alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5394. Prohibition on taxpayer funding

#### (a) Liquidation required

All financial companies put into receivership under this subchapter shall be liquidated. No taxpayer funds shall be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company under this subchapter.

#### (b) Recovery of funds

All funds expended in the liquidation of a financial company under this subchapter shall be recovered from the disposition of assets of such financial company, or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments.

#### (c) No losses to taxpayers

Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title II, §214, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1518.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1442, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.
v117106_ex10-7 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


Exhibit
      10.7
121 STAT. 62 PUBLIC LAW 110–7—MAR. 7, 2007

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 49:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):

Jan. 29, considered and passed House.

Feb. 17, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 110–7

110th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 North

Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the ‘‘Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GERALD R. FORD, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post

Office Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Approved March 7, 2007.

Mar. 7, 2007

[H.R. 49]
# O RIGINA L Jf 

# n tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# Qeourt ofjf 

# eberal Qelaitns No. 1 7- 11 27C (Filed December 18, 20 17) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * 

### * * * * * * 

### * * * * * * *
KELLY SCOTT THOMAS-BEY, Plaintiff,

v. THE UNITED STATES, 

### * * * * * * * * * * Defendant. 

### * * * 

### * 

### * * 

### * * * 

### * * * 

### * * 

### * * 

### * * * 

### *
ORDER 

# FILED DEC 1 8 2017 U

. S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On August 21, 2017, plaintiff Kelly Scott Thomas-Bey, who is a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this court. Complaints filed in this court must be accompanied by either a $400 filing fee pursuant to Rule 77
.l(c) of the Rules of the United States Co urt of Federal Cl aims (RCFC) or an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. At the time Mr. Thom asBey filed hi s complaint, he attached a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis-which was granted by the Court on October 10, 2017
. See ECF No. 6. On October 20, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss this case under RCFC 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), alleging that the plaintiff's claims fall outside of the court's jurisdiction or otherwise fai l to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 7. A response was due from Mr. Thomas-Bey by November 17, 2017, but Mr. Thomas-Bey failed to file any form of a response. Because Mr. Thomas-Bey has not responded to the government's motion to dismiss this matter, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute under RCFC 41(b). The governmen t's motion to dismiss this case i s th erefore DENIED as moot. The Court notes, how ever, that even had Mr. Thomas-Bey responded to the government's motion, hi s comp laint would still be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction because his claims are clearly frivolous. It appears that Mr. Thomas-Bey believes that his birth cert ificate is some kind of security instrument or 

### 7017 1450 DODD 1346 0492promi ssory note and that t h e government h as prevented him from claiming a nd collecting it s value. Compl. at 4- 7 , ECF No. 1. As t h e gove rnme n t points o ut, Mr. Thomas-Bey 's claims r e ly on t h e "sovereign cit i zen" t heory that birth certificates cr eate an ent itle me n t to collect money from t h e United States governme nt. Mot. to Di s m iss at 4. Plaintiff maintains that the issuance of hi s birth certificate resulte d in financial transactions involvin g the U.S. Department of the Treas ury a nd the U.S. D epartment of Comme r ce . Compl. 

### iii! 6- 7. Such bizarre a llegations have b ee n fo und fri vol ou s by our court. 

### See Gravatt v. United States, 100 F e d
. Cl. 279 , 286-88 (20 11 ). Thus, in a ny even t, the Court would h ave been un ab l e to entertain Mr. Thomas -B ey's assertions . 

### See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 ( 1946) (explaining that a fede ral court may dis mi ss a case for want ofjurisdiction when th e "claim i s wholly insubsta nti a l a nd frivol ou s"). The Cl e rk is directed to close this case. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge

- 2 -
AFS-13-303-E

May 13, 2013

 Exemption No. 131M

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9519

Maj. Alan W. Myrick

Flight Standards Division

Department of the Air Force

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

Dear Maj. Myrick:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 131, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On March 19, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for an extension of Exemption No. 131, as amended. That 

exemption from § 91.159 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows the USAF to 

conduct its hurricane reconnaissance flights without maintaining the appropriate cruising 

altitudes as prescribed by § 91.159.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the USAF.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 131, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. § 40109, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. Notwithstanding the provisions of the exemption, the 

pilot of an aircraft engaged in the above operations is not relieved of the responsibility to see 

and avoid other aircraft as required by other provisions of the regulations.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 131, as amended, to

September 30, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John P. Crowley, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the ”Company”);

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.                 The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) rule 13a—15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have:

(i)            designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report was being prepared;

(ii)        evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report; and

(iii)    disclosed in this report anychange in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of a quarterly report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                 The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

(i)            all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(ii)        any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 10,2005 
|        | /s/ JOHN P. CROWLEY        |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | John P. Crowley            |   |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |

 

----
# C_2007095EN.01002602.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/26

---

Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-106/07)

(2007/C 95/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by still not having drawn up, for many French ports, the waste reception and handling plans provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/59/EC (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of their existence and their implementation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by still not having drawn up, for many French ports, the waste reception and handling plans provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/59/EC (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of their existence and their implementation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/59/EC expired on 27 December 2002.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

1

---
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

 
  
 



 
 200 Lafayette Street, 6th Floor 

New York, New York 10012 
 T(212) 364 6490 
 chobani.com 

 

			
		  	Jason Blaisure
		
		  	Dear Jason,
		
	AUGUST 2018	  	We are pleased to inform you of our decision to award you with Retention Bonus Payments, as a component of your Total Compensation package.
	-	  	
	NEW YORK, NY	  	Effective with the payroll immediately following June 30 and December 31 in each of fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020, we will make a lump sum payment to you in the amount of $25,000, subject to all taxes required by
law.
		
		  	Should Chobani implement a long term incentive program, these Retention Bonus Payments would cease.
		
		  	All of us here at Chobani wish to extend our appreciation for your contributions and commitment to the organization. Your continued dedication to our goals is essential to our future success.
		
		  	Sincerely,

  

			
		
		  	/s/ Grace Zuncic
		
		  	Grace Zuncic
		  	Senior Vice President, People
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2001, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Thomas J. Howells, President and Travis Jenson, Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: 6/24/2005                          /s/Thomas J. Howells
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Thomas J. Howells
                                         President and director


Date: 6/24/2005                          /s/Travis Jenson
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Travis Jenson
                                         Secretary and director
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL A. C A R

NAC C HI, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. U.S. B ANK N.A. ND; U.S. B A NC ORP, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17293 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-06339-LB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia La ure l D. B e e le r, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d Se pte m

b e r 23, 2014 *** B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l A. C arna c c hi a

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his R

a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a

nd C orrupt Orga

niz ations Ac t (“ R IC O” ) 

# FIL ED OCT 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

rtie s c onse n te d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, C lark v . Yose miteC

mty . C oll. Dist. , 785 F.2d 781, 784 (9th C ir. 1986), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C arna c c hi’ s RIC O c l a im a s ba rre d by the d oc trine of c la im pre c lusion be c a use C arna c c hi’ s RIC O c la i m wa s ba s e d on the sam e prim ary

right a sse rte d in a

prior sta te c ourt a c tion tha

t wa s dism isse d without le ave to a m e nd. Se e id. (fe de ra l c ourts look to sta te la w to de te rm ine the pre c lusive e ffe c t of a sta te c ourt judgm e n t ); My c oge n C orp. v . Monsanto C

o. , 51 P.3d 297, 301, 306-07 (C a l. 2002) (se tting forth e l e m e nts of thedoc trine of c la i m pre c lusion unde r C a lifornia ’ s prim ary rights the ory ); K

e idatz v . Albany , 249 P.2d 264, 265 (C a l. 1952) (thesusta ining of a de m urre r and a

n a djudic ation tha

t the fa c ts a lle ge d do not sta te a c la im is a judgm e nt on the m e rits a nd ba rs a se c ond a c tion unle ss ne w fa c ts c ure de fe c ts in theorigina l ple a ding). C ontra ry to C arna c c hi’ s c onte ntion, thepublic polic y e xc e ption to C a lifornia ’ s c la i m

pre c lusion la

w doe s not a

p ply in this c a s e . Se e C

lark , 785 F.2d at 788 (re lie f is gra

nte d in “unusua l c i rc um sta nc e s” to pre ve nt “ m anife st injustic e ” and “ a p pe ars to be lim ite d to situa tions whe re the doc t

rine of [c la im

pre c lusion] pre v e n ts re litiga

tion of pureque stions of la w ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). W e re je c t C arna c c hi’ s c onte n tion re ga rding the ultra

vire s doc trine . 1 2 - 1 7 2 9 3 2C arna c c h i’ s pe nding m otions for judic ia l notic e and ora l a rgum e nt a re de nie d a s unne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 2 9 3 3
§ 115.121 Evidence protocols and forensic medical examinations. ( a ) To the extent that the agency is responsible for investigating allegations of sexual abuse in its holding facilities, the agency shall follow a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol shall be developed in coordination with DHS and shall be developmentally appropriate for juveniles, where applicable.
( b ) In developing the protocol referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, the agency shall consider how best to utilize available community resources and services to provide valuable expertise and support in the areas of crisis intervention and counseling to most appropriately address victims' needs.
( c ) Where evidentiarily or medically appropriate, at no cost to the detainee, and only with the detainee's consent, the agency shall arrange for or refer the alleged victim detainee to a medical facility to undergo a forensic medical examination, including a Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (SAFE) or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) where practicable. If SAFEs or SANEs cannot be made available, the examination can be performed by other qualified health care personnel.
( d ) If, in connection with an allegation of sexual abuse, the detainee is transported for a forensic examination to an outside hospital that offers victim advocacy services, the detainee shall be permitted to use such services to the extent available, consistent with security needs.
( e ) To the extent that the agency is not responsible for investigating allegations of sexual abuse, the agency shall request that the investigating agency follow the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
§ 7.2 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Commission* means the Federal Election Commission.
( b ) *Commissioner* means a member of the Federal Election Commission, in accordance with 52 U.S.C. 30106.
( c ) *Designated Agency Ethics Official* means the employee designated by the Commission to administer the provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. appendix), as amended, and includes a designee of the Designated Agency Ethics Official. The General Counsel serves as the Commission's Designated Agency Ethics Official.
( d ) *Employee* means an employee of the Federal Election Commission and includes a special Government employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).
( e ) *Ex parte communication* means any written or oral communication by any person outside the agency to any Commissioner or any member of any Commissioner's staff, but not to any other Commission employee, that imparts information or argument regarding prospective Commission action or potential action concerning any pending enforcement matter.
( f ) *Inspector General* means the individual appointed by the Commission to administer the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix), and includes any designee of the Inspector General.
[76 FR 70330, Nov. 14, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 77844, Dec. 29, 2014; 82 FR 60853, Dec. 26, 2017]
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  HazMat Technical Resources 
                      -  Technical Reports 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Fire Investigation of DOT 3AL Cylinder Failure in Luraville, FL                   

## Related Documents

                  -                                          Fire Investigation of DOT 3AL Cylinder Failure in Luraville, FL PDF                   

# Fire Investigation of DOT 3AL Cylinder Failure in Luraville, FL

**September 1, 2006**

The main purpose of this technical evaluation was to determine the initial cause of an aluminum oxygen cylinder failure in Luraville, FL. Evaluation included chemical analysis and cause for ignition on the cylinder valve.

Key Words: oxygen, chemical analysis, DOT 3AL failure, cylinder valve, DOT 3AL cylinder with gaseous oxygen, ruptured cylinder, FTIR analysis, SEM/EDS analysis

----

If you have any **technical questions** not addressed by this or associated documents, contact Mark Toughiry, 202-366-4545.
#### William R. Zenga *v.*Plainville Town Council et al.

*Richard G. Adams*and *Edward J. McMahon,*in support of the petition.

*Allen J. Segal,*in opposition.

Submitted February 1

decided February 7, 1974

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2060

RAW COAL MINING COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW 

COMMISSION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor 

Relations Board. (WEVA 2011-858; WEVA 2011-2051; WEVA 2011-409)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melissa M. Robinson, Adam J. Schwendeman, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, 

Solicitor of Labor, Heidi W. Strassler, Associate Solicitor, W. 

Christian Schumann, Appellate Litigation, David L. Edeli, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raw Coal Mining Company seeks review of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Review Commission’s (“Commission”) order

denying its motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(1), to reopen the civil penalty assessment proceedings. 

Our review of the record reveals that Raw Coal failed to urge 

before the Commission the objection it now makes to this court, 

and it has not presented extraordinary circumstances excusing 

that failure. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 816(a)(1), 823(d)(2)(A)(iii) 

(2012) Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED