his second claim, Joseph argues that the district court violated his Fifth

and Sixth Amendment rights by basing his sentence on facts that were neither

admitted nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Joseph was

sentenced under the advisory guidelines scheme mandated by United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court was “entitled to find by a

preponderance of the evidence all the facts relevant to the determination of a

Guideline sentencing range.” United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 367 (5th

Cir. 2009). Consequently, Joseph’s argument is foreclosed. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-30593 Document: 00511538516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2011