alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §68f. Exclusion of misbranded wool products

All wool products imported into the United States, except those made more than twenty years prior to such importation, shall be stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and all invoices of such wool products required under the Act of June 17, 1930 (c. 497, title IV, 46 Stat. 719), shall set forth, in addition to the matter therein specified, the information with respect to said wool products required under the provisions of this subchapter, which information shall be in the invoices prior to their certification under said Act of June 17, 1930.

The falsification of, or failure to set forth, said information in said invoices, or the falsification or perjury of the consignee's declaration provided for in said Act of June 17, 1930, insofar as it relates to said information, shall be an unfair method of competition, and an unfair and deceptive act, or practice, in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act; and any person who falsifies, or fails to set forth, said information in said invoices, or who falsifies or perjures said consignee's declaration insofar as it relates to said information, may thenceforth be prohibited by the Commission from importing, or participating in the importation of, any wool products into the United States except upon filing bond with the Secretary of the Treasury in a sum double the value of said wool products and any duty thereon, conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of this subchapter.

A verified statement from the manufacturer or producer of such wool products showing their fiber content as required under the provisions of this subchapter may be required under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

(Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, §8, 54 Stat. 1132.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Provisions covering invoices of wool products required under the Act of June 17, 1930 (c. 497, title IV, 46 Stat. 719), referred to in text, are set out as section 1481 et seq. of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Provisions covering certification of invoices under the Act of June 17, 1930, referred to in text, are set out as section 1482 of Title 19.

Provisions covering the consignee's declaration under the Act of June 17, 1930, referred to in text, are set out in section 1485 of Title 19.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Federal Trade Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 8 of 1950, §1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1264, set out under section 41 of this title.
# C_2011030EN.01006702.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/67

---

Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission

(Case F-123/10)

()

2011/C 30/134

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Giovanni Bancale (Waterloo, Belgium) and Roberto Buccheri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the selection board decisions in the competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 not to admit the applicants to the competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare unlawful section 4 of Title III of competition notice EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF09, in that it prohibits taking into account university level experience obtained prior to the obtaining of a university qualification; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare unlawful section 4 of Title III of competition notice EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF09, in that it prohibits taking into account university level experience obtained prior to the obtaining of a university qualification;

| — | annul the decisions excluding the applicants from the competition EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions excluding the applicants from the competition EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF/09;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Invites Public Comments on Proposal to Streamline Eligibility Rules for Single Family 

Housing Loans

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today

announced that USDA is seeking comments on a proposal to simplify income eligibility and asset rules for the 

Department’s single family housing loan programs. 

USDA proposes to create a two-tier income structure to determine eligibility for USDA single family 

housing loans. Under the proposal, there would be two categories for household income limits: one category for 

one- to four-person households, and a second category for five- to eight-person households. Currently, there are 

eight categories. 

The Department also proposes to exclude certain types of assets – such as retirement and education savings –

when calculating an applicant’s down payment ability.

A USDA pilot that began in 2016 found that using a two-tier income eligibility structure resulted in increased

homeownership opportunities for low-income families.

The deadline to submit comments is Oct. 30, 2018. For more information on the proposed changes and how 

to submit comments, see page 44504 of the Aug. 31, 2018, Federal Register.

#
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.19
TERMINATION OF THE REPLACEMENT CAPITAL COVENANT
TERMINATION OF THE REPLACEMENT CAPITAL COVENANT, dated as of June 23, 2010 (this “Termination”), by The Progressive Corporation, an Ohio corporation (together with its successors and assigns, the “Company”).
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, the Company granted a Replacement Capital Covenant (the “Covenant”) in favor of certain holders of the Company’s senior debt, which at all times during the effectiveness of the Covenant have been the holders of the Company’s 6.25% Senior Notes due December 1, 2032 (collectively, the “Notes”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Covenant, the Covenant may be terminated if the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Notes consent or agree in writing to the termination of the Covenant and the obligations of the Company thereunder;
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2010, the Company commenced a solicitation of consents (“Consent Solicitation”) from the holders of the Notes of record on June 9, 2010 to the proposed termination of the Covenant; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent Solicitation, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 23, 2010, the expiration time for the Consent Solicitation, holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Notes validly delivered, and did not validly revoke, their consent to the termination of the Covenant.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby terminates the Covenant and the obligations of the Company thereunder, which shall be of no further force or effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Termination to be executed by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year first above written.
 
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett

	 
	 
	Name:
	 
	Charles E. Jarrett

	 
	 
	Title:
	 
	Secretary, Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
JUNIPER DUNES
 

The Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area is a very large

dune system where natural processes are intact and

the overall species diversity is high. It contains some

of Washington State’s largest sand dunes (up to 130

feet in height and 1,200 feet in width) and largest remaining natural groves of western juniper. 

The Wilderness provides habitat for

some rare species including the plant

Gray cryptantha, and from the animal

kingdom: Sagebrush Lizard, Blacktailed Jackrabbit, Grasshopper Mouse,

Ord’s Kanagaroo Rat, Ferruginous

Hawk and Swainson’s Hawk. 

A permit is required for overnight stays; permits

are available on the BLM’s Juniper Dunes Recreation

Site webpage. A permit must be filled out and mailed

to the BLM Spokane District Office prior to visiting

the Wilderness. 

Wilderness visitors must pack in all drinking water

and be prepared for large temperature swings.Proper

sun protection such as a wide-brimmed hat

is recommended, even in early spring and late fall,

along with sun screen lotion. There are no sources of

ground water in the Wilderness. 
JUNIPER DUNES 


WILDERNESS 

I ./·

.L./ ~ I 

) s 0.5 ·

0 0 •.

· 
 5 1Mile 

E3:=====:==r==:::::J 

0.5 0 0.5 1Kilometer 

I 

// 

·--r:........· I ' .

• ! •

I : 

.. .... . .... ... ... . 

.......... ......... ..: ...... . :.... ..··· JUNIPER DUNES 

: .........··· 

..

. .

.... 

..... 

WILDERNESS AREA 

Closed to Motorized Vehicles 

: ~~....,"""'.... ........ I rking . ...··· . .•.•........•.•.•.•••.....· ... 

High clearance 4-wheel drive highly recommended 

beyond Peterson Road. Park at upper 

Information/Parking area on Juniper Road, and travel 

by foot, horse or OHV the remaining distance to 

Wilderness boundary or gate, or if continuing down 

North Spur Road. Otherwise you risk getting stuck on 

very loose sand roads. For horse access into the 

Wilderness. call the Spokane BLM office prior to your 

trip. 

' /-l

l 

J 

( 

/

f-···­ ~ , o'li I ~ 

I 

( 

\ 

~.~ ·-··

I \_., 

\.. 

Surtace management and land ownership is 

\ 

\

\---..L·"'-..... I ···"-· 

l.~ 

subject to ongoing change. Contact the BLM W!J 1!;, ~ lHJ IT ]l::g (G\ 'II' (Q) ]M LEGEND Prineville District office for further information.

Trail 
 Administered Land :ff

.-c=J----, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
 Improved Road (OHV use limited to designated roads and trails) ..........
 Other Road or Trail, BLM Wilderness Area (closed to Motorized Vehicles) Access as Designated 

BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern ...,.__..___,._ Fence 

-

(OHV use limited to designated roads and trails) 

Washington Dept. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the of Natural Resources accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or 

aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from c=J Private or Other various sources. This information may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital 

means and may be updated without notification. M13-12-03
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144126 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144126

COA: 305286

Oceana CC: 87-001507-FC

MICHAEL ANTHONY GRABINSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for 

personal protection order and permanent restraining order is DENIED.
§ 367.1710 Account 171, Interest and dividends receivable. ( a ) This account must include the amount of interest on bonds, mortgages, notes, commercial paper, loans, open accounts, deposits, and other similar items, the payment of which is reasonably assured, and the amount of dividends declared or guaranteed on stocks owned.
( b ) Interest that is not subject to current settlement must not be included in this account, but in the account in which is carried the principal on which the interest is accrued.
( c ) Interest and dividends receivable from associate companies must be included in account 146, Accounts receivable from associate companies (§ 367.1460).
Peter Wong 14650 Dequindre Detroit, MI 48212-1504 March 19,2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation

... ;:; 1200NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Approve DeltaAirLines Application for Detroitto Haneda Service
'.,j Dear SecretaryLaHood: On behalfofmy business, I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service betweenDetroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service wouldbe a majorbenefit for our region, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose**bu~iness** models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience of flying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit ourbusiness travelers. Thank you for consideration ofthis request. Sincerely,

PeterWong CPA 3138836969

", :/

•**~** 1 :
# C_2011080EN.01001202.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 December 2010 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

(Case C-613/10)

2011/C 80/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is there a conflict between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other hand, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, and the documents COM(2001) 260 final of 23.05.2001 and COM(2000) 348 final of 07.06.2000, and is there also unequal treatment of the VAT rules at Community level and consequently a need of harmonisation with the other European systems, given that various Member States apply, subject to certain conditions, a system of taxation at a lower rate?

---
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Expands Provisions for Lenders to Offer Temporary Exceptions to Payment Deferrals

for Agency Guaranteed Loan Programs

WASHINGTON, April 8, 2020 – USDA Rural Development Deputy Under Secretary Bette Brand today 

announced that USDA is expanding servicing options for guaranteed lenders due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

USDA is expanding upon the deferral flexibilities it announced March 31, 2020. The expanded notice provides 

that guaranteed lenders may also approve and make covered loans under the provisions of Section 1102 of the 

CARES Act. Section 1102 pertains to the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program.

Guaranteed lenders must notify USDA Rural Development in writing of any covered loans made under Section 

1102 of the CARES Act. Written notification will meet the standard for concurrence until Sept. 30, 2020. After 

Sept. 30, 2020, lenders must resume obtaining Agency approval in accordance with all applicable program 

regulations, forms and existing authorities. 

The deferrals apply to Business and Industry Loan Guarantees, Rural Energy for America Program Loan 

Guarantees, Community Facilities Loan Guarantees, and Water and Waste Disposal Loan Guarantees.

For additional information, see page 19655 of the April 8, 2020, Federal Register.

Questions regarding this announcement may be directed to:

• Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Aaron Morris (Aaron.Morris@usda.gov)

• Rural Housing Service: Deborah Jackson (Deborah.Jackson2@usda.gov)

• Rural Utilities Service: Darrel Lipscomb (Darrel.Lipscomb@usda.gov) 

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2013225EN.01005602.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer (C-436/11), Ekkerhard Schauβ (C-437/11) v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA (C-436/11), Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (C-437/11)

(Joined Cases C-436/11 and C-437/11) (1)

1

2013/C 225/106

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

1

---
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.9


Summary Description of 
Named Executive Officer Compensation


There have been no changes in compensation for current officers who were identified as named executive officers in the Partnership's 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
# Appendix D_Intro

GIS-based Identification of Areas with Mineral Resource Potential for Six Selected Deposit Groups, Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Planning Area, Alaska  Appendix D. Lithology keyword search terms for an anticipated U.S. Geological Survey geologic map of Alaska.     An anticipated geologic map of Alaska (Wilson, Frederic H., and others, USGS, written commun.) portrays the distribution of different rock types across the State. For most mineral deposit types, we used the lithology code index for the geologic map database to identify rock types that were most prospective and/or best suited for hosting the deposit type. The lithology query results were used to develop derivative, generalized lithology layers to show the distribution of favorable rock types for each deposit type across the state. The specific lithologies queried for each deposit model are listed in the following worksheets organized by deposit type. 

# REE_lith_keywords

# Placer_lith_keywords

# PGE_lith_keywords

# CuCarbonates_lith_keywords

# SandU_lith_keywords

# SnGranite_lith_keywords
# C_2010209EN.01005001.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/50

---

Action brought on 31 May 2010 — KNUT IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)

(Case T-250/10)

()

2010/C 209/75

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KNUT IP Management Ltd. (London, England) (represented by: C. Jaeckel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2010 in Case R 650/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2010 in Case R 650/2009-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘KNUT — DER EISBÄR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘KNUD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 28; German word mark ‘Knut — der Eisbär’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28 and 41; German word mark ‘KNUT’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43; German word mark ‘KNUT’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 42.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition upheld in full.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2012133EN.01001102.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/11

---

Order of the Court of 2 February 2012 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission

(Case C-404/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Sodium chlorate market - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Presumption of decisive influence - Scope of that presumption - Factors not capable of rebutting the presumption - Personal fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 133/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 May 2011 in Case T-299/08 Elf Aquitaine v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principles of conferral and proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence, of the principles of equality and equality of arms — Duty to state reasons — Illegality of the personal fine

Elf Aquitaine

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Elf Aquitaine SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elf Aquitaine SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
#### § 1318.406 Supplements.

If TVA makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there is significant new information relevant to environmental concerns, and important components of the proposed action remain to be implemented, the NEPA compliance staff and TVA legal counsel, in consultation with the initiating TVA entity, will determine how the FEIS should be supplemented. The NEPA compliance staff will be responsible for preparing a supplement to an EIS.