alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1826b. Duration of denial of port privileges and sanctions

Any denial of port privileges or sanction under section 1826a of this title with respect to a nation shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of Commerce certifies to the President and the Congress that such nation has terminated large-scale driftnet fishing by its nationals and vessels beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation or effectively addressed the offending activities for which the nation received a negative certification under 1826j(d) 1 or 1826k(c) of this title.

(Pub. L. 102–582, title I, §102, Nov. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 4903; Pub. L. 109–479, title IV, §403(b)(2), Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3632; Pub. L. 114–81, title I, §102(b), Nov. 5, 2015, 129 Stat. 656.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, and not as part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–81 struck out "or illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing" after "driftnet fishing" and inserted "or effectively addressed the offending activities for which the nation received a negative certification under 1826j(d) or 1826j(c) of this title" before period at end.

2007—Pub. L. 109–479 inserted "or illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing" after "driftnet fishing".

1 So in original. Probably should be preceded by "section".
www.cdc.gov/healthypets

Wash your paws!

Did you play with the class 

pet today? 

Animals sometimes carry germs that can 

make you sick, even if they look clean and 

healthy. Follow these steps to stay healthy 

around your class pet, whether it’s 

covered in fur, feathers, or scales!

Wash your hands with soap and 

water for 20 seconds after touching 

your pet. Need a timer? Hum the 

“Happy Birthday” song twice.

1

2 Don’t kiss or hold pets close to your face. 

This is one of the most common ways for 

germs to get into your body.

3 Don’t eat or drink near 

pets.

CS 302731-A
#### § 4.15 Certificate of Exemption.

The applicant, the Secretary and others to whom notice has been sent pursuant to § 4.7 shall be served a copy of the Commission's decision and order with respect to each application. Whenever the Commission decision is that the application be granted, the Commission shall issue a Certificate of Exemption to the applicant. The Certificate of Exemption shall extend only to the stated employment with the prospective employer named in the application.
NO. 07-11-00277-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

DECEMBER 16, 2011

JAMES DARIN MEACHAM, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY;

NO. CR2010-425; HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	Appellant, James Darin Meacham, appeals from a judgment convicting him of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.  Due to a defect in the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal, this Court abated the case and remanded it back to the trial court to cure the defect.  SeeMeacham v. State, No. 07-11-0277-CR, 2011 Tex.App. LEXIS 7508 (Tex.App.—Amarillo Sept. 14, 2011) (order).  In response, this Court received a supplemental clerk’s record that contains an Amended Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal that indicates that appellant has waived his right of appeal.  This certification is in the proper form, is signed by appellant, and is supported by the record.  

	By letter dated November 9, 2011, this Court notified appellant that the certification reflected that appellant had no right of appeal.  By this letter, the Court further notified appellant failure to file an amended certification showing a right of appeal or other grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 9, 2011, would result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2(a)(2) and (d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  No response or amended certification reflecting appellant’s right of appeal has been made part of the record.

	Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

Do not publish.  

2
§ 5.200 Registration. ( a ) Registration under the Act is accomplished by the filing of an initial statement together with all the exhibits required by § 5.201 and the filing of a supplemental statement at intervals of 6 months for the duration of the principal-agent relationship requiring registration.
( b ) The initial statement shall be filed on a form provided by the Registration Unit.
(28 U.S.C. 509 and 510; 5 U.S.C. 301)
[Order No. 376-67, 32 FR 6362, Apr. 22, 1967, as amended by Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52355, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 2674-2003, 68 FR 33630, June 5, 2003]
#### § 32.2 Required exhibits.

There shall be filed with the application and as a part thereof the following exhibits:

*Exhibit A.* Statement of the estimated capital cost of all facilities required to establish the connection, and the estimated annual cost of operating such facilities.

*Exhibit B.* A general or key map on a scale not greater than 20 miles to the inch showing, in separate colors, the territory served by each utility, and the location of the facilities used for the generation and transmission of electric energy, indicating on said map the points between which connection may be established most economically.
#### Pinnebad *v.*Pinnebad.

May 11, 1910.

Divorce. Before Judge Parker. Glynn superior court.

April 17, 1909.

*Ernest Dart,*lor plaintiff in error. *Grovait c&*Whitfield, contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. That a wife brings suit against her husband and recovers judgment against him for a debt due to hex-, and that after separation she sues him for temporary alimony and obtains a judgment in such action, does not constitute cruel treatment or furnish to the husband any basis for a suit for divorce.

2. Mere proof that a wife declined to cohabit with her husband will not authorize the grant of a divoi-ce to him on the ground of ci-uel treatment.

3. Considering wilful and persistent denial by a wife of the conjugal rights of her husband, without justification, and with the intention of casting him off as a husband completely and forever, as constituting desertion, although she continue to reside in the matrimonial domicile, under section 2426 _of the Civil Code such desertion must continue for three years in order to furnish a ground for a suit for divorce. *Whitfield*v. *Whitfield,*89 Ga. 871 (15 S. E. 543).

4. Under the rulings in *Ring*v. *Ring,*118 Ga. 183 (44 S. E. 861, 62 L. R. A. 878), *Brown*v. *Brown,*129 Ga. 247 (58 S. E. 825), and *Stoner*v. *Stoner,*ante, 368 (67 S. E. 1030), the evidence failed to show a case of ci’uel treatment which authorized the grant of a divorce on that ground; and the evidence of the plaintiff showed that there had been no desertion wilfully and continuously pei-sisted in for three years before the bringing of the suit. The verdict finding- a total divorce for the plaintiff was thei-efore unauthorized by the evidence.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Alldnson, J., disqualified.*
# OAR Box 1415 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 26 ) IV-H- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:26

AM Sheet 26 of 130 p. 1P. 2 

# A-W-sz. N-M- 7 "Bromberg , Kevi n L. " <kevin.bromberg@sb a .gov> 02/03/200 3 09:4 9 A M To : '"Bryo n P._Allen@omb.eop.gov" ' <Bryon_P
. Allen@omb.eop.gov> , Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA cc : Subject : RE : Reinforce d Plasti cComposite s NESHA P - Propose d Suggestio n

1 2 Fee t Dimensio n -
I'v e sen t bot h o f yo u faxe s fro mNobl e Composite s tha t contradic t the on e plan t tha t EPAsay s can mak e 100 % captur e an d contro l fo r larg e parts . Th e ge l coa t sprayboot h can d o so , bu t no t th e laminat e booth . Everymoto r vehicl e sidewal l mus t go throug h bot h booths , an

d therefor e thi s plan t canno t d o 100 % capture . Man yo f the part s i n the industrylist , fo r whic h ACM Asay s 100 % captur e i s no t feasible , woul d b e capture d b yEPA' s lates t approach . Keith , fo r wha t plant , i f any , can EP Ademonstrat e 100 % captur e an d control ? Wha t i s th e EPA' s basi s fo r the suggeste d dimension s below ? I f ther e i s n o furthe r evidence , I suspec t tha t the onl ynumbe r supporte d b y the record i s ACMA' s proposa l t o defin e "smal l ope n molde d parts " wit h n o dimensio n greate r than 1 2 feet . I f EPAha s no record suppor t fo r anothe r dimension , o r definition , th e 1 2 foo t dimensio n reasonabl ywel l capture s bi g facilitie s tha t specializ e i n smal l parts , an d ar e reasonabl yexpecte d t o b e abl e t o desig n i n a 100 % captur e system , becaus e i t doe s no t hav e the diversit yo f part s tha t man yfacilitie s have , wh o canno t design i n such a system . Let' s se e i f w e can wra p thi s u

p quickl y Kevi nOrigina l Messag e From : Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.go v[mailto:Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov ] Sent : Thursday , January30 , 200 3 5:0 6 PM To : kevin.bromberg@sba.go v Subject : Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s NESHA P Kevin

Her e i s EPA' s positio n o n reinforce d plastics . An ythoughts ? Bryo n 04:5 7 P M Forwarde d b yBryo n P . Allen/OMB/EO P o n 01/30/200 3



# " I

EP AAI R DOCKf *
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                         171,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,313,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 30,356,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               514,303
<PP&E>                                      17,702,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,041,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,114,109
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,192,254
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,837,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,041,879
<SALES>                                    163,040,212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           163,040,212
<CGS>                                      126,582,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              126,582,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,743,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,681,664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,648,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                   565,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,083,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,083,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 50.26-50.28 [Reserved]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131461 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ELLA COOPER FROEHLICH,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131461 

 COA: 264616

 Grand Traverse CC: 04-023834-CZ 

DEITER FROEHLICH and 

KIMBERLEE MCCARDELL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0918 

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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
### §2202a. Cost-share requirement

#### (a) Cost-share rate

Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the maximum cost-share payment under sections 2201 and 2202 of this title shall not exceed 75 percent of the total allowable cost, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (b) Exception

Notwithstanding subsection (a), a payment to a limited resource farmer or rancher, a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher (as defined in subsection (a) of section 2279 of title 7), or a beginning farmer or rancher under section 2201 or 2202 of this title shall not exceed 90 percent of the total allowable cost, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (c) Limitation

The total payment under sections 2201 and 2202 of this title for a single event may not exceed 50 percent of the agriculture value of the land, as determined by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 95–334, title IV, §402A, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title II, §2403(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4571.)
Exhibit  32.1



                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15D-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  Sharp Holding Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George  Sharp,  Chief  Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that:

     (1)     The 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:    MAY 18, 2004

/S/  GEORGE SHARP
-----------------
GEORGE SHARP
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SHARP HOLDING CORPORATION


<PAGE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 641 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for 

inclusion in, the Yucca House National Monument. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2019 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage 

available for inclusion in, the Yucca House National 

Monument. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yucca House National 

5 Monument Boundary Revision Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY 

7 REVISION. 

8 (a) BOUNDARY REVISION.—The boundaries of the 

9 Yucca House National Monument are revised to include 

10 the approximately 160 acres of land generally depicted as 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 641 IS

1 ‘‘Proposed Expansion Tract’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Yucca 

2 House National Monument Proposed Boundary Revision’’, 

3 numbered 318/105,085, and dated August 2010. 

4 (b) MAP.—The map described in subsection (a) shall 

5 be on file and available for public inspection in appropriate 

6 offices of the National Park Service. 

7 (c) ACQUISITION OF LAND.— 

8 (1) METHOD OF ACQUISITION.—Within the 

9 land described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the 

10 Interior may acquire land and interests in land by 

11 donation. 

12 (2) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary of 

13 the Interior may pay any administrative costs of ac14 quiring land and interests in land by donation under 

15 paragraph (1) with appropriated funds. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 50.17 *Ex parte* communications in informal rulemaking proceedings. In rulemaking proceedings subject only to the procedural requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553: ( a ) A general prohibition applicable to all offices, boards, bureaus and divisions of the Department of Justice against the receipt of private, *ex parte* oral or written communications is undesirable, because it would deprive the Department of the flexibility needed to fashion rulemaking procedures appropriate to the issues involved, and would introduce a degree of formality that would, at least in most instances, result in procedures that are unduly complicated, slow, and expensive, and, at the same time, perhaps not conducive to developing all relevant information.
( b ) All written communications from outside the Department addressed to the merits of a proposed rule, received after notice of proposed informal rulemaking and in its course by the Department, its offices, boards, and bureaus, and divisions or their personnel participating in the decision, should be placed promptly in a file available for public inspection.
( c ) All oral communications from outside the Department of significant information or argument respecting the merits of a proposed rule, received after notice of proposed informal rulemaking and in its course by the Department, its offices, boards, bureaus, and divisions or their personnel participating in the decision, should be summarized in writing and placed promptly in a file available for public inspection.
( d ) The Department may properly withhold from the public files information exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552.
( e ) The Department may conclude that restrictions on *ex parte* communications in particular rulemaking proceedings are necessitated by considerations of fairness or for other reasons.
[Order No. 801-78, 43 FR 43297, Sept. 25, 1978, as amended at Order No. 1409-90, 55 FR 13130, Apr. 9, 1990]
#### In the Matter of John DeSilva, Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 113]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration, dated November 23, 2004, which denied a petition for administrative review and confirmed a determination of the rent administrator dated August 12, 2004, awarding the tenant treble damages for rent overcharges.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is *674denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

This proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) (see *Matter of Pabon v Phillips,*16 AD3d 589, 590 [2005]; *Thurman v Holahan,*123 AD2d 687 [1986]). However, for purposes of judicial economy we will retain jurisdiction and decide this case on the merits *(see Matter of Pabon v Phillips, supra; Thurman v Holahan, supra).*

The petitioner, the landlord of the subject apartment, failed to submit the rent records necessary to establish the legal stabilized rent for the apartment. Consequently, the respondent, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration (hereinafter the DHCR), had a rational basis for applying the default formula *(see Matter of Clear Holding Co. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*268 AD2d 430 [2000]).

The burden is on the owner to establish that an overcharge is not willful *(Matter of Ador Realty, LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal,*25 AD3d 128, 140 [2005]). Treble damages are properly imposed when the owner fails to carry that burden by a preponderance of the evidence *(id.*at 140-141; *see also Matter of Gattiboni v Aponte,*188 AD2d 434 [1992]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the DHCR to award the tenant treble damages for rent overcharges was not arbitrary and capricious, and had a rational basis *(see Matter of Condo Units v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*4 AD3d 424 [2004]; *cf. Matter of Rego Estates v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal,*20 AD3d 539, 540 [2005]).

The petitioner was not denied due process of law because the DHCR did not conduct an evidentiary hearing *(see Matter of Richter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*204 AD2d 648 [1994]). The DHCR need not conduct a hearing when the record is complete based on evidentiary submissions *(see*9 NYCRR 2051.3 [b]). Absent a requirement that the DHCR hold a hearing, “all that due process requires is that reasonable notice be afforded to the parties to a proceeding and that they have an opportunity to present their objection” *(Matter of Rubin v Eimicke,*150 AD2d 697, 698 [1989]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER LXV—NATIONAL PARKWAYS
Exhibit 10.19

                          PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT
                                   TO THE
                   HANNAFORD SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN

     The Hannaford  Savings and  Investment  Plan,  formerly named the Hannaford
Northeast  Savings and Investment Plan, was last amended and restated  effective
generally January 1, 1998. The Plan is hereby amended in the following respects:

     1. The terms used in this  Amendment  shall have the  meanings set forth in
the Plan unless the context indicates otherwise.

     2.  The first paragraph of Section 2.11 is amended to read as follows:

         "2.11  'Compensation' shall mean the basic compensation paid,
     before any reduction pursuant to a Deferral Election or a benefit
     election under an Employer's Code Section 125 Plan, by an Employer to
     an Employee for services rendered while a Participant, including
     compensation for incentive hours and excluding reimbursements or other
     expense allowances, fringe benefits (cash and noncash), moving
     expenses, deferred compensation, welfare benefits (other than short
     term disability payments), unguaranteed overtime pay, bonuses and
     other irregular payments."

     3.  Section 2.21 is amended to read as follows:

         "2.21  'Employee' shall mean any individual who is employed by an
     Employer, excluding Leased Employees and any person who is classified
     by an Employer (without regard to the classification of such person by
     a third party) as an independent contractor."

     4.  Subsection  (c) of  Section  9.5 is  amended  by adding  the  following
paragraph at the end thereof:

         "Effective March 22, 1999, notwithstanding the foregoing
     provisions of this Section to the contrary, if the value of the vested
     portion of a Participant's Account does not exceed Five Thousand
     Dollars ($5,000.00) as of the Valuation Date following the date he or
     she ceases to be employed by an Employer or a Related Employer and is
     no longer employed by any of them, his or her Account shall be
     distributed in a lump sum as soon as practicable after such Valuation
     Date."

<PAGE>


     5.  Section 9.14(e)(ii)(ee) is amended to read as follows:

            "(ee)effective for distributions made after December 31, 1999,
         a distribution of Elective Contributions pursuant to Section
         9.12."

     6. This Amendment shall be effective  generally  January 1, 1999,  provided
Part 2 shall be effective  January 1, 2000,  Part 4 shall be effective March 22,
1999,  and Part 5 shall be effective for  distributions  made after December 31,
1999.