alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED MAY 22,2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M & M TANKS, INC. 

FAADOCKETNo. [TOBEASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1118 

ORDER SANCTIONING RESPONDENT 

~4-· ' 

\. ~.· 

The Order to Respondent to Show Cause ("OSC") of April 9, 2012 

directed Respondent M & M Tanks, Inc. ("Respondent") to answer by April 

23, 2012 the First Set of Discovery to Respondent ("Discovery Requests") of 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), and to show 

cause why the relief requested in Complainant's Motion to Compel and 

Request for Sanctions- which prompted the OSC- should not be granted. 

Complainant's discovery request dated to February 9, 2012. The OSC, 

ordering paragraph 3, also warned Respondent that sanctions could issue 

should it file anything less than "full and complete" responses to these 

issues. 

Respondent has not filed a response. 

As such, sanctions will issue. Respondent will be foreclosed at the 

hearing from offering or relying upon any documents, or any informati~n 
!' 

2 -.~ .. c-1 

contained in them, .or any witnesses, regarding which it has failed w notice 

in response to Complainant's Discovery Requests. .. c 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

-. .f.., 
.. ' 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Stanford M.J. Manuia, Respondent's Counsel 

701 Bishop Street 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

TEL: 808-532-4543 

FAJ(: 808-532-4704 

M&M Tanks, Inc., Respondent 

ATTN: Michael Weitzenhoff 

1036 Mikole Street 

Honolulu, ill 96819 

Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.3 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7105 -

F AJ(: 310-725-6816 -.+_;. 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1118 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Brazile *v.*Drolshagen et al.

[No. 12,448.

Filed December 15, 1925.]

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Myrtle Wootton Brazile against Peter Drolshagen, opposed by the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, insurance carrier. From the award made, the claimant appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Otto J. Bruee*and *Foster Bruce,*for appellant.

*Joseph W. Hutchinson,*for appellees.

Nichols, C. J.

Reuben H. Wootton lost his life as the result of an accident which arose out of the course of his employment. He left as his only dependent, appellant, a sister. The only question presented for our consideration is as to whether the sister was wholly or partially dependent on the deceased for support.

*739The Industrial Board made an award of partial dependency. There was some evidence to sustain such an award. On the authority of *Radanovic*v. *Vermillion Coal Co.*(1925), *ante*555, 149 N. E. 182, the award of the Industrial Board is affirmed.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

83-2 

January 12, 1983 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044 Allocation of Assets 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your inquiry whether it is proper to charge against assets of the referenced pension plan (the

"Plan") the legal and actuarial fees arising from termination of the Plan. 

The pertinent facts, as they have been presented to us, are as follow. On * * *, a valid Notice of Intent to Terminate

the Plan was filed with the PBGC. The Plan has sufficient assets, when allocated in accordance with Section 4044 of

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), to pay for all benefits guaranteed by Title IV of

ERISA. 

However, on * * *, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") notified you that a Notice of Sufficiency

could not be issued. The basis for the * * * letter was an initial finding that the proposed allocation under ERISA Section

4044(a) was improper in that the expenses of Plan termination were to be paid for with Plan assets and in that the Plan

did not permit such payment. 

We have examined the Plan provision cited to support the initial finding that Plan terms forbid use of Plan assets

to pay for termination-related expenses. We have concluded that payment of such expenses with Plan assets is not

inconsistent [*2] with Plan terms. 

The pertinent Plan provision is found in Plan Article IX, which is entitled "Funding." It provides: 

No contribution shall be required by any Participant. The Employer shall pay the full cost of providing the benefits

under this Plan and shall pay any and all other costs required for the operation of this Plan. [Plan Section 9.7.]

Over the life of the Plan, administrative costs have consistently been taken by the insurer from Plan assets, and

actuarial computations include a five percent loading for administrative expenses. The five percent charge is in addition

to that amount needed to fund benefits under the Plan.

We believe that Plan Section 9.7 can reasonably be interpreted to provide simply that the Plan is a non-contributory

pension plan - i.e., that no employee contributions are required or permitted. Therefore a Notice of Sufficiency will be

issued forthwith.

Please note that Plan assets should not be used for payment of certain expenses incurred primarily for the benefit

of the employer and not the Plan - e.g., legal and actuarial expenses incidental to the employer’s request to the Internal

Revenue Service to issue a waiver of the minimum funding requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.

I hope this response is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Henry Rose

General Counsel
### Reconnaissance geology of the submerged and emerged Coastal Plain province, Cape Lookout area, North Carolina

By: Robert B. MixonOrrin H. Pilkey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp859

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 700.307 Request for hearings.

Hearing requests shall be made in person or by letter and must be received by the Commission within thirty days after the notice letter was received, the personal notice was given, or if an explanatory conference is held, after the decision of the Certifying Officer. The request shall also contain a specific statement indicating the basis for the request.
### §9782. Maintenance and repair of real property

(a) Allocation of Funds.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall allocate funds authorized to be appropriated by a provision described in subsection (c) and a provision described in subsection (d) for maintenance and repair of real property at military installations of the Department of the Air Force without regard to whether the installation is supported with funds authorized by a provision described in subsection (c) or (d).

(b) Mixing of Funds Prohibited on Individual Projects.—The Secretary of the Air Force may not combine funds authorized to be appropriated by a provision described in subsection (c) and funds authorized to be appropriated by a provision described in subsection (d) for an individual project for maintenance and repair of real property at a military installation of the Department of the Air Force.

(c) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Funds.—The provision described in this subsection is a provision of a national defense authorization Act that authorizes funds to be appropriated for a fiscal year to the Air Force or the Space Force for research, development, test, and evaluation.

(d) Operation and Maintenance Funds.—The provision described in this subsection is a provision of a national defense authorization Act that authorizes funds to be appropriated for a fiscal year to the Air Force or the Space Force for operation and maintenance.

(Added Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title II, §242(a), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1666; amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, §923(e)(21), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3819.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 116–283 inserted "or the Space Force" after "the Air Force".
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as
added by

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William A. Donius, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2006 |  |        |  | /s/ William A. Donius                          
|                     |  | Name:  |  | William A. Donius                              
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-150 

July 1, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(13) Plans Covered. Professional Service Employer Plans

4021(c)(2)(A) Plans Covered. Definition of Professional Service Employer

4021(c)(2)(B) Plans Covered. Definition of Professional Individuals 

OPINION: 

 This is to inform you that the Pension Plan of * * * (the "Plan") is excluded from coverage under Title IV of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") because the Plan is maintained by a professional service

employer and has fewer than twenty-five participants. 

Section 4021(b)(13) of the Act excludes from Title IV coverage any plan: established and maintained by a

professional service employer which does not at any time after the date of enactment of this Act have more than 25 active

participants in the plan. 

Section 4021(c)(2)(A) defines the term "professional service employer" as 

. . . any proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or other association or organization, (i) owned or * * * controlled

by professional individuals, or by executors or administrators of professional individuals, (ii) the principal business of

which is the performance of professional services . . . . 

Section 4021(c)(2)(B) lists some of the individuals who are considered to be [*2] "professional individuals" and

the list includes physical scientists. 

The category "physical scientists" includes chemists. Your letter to * * * Case Officer, indicates that the three

owners of * * * (the "Employer") are analytical chemists who hold degrees in chemistry or chemical engineering.

Accordingly, the Employer is a * * * corporation "owned or controlled by professional individuals" within the meaning

of § 4021(c)(2)(A)(i). 

 Your letter to * * * further states: 

The Company is engaged in sampling and analyzing minerals, ores, metals, coal and water. Samples are customarily

analyzed for purity or composition by analytical chemists in a laboratory which the Company maintains, and practically

all of the Company's revenues are derived from its professional services. The analysts performing the testing require

advanced special training in chemistry and testing procedures. . . . 

Based on this description, the Employer's "principal business . . . is the performance of professional services" within

the meaning of § 4021(c)(2)(A)(ii). 

Accordingly, it appears the Plan is excluded from Title IV coverage by § 4021(b)(13) of the Act, and the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation [*3] therefore is closing its files on this case. 

I trust this is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please call * * * of my staff, at * * * 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Draftenvironmental impact statement for implementation of 2005 base realignment andclosure (BRAC) recommendations and related Army actions at Fort Belvoir,Virginia**** 
SuDocNumber:D103.62:B 29/DRAFT
ItemNumber:0334-A-13(online)
CGPSystem Number:000599518
 
 
Complete:
 
Draft EIS Main Body
Draft EIS Appendices
 
 
Parts:
 
Draft EIS Table of Contents
 
Sections 1 through 3
 
 
Sections 4.1 4.3
Sections 4.4 4.9
Sections 4.10 9
 
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B, Part 1
Appendix B, Part 2
Appendix B, Part 3
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E, Part 1
Appendix E, Part 2
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H**
V

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 949

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel PRIDE OF MANY.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1999

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

Committee on Transporation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

PRIDE OF MANY.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•HR 949 IH

1 trade for the vessel PRIDE OF MANY (Canadian official

2 number 811529).

Æ
§ 514.4 How does a gaming operation calculate the amount of the annual fee it owes? ( a ) The amount of annual fees owed shall be computed using: ( 1 ) The most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission; and
( 2 ) The assessable gross revenues for the gaming operation's assessed fiscal year.
( b ) Assessed fiscal year means the gaming operation's fiscal year ending prior to January 1 of the year the Commission adopted fee rates.
( c ) For purposes of computing fees, assessable gross revenues for each gaming operation are the total amount of money wagered on class II and III games, plus entry fees (including table or card fees), less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded, less any amounts wagered that the gaming operation issued as promotional credits, and less an allowance for capital expenditures for structures as reflected in the gaming operation's audited financial statements.
( d ) Tier 1 assessable gross revenues are the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation. Tier 2 assessable gross revenues are the amounts in excess of the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation.
( e ) The allowance for capital expenditures for structures shall be either: ( 1 ) An amount not to exceed 5% of the cost of structures in use throughout the assessed fiscal year and 2.5% of the cost of structures in use during only a part of the assessed fiscal year; or
( 2 ) An amount not to exceed 10% of the total amount of depreciation expenses for the assessed fiscal year.
( f ) Unless otherwise provided by regulation, generally accepted accounting principles shall be used.
[83 FR 2905, Jan. 22, 2018, as amended at 87 FR 54367, Sept. 6, 2022]
Exhibit 10.6





Exhibit A (Services)



The Services to be provided by
Consultant (BCMG) are as follows within the entertainment and technology sector that applies to Company’s business model:



| | 1. | Identify and vet potential acquisitions
| | -- | ---------------------------------------

| | 2. | Identify and vet potential Joint Ventures
| | -- | -----------------------------------------

| | 3. | General consulting and guidance on business development
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------









| | Web: http://gawk.com |  | Email: info@gawk.com |  | Phone: (888) 754-6190
| | -------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------
#### Floyd Williams v. The State.

No. 22718.

Delivered January 19, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*564
      *Eugene F. Mathis,*of Lubbock, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $250.00.

Appellant was the owner and operator of the Lamar Cafe, in Lubbock. Attached to, and operated in connection with, the cafe was a small dance hall, around the walls of which were “booths,” for the use of the patrons. A toilet was attached to the cafe, the use of which was available to the patrons.

Agents of the Texas Liquor Control Board searched the premises mentioned and found in and around the toilet three and one-third pints of whiskey, in pint bottles. In the dance hall, and in one of the booths, were two pints of whiskey. At the time of the search, patrons were in the cafe and dance hall. Of the whiskey found in the toilet, appellant claimed the one-third pint. He denied any knowledge of, or connection with, all the other whisky so found. At the time the search was begun, appellant was in the front of the cafe, at the cash register, where he remained until the search was completed. There is an absence of any testimony showing that, prior to the search, appellant had been in the toilet or dance hall.

There is affirmative defensive testimony to the effect that at least two of the pint bottles of whiskey found in the toilet and that found in the dance hall belonged to, and had been placed there by, patrons of the cafe.

Under the facts stated, the trial court; though requested, refused to charge upon circumstantial evidence. In this, he was in error. Under the facts stated, the State’s case was one of circumstantial evidence. Schenk v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 564, 293 S. W. 1101; McFarlan v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 292 S. W. 885; Young v. State, 114 Tex. Cr. R. 135, 24 S. W. (2d) 829; Bickerstaff v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. R. 69, 139 S. W. (2d) 110; Thursby v. State, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 295, 158 S. W. (2d) 539; Green v. State, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 337, 158 S. W. (2d) 771; Lollar v. State, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 420, 159 S. W. (2d) 130.

For the reason assigned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*565The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Consent of DeGolyer and MacNaughton



 Exhibit 10.2 
 DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 
 500 | SPRING VALLEY ROAD 
 SUITE 800 EAST 
 DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 
 May 29, 2008 
 Repsol YPF, S.A. 
 Paseo de la Castellana
278 – 280 
 28046 Madrid 
 Spain 
 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 We hereby consent to the
references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and the inclusion of information derived from our reports entitled “Report as of December 31, 2005 on Reserves of Certain Properties in Argentina attributable to Repsol YPF,” “Report as of
September 30, 2006 on Reserves of Certain Properties in Argentina attributable to Repsol YPF,” and “Report as of September 30, 2007 on Reserves of Certain Properties in Argentina attributable to Repsol YPF” in the sections listed
below of the Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2007, of Repsol YPF, S.A. (the Form 20-F) and in the “Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited information)” in the Consolidated
Financial Statements included in the Form 20-F: 
 “Part I 
 2.2.1.1 Internal Controls on Reserves and Reserves Audits” 
 “Part III 
 15. Exhibits” 







 DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 
 “Part III 
 Consolidated Financial Statements

 Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (Unaudited Information) 
 Estimated proved net developed and undeveloped oil and gas reserves:” 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	


	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON


  

 2
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delores Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 60050;

First District (2nd Division)

December 3, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People.

PER CURIAM.
#### § 571.3 Confidentiality.

Unless confidentiality is waived, the Commission shall treat as confidential any and all information received under the Act that falls within the exemptions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (4) and (7); *except* that when such information indicates a violation of Federal, State, or tribal statutes, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions, the Commission shall provide such information to appropriate law enforcement officials. The confidentiality of documents submitted in a multiple-party proceeding is addressed in § 584.9 of this chapter.

[58 FR 5842, Jan. 22, 1993, as amended at 80 FR 31995, June 5, 2015]