alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
D315822- CS 05/01/2020

coronavirus/gov.cdc

ُحتمل إصابتك به:ًا بفريوس كوفيد19- أو ي

إذا كنت مصاب

والعطس. .6 ِّغط فمك عندالسعال

.2 راقبأعراضك

بعناية. إذا تفاقمت أعراضك،

فاتصل بمقدم الرعاية الصحية

المتابع لك على الفور. 

.4 إذاكان لديك موعدمع طبيبك،

ا وأخبره

ً

فاتصل بالطبيب مسبق

بأنك مصاب بفيروس كوفيد19-

أو يُحتمل إصابتك به.

.7 اغسل يديك ً كثيرا بالماء والصابون

ّ ف

لمدة 20 ثانية على األقل، أو نظ

يديك باستخداممعقم لليدين يحتوي

على كحول %60 على األقل. 

.8 َ ابق، قدر المستطاع، في غرفةمنفصلة

ً بعيدا عن األشخاصاآلخرين في

المنزل. ويجب عليك ً أيضا استخدام

مرحاض منفصل، إن كان ذلك ً متاحا. 

إذا كنت بحاجة إلى التواجد بالقرب من

أشخاص آخرين داخل المنزل أو خارجه،

ِ فارتد قناع للوجه.

.1 َ ابق في المنزل وال تذهب إلى العمل

أو المدرسة. وتجنب التواجد في األماكن

العامة األخرى. وإذاكان يجب عليك

مغادرة المنزل، فتجنب استخدام أي

نوع من وسائل النقل العام، أو مشاركة

الركوب، أو سيارات األجرة.

.9 تجنبمشاركة المتعلقات

الشخصية مع اآلخرين في المنزل،

مثل األطباق والمناشف وبياضات

ّ األسرة.

من السوائل. .3 استرح وتناول الكثير

ِّ1010 نظف كل األسطح كثيرة المالمسة،

مثل المناضد، وأسطح الطاوالت،

ومقابض األبواب. استخدم بخاخات

التنظيف المنزلي أو المناديل المبللة،

ا لتعليمات الملصق. 

ً

وفق

.5 في الحاالت الطبية الطارئة،

اتصل على الرقم ،911 وأبلِغ

مشغل الهاتف بأنك مصاب

بفيروس كوفيد19- أو يُحتمل

إصابتك به.

10 أشياء يمكنك القيامبها للسيطرة على

أعراضكوفيد19- في المنزل
#### § 36.506 Alternative means of dispute resolution.

Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law, the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, factfinding, minitrials, and arbitration, is encouraged to resolve disputes arising under the Act and this part.
#### Utica Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v P.M.A. Corporation et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) CNA Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Deborah Smith, Plaintiff, v P.M.A. Corporation, Defendant. (Action No. 2.) Benjamin Maggio et al., Respondents, v Platzner Management Co., Defendant, and P.M.A. Corporation, Appellant. (And Other Titles.) (Action No. 3.)

[826 NYS2d 138]

In several related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, etc., EM.A. Corporation, a defendant in action Nos. 1 and 3, and Flatzner International Group, Ltd., a defendant in action No. 1, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.) entered October 28, 2005, which denied that branch of their motion which was to strike the note *794of issue and certificate of readiness and granted that branch of their motion which was for permission to conduct further discovery only to the extent of directing that certain discovery in action No. 3 be completed by a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Since the appellants failed to move to vacate the note of issue within 20 days after its filing *(see 22*NYCRR 202.21 [e]; *Rodriguez v Sau Wo Lau,*298 AD2d 376 [2002]), they were required to demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice *(see 22*NYCRR 202.21 [d]; *Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth.,*19 AD3d 366 [2005]; *Conrad v Conrad,*293 AD2d 442, 443 [2002]; *Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini,*265 AD2d 135, 140 [2000]). The substitution of new counsel or the delinquencies of predecessor counsel alone is insufficient to show the presence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness *(see Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp.,*269 AD2d 507 [2000]; *Lyons v Saperstein,*202 AD2d 401, 402 [1994]; *Ehrhart v County of Nassau,*106 AD2d 488 [1984]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for permission to conduct further discovery only to the extent of directing the appellants to complete certain discovery in action No. 3 by a date certain in view of the many years of delay *(cf. Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp., supra; see Lyons v Saperstein, supra).*Schmidt, J.P, Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### § 2.89 Miscellaneous provisions.

Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, the following sections in Subpart A of this part are also applicable to District of Columbia Code offenders:

2.5 (Sentence aggregation)

2.7 (Committed fines and restitution orders)

2.8 (Mental competency procedures)

2.10 (Date service of sentence commences)

2.16 (Parole of prisoner in State, local, or territorial institution)

2.19 (Information considered)

2.23 (Delegation to hearing examiners)

2.25 (Hearings by video conference)

2.30 (False information or new criminal conduct; Discovery after release)

2.32 (Parole to local or immigration detainers)

2.56 (Disclosure of Parole Commission file)

2.62 (Rewarding assistance in the prosecution of other offenders: criteria and guidelines)

2.63 (Quorum)

2.65 (Paroling policy for prisoners serving aggregated U.S. and D.C. Code sentences)

2.66 (Revocation Decision Without Hearing)

[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 69 FR 5274, Feb. 4, 2004; 72 FR 53116, Sept. 18, 2007; 83 FR 58500, Nov. 20, 2018]
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29603 29-APR-2011 10:49 AM

SCWC-29603 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I KENNETH MATHISON, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29603; CR. NO. 93-473) ORDER VACATING ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS UNTIMELY FILED ON APRIL 4, 2011 1 (By: Nakayama, J., for the court ) The Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari as Untimely filed on April 4, 2011, is hereby vacated. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 29, 2011. FOR THE COURT: /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Associate Justice

1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna, JJ.
Exhibit 32



Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (furnished but not filed)



In connection with this Annual Report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Joseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify that:



1.

        This Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.

        The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date:

        February 26, 2009

        

        By:

        /s/ Joseph S.
MicallefJoseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees,Chief Executive Officer






In connection with this Annual Report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Thomas A. Janochoski, Vice President & Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify that:



1.

        This Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.

        The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date:

        February 26, 2009

        

        By:

        /s/ Thomas A.
JanochoskiThomas A. Janochoski, Vice President & Secretary,Chief Financial Officer




---
#### Alma Jessop, Respondent, v. Augusta Pulver and Alonzo E. Pulver, Appellants.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
No. 20,081.

#### Edward McCray *v.*People of the State of Colorado.

(371 P. [2d] 422)

Decided May 14, 1962.

Mr. Charles Ginsberg for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. J. F. Brauer, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Chief Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff in error was charged with the crime of robbery in the district court in Denver and was convicted by a jury. In the writ of error before this court he contends that the evidence was wholly insufficient to support the verdict and that it was error for the court to deny his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty.

The Attorney General has filed a confession of error in which he acknowledges the judgment should be *179reversed and the case against the defendant dismissed. The Attorney General admits, and we agree, that the evidence is completely insufficient to support the verdict rendered. Under the authority of *Soto v.*People, 64 Colo. 528, 173 Pac. 399, we act affirmatively upon the request of the Attorney General.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the court to dismiss the information and to discharge the defendant.

Mr. Justice Sutton not participating.
Note about the Redesignation Substitute Reports 

The Redesignation Substitute Reports for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) One-Hour and 1997 

Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonattainment Areas were originally submitted to EPA on August 

18, 2015. Subsequent minor revisions and/or corrections were made to the reports. The final 

report for DFW was submitted by email on October 21, 2015.
#### § 314.7 Carcasses of livestock condemned on ante-mortem inspection not to pass through edible product areas.

Carcasses of livestock which have been condemned on ante-mortem inspection shall not be taken through rooms or compartments in which an edible product is prepared, handled, or stored.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FILED IN ITEM 3 TO THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000041296
<NAME> GIANT GROUP, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,164
<SECURITIES>                                     9,201
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,472<F1>
<PP&E>                                           6,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,503
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   745
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   559<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,092)<F3>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES ASSETS HELD-FOR-SALE OF $23,374.
<F2>INCLUDES CO-OWNERSHIP PROGRAM OF $463 AND DEPRECIATION OF $96.
<F3>INCLUDES EQUITY IN LOSS OF AFFILIATE OF $143.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2010234EN.01002602.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/26

---

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-305/10)

()

2010/C 234/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and M. van Beek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2005/47/EC had to be transposed expired on 26 July 2008. On the date on which the present action was brought, however, the defendant had not yet adopted all necessary transposition measures or, in any event, had not communicated them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15.

1

---
§ 115.364 Staff first responder duties. ( a ) Upon learning of an allegation that a resident was sexually abused, the first staff member to respond to the report shall be required to: ( 1 ) Separate the alleged victim and abuser;
( 2 ) Preserve and protect any crime scene until appropriate steps can be taken to collect any evidence;
( 3 ) If the abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, request that the alleged victim not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating; and
( 4 ) If the abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, ensure that the alleged abuser does not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating.
( b ) If the first staff responder is not a security staff member, the responder shall be required to request that the alleged victim not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, and then notify security staff.
No. 89-1122.

#### Christensen *v.*Pettey et al.

Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.5.1


 


 


 



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


CUSTODY AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to the Custody Agreement (the “First Amendment”) is made as of March 9, 2016, and effective as of November 1, 2015 by and between INTEGRITY CAPITAL INCOME FUND, INC., a Colorado Principal (the “Principal”), and INTEGRITY TRUST COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado trust company organized as a limited liability company (the “Agent”), as the assignee of the Agreement from Integrity Wealth Management a division of Integrity Bank & Trust, a Colorado Principal.







WHEREAS, the Principal and Agent desire to amend the Custody Agreement executed August 29, 2014 (the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, all defined terms used in this First Amendment, as denoted by the use of initial capital letters, have the same meaning as in the Agreement.







WHEREAS, the Principal and Agent desire to amend the calculation of fees being paid under this Agreement to match those being paid under the Investment Advisory and Administrative Services Agreement dated August 29, 2014 between the Principal and the Agent in order to reduce the fees and time spent on calculation of such fees.







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Principal and Agent agree as follows:







1.            Amendment to Section 7 (Compensation of the Agent).  Section 7 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows (underlined language reflects corrected wording):







7.            Compensation of the Agent. The compensation for the Agent’s custody services hereunder, shall be calculated at an annual rate of 0.15% of the Principal’s average gross assets (the “Custody Fee”).  The Custody Fee shall be payable quarterly in arrears, and shall be calculated based on the average value of the Principal’s gross assets which includes cash of the Principal, at the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter and appropriately adjusted for any equity raises or repurchases during the current calendar quarter.   All or any part of the Custody Fee not taken as to any quarter shall be deferred without interest and may be taken in such other quarter as the Agent shall determinate







2.            Except as specifically amended or modified by the terms of this First Amendment, the Agreement shall be read, interpreted and construed as written and executed by the parties. No further amendments or modifications of the Agreement shall be made or implied unless they are contained in a further writing executed by the parties.


 


The Principal and Agent have executed this First Amendment to the Custody Agreement on the date first above written.







	
PRINCIPAL


Integrity Capital Income Fund, Inc.


 


 


By:  /s/ Eric S. Davis


       Eric S. Davis, President

	
AGENT


Integrity Trust Company, LLC


 


 


By:  /s/ Randall Rush


       Randall Rush, Manager
## Breadcrumb

-  Inicio 
-  SBA District Offices 

## Section navigation

-  Ubicaciones de la SBA    -  Oficinas centrales 
  -  Disaster Offices 
  -  District Offices      -  Alabama 
    -  Alaska 
    -  Arizona 
    -  Arkansas 
    -  Baltimore 
    -  Boise 
    -  Buffalo 
    -  Cleveland 
    -  Colorado 
    -  Columbus 
    -  Connecticut 
    -  Dallas / Fort Worth 
    -  Delaware 
    -  El Paso 
    -  Fresno 
    -  Georgia 
    -  Hawaii 
    -  Houston 
    -  Illinois 
    -  Indiana 
    -  Iowa 
    -  Kansas City 
    -  Kentucky 
    -  Los Angeles 
    -  Louisiana 
    -  Lower Rio Grande Valley 
    -  Maine 
    -  Massachusetts 
    -  Metro New York 
    -  Michigan 
    -  Minnesota 
    -  Mississippi 
    -  Montana 
    -  Nebraska 
    -  Nevada 
    -  New Hampshire 
    -  New Jersey 
    -  New Mexico 
    -  North Carolina 
    -  North Dakota 
    -  North Florida 
    -  Oklahoma 
    -  Orange County / Inland Empire 
    -  Philadelphia 
    -  Pittsburgh 
    -  Portland 
    -  Puerto Rico & U.S. Virgin Islands 
    -  Rhode Island 
    -  Sacramento 
    -  San Antonio 
    -  San Diego 
    -  San Francisco 
    -  Seattle 
    -  South Carolina 
    -  South Dakota 
    -  South Florida 
    -  St. Louis 
    -  Syracuse 
    -  Tennessee 
    -  Utah 
    -  Vermont 
    -  Virginia 
    -  Washington Metropolitan Area 
    -  West Texas 
    -  West Virginia 
    -  Wichita 
    -  Wisconsin 
    -  Wyoming 
  -  Loan and Guaranty Centers 
-  Gobierno transparente 
-  SBA Newsroom 
-  Work for SBA 
-  Organización 
-  Oversight and advocacy 
-  Information in other languages 

Parte o todo el contenido en esta página disponible solo en inglés.

# SBA District Offices
#### § 806.33 Interest on fees.

The Executive Director may establish interest to be paid on all overdue or outstanding fees of any nature that are payable to the Commission.
#### Perry Hyatt *et al. v.*Gilbert H. Brown *et al.*

Bill of *exceptions—when necessary.*The ruling of the court upon motions to dismiss for want of a bond for costs, and to dismiss an appeal for want of a sufficient appeal bond, must be preserved in a bill of excep. tions, if its propriety is sought to be questioned in this court.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Cumberland county.

This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, originating before a justice of the peace, and taken, by appeal of the defendants, to the circuit court. The court overruled defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit for want of a bond for costs, and, on motion of the plaintiffs, dismissed the appeal for want of a sufficient appeal bond. Ho bill of exceptions was taken in the case.

Mr. E. A. Allison, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. D. T. & D. S. McIntyre, for the defendants in error.

Per Curiam:

The questions attempted to be raised upon this record can not he considered, for the reason that there is no bill of exceptions preserving the rulings of the court below.

The judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<PAGE> 46

EXHIBIT 23.1
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent to the incorporation by reference in Circle International
Group,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries (formerly  the  Harper  Group,  Inc.)
Registration Statements No. 33-44357, No. 33-35272, No. 33-53557, No.
33-17601,  No.  333-04139  and  No. 333-04141  of  our  report  dated
March  13, 1998 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Circle
International Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Francisco, California
March 27, 1998