alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.487 Kind of spirits. ( a ) *Designation.* The designations of kind of spirits required for packages filled on bonded premises must be consistent with the classes and types of spirits set forth in part 5 of this chapter subject to the following exceptions or conditions: ( 1 ) A proprietor may designate as “Alcohol” spirits distilled at more than 160 proof, which lack the taste, aroma, and other characteristics generally attributed to whisky, brandy, rum, or gin, and which are substantially neutral in character. When alcohol so designated is withdrawn on determination of tax, the designation must consist of the word “Alcohol” preceded or followed by a word or phrase that describes the material from which the alcohol was produced;
( 2 ) The designation for vodka, neutral spirits, or gin must include a word or phrase that describes the material from which the spirits were produced;
( 3 ) A proprietor may designate as “Spirits”, preceded or followed by a word or phrase that describes the material from which the spirits were produced, those distilled spirits that are distilled at less than 190 proof which lack the taste, aroma, and other characteristics generally attributed to whisky, brandy, rum, or gin. However, the proprietor may not designate such spirits as “Spirits grain” or “Grain spirits”;
( 4 ) A proprietor must designate spirits distilled from fruit at or above 190 proof, if intended for use in wine production, as “Neutral Spirits—Fruit”, preceded or followed by the name of the fruit from which the spirits were produced;
( 5 ) A proprietor may designate as “Whisky” spirits distilled at not more than 160 proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent rye, corn, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, packaged in reused cooperage, provided that the designation is further qualified with the words “Distilled from rye mash” (or bourbon, wheat, malt, or rye malt mash, as the case may be). However, spirits designated as “Whisky” must, if distilled from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn, carry the designation “Corn Whisky.”
( b ) *Change of designation.* After written application to, and approval of, the appropriate TTB officer, a proprietor may at any time before their withdrawal from bonded premises, change the original designation for spirits to a new designation properly describing the spirits in accordance with the provisions of this section.
( c ) *Other designations.* If a proprietor proposes to produce spirits for which a designation has not been prescribed in this section or in part 5 of this chapter, the proprietor must first make written application to the appropriate TTB officer for a designation for such spirits, and the proprietor must then designate the spirits accordingly.
( d ) *Spirits for nonindustrial use.* A proprietor may not treat the provisions of this section as constituting authorization to apply designations to spirits withdrawn for nonindustrial use if those designations do not conform to the requirements of part 5 of this chapter.
(26 U.S.C. 5206)
**Exhibit
          32.1**
  **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 Annual Report of Specialized Health Products International,
          Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
          “Report”), I, Jeffrey M. Soinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
          certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
  /s/
                  Jeffrey M.
                  SoinskiJeffrey M. Soinski
                  Chief Executive Officer
                  March 14, 2008
EXHIBIT 10.30
 CAPELLA HOLDINGS, INC.  FORM OF REDEMPTION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company ______________ Executive
 WHEREAS, Senior Management Agreement
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS, Redeemed Shares
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Redemption . Redemption Price
  Closing




---



##### 



2. Delivery of Certificates .
 3. Representations and Warranties of Executive .
 4. Representations and Warranties of Company .
 5. Acknowledgement .
 6. Cooperation; Deliveries .
 2




---



##### 



7. Conditions to Performance .
 8. Entire Agreement .
 9. Assignment .
 10. Headings .
 11. Counterparts .
 12. Binding Effect .
 13. Governing Law .
 [Execution Page Follows]
 3




---



##### 



EXECUTION PAGE
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 CAPELLA HOLDINGS, INC.By:Title:EXECUTIVE[Name]
 4
<PAGE>   1
                                     TEKELEC
                            SCHEDULE OF DISTRIBUTORS
                        SUBJECT TO STANDARD INTERNATIONAL
                             DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT


<TABLE>
<S>                                               <C>
DISTRIBUTOR                                       TERRITORY

Altech Instruments Pty, Ltd.                      South Africa
Bynet                                             Israel
Eagle Telecom                                     Puerto Rico
Etek                                              Columbia
Euro Tech Far East, Ltd.                          Hong Kong
Grupo Ingedigit                                   Venezuela
Heli-Ocean Technology                             Taiwan
HITECH                                            Brazil
Industrial Electro-Communications, Inc.           Philippines
KDC Corporation                                   South Korea
Lagercrantz Communication                         Sweden
Medcom, S.A. de C.V.                              Mexico
MIBO Integra                                      Slovenia
Nichecom                                          New Zealand
Pernec Corp.                                      Malaysia
PT Tridaya Setiamanungeal                         Indonesia
Reycom Electronica SRL                            Argentina
Sintel                                            Norway, Denmark
Sirretta LTD                                      Great Britain
ST Computer Systems                               Singapore
Tecono Oy                                         Finland, Baltics
Tekelec Airtronic SPA                             Italy
Tekelec Airtronic B.V.                            The Netherlands,Luxembourg,Belgium
Tekelec Airtronic GMBH                            Germany
Tekelec-Airtronic, S.A.                           France
Tekelec Australia, Pty. Ltd.                      Australia
Tekelec China                                     China
Tekelec Espana, SA                                Spain and Portugal
Tenet                                             India
Twintech Design Co. Ltd.                          Thailand
</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 38—DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR BLINDNESS**

Sec.
1681.
Sex.
1682.
Federal administrative enforcement; report to Congressional committees.
1683.
Judicial review.
1684.
Blindness or visual impairment; prohibition against discrimination.
1685.
Authority under other laws unaffected.
1686.
Interpretation with respect to living facilities.
1687.
Interpretation of "program or activity".
1688.
Neutrality with respect to abortion.
1689.
Task Force on Sexual Violence in Education.
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5470, 5471, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 17.102 Amount of bond.

The bond shall be a continuing one, in an amount sufficient to cover the total drawback to be claimed on spirits used during any quarter. However, the amount of any bond shall not exceed $200,000 nor be less than $1,000.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Nothing Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

November 10,2004
Editorial Note on Part 22
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 22 appear by T.D. ATF-435, 66 FR 5476, Jan. 19, 2001 and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

§ 22.51 Suspension or revocation of permits. The appropriate TTB officer may institute proceedings under part 71 of this chapter to suspend or revoke a permit whenever there is reason to believe that the permittee— ( a ) Has not in good faith complied with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 51, or regulations issued under that chapter;
( b ) Has violated the conditions of that permit;
( c ) Has made any false statements as to any material fact in the application for the permit;
( d ) Has failed to disclose any material information required to be furnished;
( e ) Has violated or conspired to violate any law of the United States relating to intoxicating liquor or has been convicted of an offense under Title 26, U.S.C., punishable as a felony or of any conspiracy to commit such offense;
( f ) Is, by reason of its operations, no longer warranted in procuring and using tax-free alcohol authorized by the permit; or
( g ) Has not engaged in any of the operations authorized by the permit for a period exceeding two years.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BRIAN GALLAGHER,

Petitioner

v.

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 87 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8 th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, as stated by the Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) where GEICO issued all household policies and unilaterally decided to issue two separate policies, when the insured desired stacking, elected stacking, paid additional premiums for stacking and never knowingly waived stacking of underinsured motorist benefits?

(2) Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” impermissibly narrows or conflicts

with the statutory mandates of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Fina ncial Responsibility

Law and the evidence of record is that GEICO was fully aware of the risks of insuring a

motorcycle in the same household as other family vehicles but unilaterally decided to

write a separate motorcycle policy?
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 2011-0052]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form Title: Letter of Interest Application (EIB 95-09).

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically. The information collected will allow Ex-Im Bank to 
determine the applicability of a proposed export transaction for 
receipt of an indication of a willingness to consider financing medium- 
and long-term guarantee, direct loan and insurance programs.
    Form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB95_09.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before May 9, 2011 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov by mail to Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20038 attn: OMB 3048-
0005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 95-09. Letter of Interest Application.
    OMB Number: 3048-0005.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: Ex-Im Bank's Letter of Interest (LI) is a pre-export 
tool to help get financing off to a quick start. The LI is an 
indication of Ex-Im's willingness to consider financing for a given 
export transaction. LIs are used during the bidding or negotiating 
stage of an export sale or before going on a marketing trip.
    Ex-Im Bank uses the requested information to determine the 
applicability of the proposed export transaction for receipt of this 
indication of willingness to consider financing.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 400.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.5 hours.
    Government Annual Burden Hours: 200.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: On occasion.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-8287 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
#### Fyler, Inc. *v.*Herbert R. Sleeper et al.

*Herbert A. Krasow,*in support of the motion.

Argued March 2

decided March *2,*1971

The motion by the law firm Gilman and Marks to withdraw its appearance for the defendants in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted.
### subpart 3—part definitions
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 360.03

 360.03

 360.05

 360.03

 360.03

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.03

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.08

 360.08

 360.03

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.05

 360.03

 360.03

 360.03

 539

 539

 541

 539

 539

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 539

 541

 541

 541

 541

 543

 543

 539

 541

 541

 541

 541

 541

 539

 539

 539

STORAGE

+0

+0

+2

-2

+0

+2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-2

+2

+0

+0

+0

+2

+0

-4

+2

+0

+0

+0

+0

-2

+0

+0

CHANGE

 485

 485

 479

 468

 468

 463

 458

 463

 475

 475

 487

 490

 490

 484

 468

 466

 467

 479

 483

 486

 481

 481

 481

 481

 481

 481

 480

 480

 481

 481

 481

 349

 351

 350

 351

 350

 352

 350

 351

 357

 352

 350

 351

 350

 354

 352

 349

 350

 350

 350

 351

 349

 346

 329

 324

 324

 324

 324

 325

 328

 317

 304

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2001 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 14, 2004

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +0 0 10,614 14,808

ACRE-FEET +0 0 21,053 29,372

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 57,040

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 29,372

 107,465

 539

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 2,015

 2,013

 2,013

 2,005

 1,997

 1,995

 2,004

 2,018

 1,890

 1,793

 1,802

 1,814

 1,815

 1,806

 1,806

 1,810

 1,762

 1,810

 1,804

 1,772

 1,837

 1,878

 1,878

 1,888

 1,855

 1,899

 1,890

 1,889

 1,889

 1,876

 1,836

 58,359

 115,755

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

SOUTH MAIN OPERATED BY OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 21,053

 1,019

 1,021

 1,011

 1,014

 1,008

 1,010

 1,025

 1,037

 920

 830

 829

 838

 842

 841

 845

 848

 846

 848

 843

 822

 900

 946

 945

 944

 956

 951

 961

 967

 972

 960

 958

 28,757

 57,040

RIVER CANALS
AOI-2015.03.31-EX10.21




Exhibit 10.21




Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements


In addition to the compensation arrangements filed as other exhibits to this annual report, Alliance One International, Inc. (the “Company”) has the following compensation arrangements with its directors and named executive officers. 


Compensation Arrangements for Directors 


Directors who are employees of the Company or its subsidiaries or who serve as paid consultants to the Company are not compensated for their services as director.   Non-employee directors receive an annual cash retainer paid in quarterly installments.  As of June 1, 2015, such retainer payments for all non-employee directors, other than Mr. Kehaya, were based on the following schedule:


	
		
	Type of Service
	Annual Retainer

	Board Member
	$60,000

	Lead Independent Director
	+$10,000

	Audit Committee Member
	+$12,000

	Audit Committee Chairman
	+$10,000

	Executive Committee Member
	+$3,000

	Executive Committee Chairman
	+$5,000

	Executive Compensation Committee Member
	+$12,000

	Executive Compensation Committee Chairman
	+$7,500

	Governance & Nominating Committee Member
	+$7,500

	Governance & Nominating Committee Chairman
	+$5,000

	Social Responsibility & Corporate Affairs Committee Member
	+$7,500

	Social Responsibility & Corporate Affairs Committee Chairman
	+$5,000






In his capacity as Non-Executive Chairman, Mr. Kehaya receives an annual retainer in the amount of $250,000 as his exclusive cash compensation.


Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers 


The board of directors sets the annual base salary for each of the Company’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer and its four other most highly compensated executive officers, based on fiscal 2015 total compensation (such six officers, the “named executive officers”).  As of June 1, 2015, the annual base salary rates for the named executive officers were as follows: 


	
				
	Named Executive Officer
	Base Salary

	J. Pieter Sikkel
	

	$600,000
	


	Joel L. Thomas
	

	$330,000
	


	Graham J. Kayes
	

	$320,000
	


	Jose Maria Costa Garcia
	

	$320,000
	


	William L. O’Quinn, Jr.
	

	$300,500
### §1335. Rules and regulations

The commission is authorized to adopt such reasonable procedures and rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title III, §335, as added Pub. L. 85–686, §9(c)(2), Aug. 20, 1958, 72 Stat. 680.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 335 of act June 17, 1930, related to disclosure of trade secrets and prescribed penalty therefor, prior to repeal by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948. See section 1905 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
#### § 24.145 General requirements.

Each person required to file a bond or consent of surety under this part must prepare, execute and submit the bond or consent of surety on the prescribed form in accordance with this part and the instructions printed on the form. A person may not commence or continue any business or operation relating to wine until all bonds and consents of surety required under this part with respect to the business or operation have been approved by the appropriate TTB officer.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1394, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5551))

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0058)

[T.D. ATF-299, 55 FR 24989, June 19, 1990, as amended by T.D. ATF-409, 64 FR 13685, Mar. 22, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5461 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5461

To provide that the Secretary of Homeland Security may not admit to the 
United States as a nonimmigrant under certain categories aliens who are 
      nationals of noncompliant countries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 17, 2019

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that the Secretary of Homeland Security may not admit to the 
United States as a nonimmigrant under certain categories aliens who are 
      nationals of noncompliant countries, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON THE ADMISSION OF NONIMMIGRANTS FROM 
              NONCOMPLIANT COUNTRIES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not admit 
to the United States as a nonimmigrant under any category listed in 
subsection (b) any national of a country that the Secretary has 
designated as noncompliant with respect to accepting the repatriation 
of nationals of that country who have been ordered removed from the 
United States under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in 
section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).
    (b) Categories of Nonimmigrant Visas.--The categories listed in 
this subsection are subparagraphs (B), (F), (H), (I), (J), (L), (M), 
(O), (P), and (Q) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Application of Stecklow Brothers, Inc., Respondent, for an Order Confirming an Arbitration Award. Carol Management Corporation et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding to confirm the award of a board of arbitrators, it is contended that the award should have been vacated on the ground that two of the arbitrators refused adequately to discuss the evidence with the third arbitrator. Judgment in favor of respondent unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1
    Form 10-K
      13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
                  William
    E. Crow
  Chief Executive Officer and President