alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Part G—General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, comprising this part, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §§461 to 464 and 469, as added by Pub. L. 90–575, title I, §§151, 152, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1032, 1033; amended Pub. L. 91–230, Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 121; Pub. L. 92–318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 94–482, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2081; Pub. L. 95–43, June 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 213; Pub. L. 95–180, Nov. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 1372; Pub. L. 95–566, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2402; S. Res. 30, Mar. 7, 1979; Pub. L. 96–49, Aug. 13, 1979, 93 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 96–374, Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1367; Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 357; Pub. L. 98–79, Aug. 15, 1983, 97 Stat. 476; Pub. L. 99–272, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 82. Such part is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §407(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1475, without reference to such intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of the part's provisions by Pub. L. 99–498.

Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–329, comprising this part, was formerly classified to part F of this subchapter. See Codification note preceding section 1087a of this title. Prior to becoming this part, part G of title IV of Pub. L. 89–329 was originally added as part E of title IV of the Act by Pub. L. 90–575, title I, §151, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1032, and classified to part D of this subchapter; then redesignated part F of title IV of the Act by Pub. L. 92–318, title I, §137(b), June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 273, and classified to part E of this subchapter; then redesignated part G of title IV of the Act by Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §406(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1454, and classified to part F of this subchapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part G, consisting of part H of title IV of Pub. L. 89–329, was redesignated part H of this subchapter.
(No. 6721

#### Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 22, 1972.*

Atlantic Richfield Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.
Loan Agreement
 this Agreement June 8, 2011:
 Party A: Ku6 Media Co., Ltd.
 Party B: Shanda Games Limited
  1.
    
    Type of Loan: The loan shall be provided in cash.2.
    
    Loan Purpose: The loan shall be used for business operation.3.
    
    Loan Amount: USD 7.3 million (Seven Million three hundred thousand USD).4.
    
    Interest Rate: 1.37% per annum according to the actual borrowing days.5.
    
    Loan Term: From June 25, 2011to May 31, 2012.6.
    
    Limitation on the Loan Purpose:Party B shall not use the loan for other purposes except that
under this Agreement.7.
    
    Repayment and Payment of the Principal and InterestParty B shall fully repay and pay off the entire loan principal and the interest accrued
thereof before May 31, 2012.The interest shall be calculated based on the agreed
interest rate and the actual borrowing days, which shall be settled and paid off along with the
repayment of the loan principal.8.
    
    Dispute Settlement8.1
    
    This Agreement is concluded in accordance with Hong Kong law and shall be performed in
accordance with Hong Kong law, and the disputes arising from this Agreement shall be governed
by Hong Kong law as well. Any disputes arising from the performance of this Agreement, shall
be first settled by the Parties through friendly negotiation; if the Parties fail to reach any
settlement on the dispute by negotiation, then either Party may resort to arbitration for
settlement.8.2
    
    The Parties agree to file the dispute to Hong Kong International Arbitration Center for
arbitration in accordance with its then applicable arbitral rules.




---



##### 



8.3
    
    The arbitral award shall be final and binding on the Parties. The arbitration cost (including
but not limited to the arbitration fee, attorney fee, etc.) shall be borne by the losing
party, unless otherwise decided by the arbitral award.9.
    
    Miscellaneous9.1
    
    No Party is allowed to unilaterally modify or terminate this Agreement unless otherwise
permitted by the law. Where one Party requires modifying or terminating this Agreement
according to the applicable law, it shall notify the counter party on a timely basis and shall
reach a written agreement with the counter party under such situation.9.2
    
    Where there is any issue which is not covered in this Agreement, the Parties shall discuss
with each other and make a supplementary agreement on such issue. The said supplementary
agreement shall have the same legal effect with this Agreement.9.3
    
    This Agreement has four original copies for each Party to hold two.




---



##### 



[Signature Page]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T01:20:00-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 24.195 General.

Special natural wine is a flavored wine made on bonded wine premises from a base of natural wine. The flavoring added may include natural herbs, spices, fruit juices, natural aromatics, natural essences or other natural flavoring, in quantities or proportions such that the resulting product derives character and flavor distinctive from the base wine and distinguishable from other natural wine. Fruit juices may not be used to give to one natural wine the flavor of another but may be used with herbs or spices to produce a wine having a distinctive flavor. Caramel and sugar may be used in a special natural wine. However, the minimum 60 degrees Brix limitations prescribed in the definition of “Liquid pure sugar” and “Invert sugar syrup” in § 24.10 do not apply to materials used in the manufacture of vermouth. Finished vermouth will contain a minimum of 80 percent by volume natural wine. Heavy bodied blending wine and juice or concentrated fruit juice to which wine spirits have been added may be used in the production of special natural wine pursuant to formula approval.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1386, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5386))

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0059)
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications (CGP).
Title:    Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior
 
SuDocs Number: A 13.88:PNW-GTR-854
Item    Number:0083-B-06    (online)
GPO    System Number: [if !vml]>[endif]> 000862747
 
 
 
Volume 1
Volume 2 
 
 
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  April 15, 2020  Page Name:  http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
perm |
|--|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5423 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize owners or operators 

of general aviation airports to impose certain restrictions relating to 

noise, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2019 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. 

LYNCH, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize owners 

or operators of general aviation airports to impose certain restrictions relating to noise, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Aircraft Noise Reduc5 tion Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5423 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS TO 

2 RESTRICT FLIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF IM3 PLEMENTING NOISE LIMITATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 475 of 

5 title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following: 

7 ‘‘§ 47535. Authority of general aviation airports to re8 strict flights for purposes of imple9 menting noise limitations 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro11 vision of this chapter, for purposes of implementing noise 

12 limitations, the owner or operator of a general aviation 

13 airport is authorized to restrict the number and type of 

14 aircraft operations for compensation or hire occurring at 

15 the airport, including flights originating or landing at the 

16 airport, and the dates and times of such operations. 

17 ‘‘(b) COMMUNITY INPUT.—In exercising authority 

18 under subsection (a), an owner or operator of a general 

19 aviation airport shall take into account input received 

20 from individuals or entities in communities surrounding 

21 the airport. 

22 ‘‘(c) FEDERAL FUNDING.—No Federal funds, includ23 ing a grant under this chapter, may be withheld from, 

24 withdrawn from, or denied to a general aviation airport 

25 based solely on an exercise of authority by the owner or 

26 operator of the airport under subsection (a). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5423 IH

1 ‘‘(d) EMERGENCIES.—The Secretary of Transpor2 tation may restrict the authority of an owner or operator 

3 of a general aviation airport under subsection (a) as nec4 essary in the case of an emergency. 

5 ‘‘(e) DEFINITION OF GENERAL AVIATION AIR6 PORT.—In this section, the term ‘general aviation airport’ 

7 has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 

8 49, United States Code.’’. 

9 (b) ANALYSIS.—The analysis for subchapter II of 

10 chapter 475 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

11 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘47535. Authority of general aviation airports to restrict flights for purposes 

of implementing noise limitations.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JOISSE A. CAGEY AND DALE J. CAGEY, HER HUSBAND,

Petitioners

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, A COMMONWEALTH AGENCY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 329 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Has [the] Commonwealth Court improperly expanded this Court’s holding

in Dean v. Department of Transportation , 751 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 2000)[,] that the Department has no duty to erect guardrails on Commonwealth real property along Commonwealth agency roadways, by repeatedly holding that when the Department does erect guardrails, it cannot be liable for injuries caused by negligently dangerously designed guardrails?
Dismissed and Opinion Filed March 18, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01447-CV

WALTER B. FITCH, Appellant

V.

BAY MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-02471

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Lang

Stating he no longer desires to proceed with and prosecute his appeal, appellant has filed 

a motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

141447F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WALTER B. FITCH, Appellant

No. 05-14-01447-CV V.

BAY MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-02471.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices 

Stoddart and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

We ORDER that appellee Bay Mountain Capital, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this 

appeal from appellant Walter B. Fitch.

Judgment entered this 18th day of March, 2015.
Editorial Note on Part 46
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 46 appear by T.D. ATF-457, 66 FR 32220, 32221, June 14, 2001.

§ 46.195 Floor stocks requirements. ( a ) *Take inventory.* The dealer must establish the quantity of articles subject to the floor stocks tax held for sale on April 1, 2009. The dealer may take a physical inventory or may use a record (book) inventory, as specified in § 46.202 or § 46.203.
( b ) *Compute tax.* The dealer must compute the amount of tax for the articles held for sale on April 1, 2009. Refer to the table in § 46.222. The dealer may apply the tax credit as provided in § 46.223.
( c ) *File tax return and pay tax.* After computing the floor stocks tax, the dealer must file a return even if no tax is due. See § 46.233 for payment methods if tax is due.
( d ) *Maintain records.* The dealer must maintain all records used to determine the quantity of articles subject to floor stocks tax and the quantity of articles held for sale on April 1, 2009 that are not subject to floor stocks tax. The dealer must also maintain records of all computations used to determine the amount of tax owed. Refer to § 46.241.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0129)
(Case No. 00168

#### In Re Application of Imogene Bosak

*Opinion filed May 25, 1979.*

Per Curiam.

This claim, arising out of the death of a policeman killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiary pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 48, Sec. 281, *et seq., 1977.*

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer; and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the full Court on April 18,1979, the Court finds as follows:

1. That the Claimant, Imogene Bosak, is the wife of the decedent, and in the absence of a designated beneficary; Section 3(a) of the Act provides that the entire sum shall be paid to the surviving spouse.

2. That the decedent, William P. Bosak, was a police officer employed by the Chicago Police Department and was engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Sec.2(e) of the Act, on March 3,1979.

*10663. That on said date, Officer Bosak and his partner, Roger Van Schaik, began their regular duty assignment at 8:00 a.m. They were wearing civilian type dress and drove in an unmarked Chicago Police Department vehicle. At approximately 4:16 p.m. on March 3, 1979, the officers made a traffic stop at 1123 West 115th Street in Chicago, Illinois. While both officers were outside of their vehicle, another car drove up and stopped next to the police car. The occupant of this car, later learned to be Kenneth Allen left his auto and began shooting at the two police officers. Allen, after shooting both officers a number of times, fled the scene and was apprehended shortly thereafter. Officer Bosak was pronounced dead on arrival at Roseland Hospital at 4:40 p.m. The medical examiner’s certificate of death recites the immediate cause of death as a bullet wound in the heart.

We find, therefore:

> a) that Officer Bosak was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act; and

> b) that the proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act, and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be, and is hereby awarded to Imogene Bosak, surviving spouse of the deceased police officer, William P. Bosak.
### Part E—Uniform Provisions
### §5111. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(i), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023

Section, Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6121, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1508, related to replication models for technical education programs designed to improve the quality of education for America's technically trained workforce.
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

DAY ELEV

 353.46

 353.51

 353.13

 353.29

 353.27

 353.32

 352.47

 351.51

 351.23

 351.56

 351.29

 351.32

 351.37

 351.34

 351.29

 351.40

 351.59

 351.29

 351.24

 351.30

 351.32

 351.32

 351.54

 351.26

 351.37

 351.34

 351.48

 351.34

 140

 143

 124

 132

 131

 133

 91

 49

 38

 51

 41

 42

 44

 43

 41

 45

 53

 41

 39

 41

 42

 42

 51

 39

 44

 43

 48

 43

STORAGE

+7

+3

-19

+8

-1

+2

-42

-42

-11

+13

-10

+1

+2

-1

-2

+4

+8

-12

-2

+2

+1

+0

+9

-12

+5

-1

+5

-5

CHANGE

 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

 169

 165

 169

 165

 168

 170

 182

 205

 201

 274

 353

 354

 357

 353

 354

 353

 357

 356

 322

 304

 308

 307

 274

 253

 251

 242

 228

 227

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

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2009 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 1, 2009

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -90 0 7,421 0

ACRE-FEET -90 0 14,720 0

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 0

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 0

 14,720

 133

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 170

 163

 156

 167

 165

 165

 161

 173

 185

 263

 346

 360

 357

 358

 355

 358

 347

 318

 294

 284

 281

 285

 254

 234

 238

 226

 221

 214

 7,098

 14,079

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

SOUTH MAIN OPERATED BY OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 14,720

 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

RIVER CANALS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0014 IN THE MATTER OF: M.T.H., Respondent and Appellant
. **ORDER** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until November 2 , 2023, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 21 2023

09/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0014
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

                                
  Amendment of Retirement and Disability Plan for Non-Employee
                           Directors.

   On February 14, 1996, the Retirement and Disability Plan for 
   Non-Employee  Directors of Southern New England Telecommunications
   Corporation (the "Plan") was amended to provide that eligibility  
   for benefits under the Plan shall be limited to those participants 
   as of February 14, 1996, that the amount of accrued pension benefits 
   for participants shall be frozen as of May 31, 1996 and that 
   benefits payable to  participants shall continue to be paid under 
   the terms of the  Plan  until such  benefit  obligations are 
   satisfied  whereupon  the  Plan shall terminate.
Exhibit  32.1




                             CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906
                             OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In connection with the  quarterly  report of InterCare DX, Inc.  (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB/A for the  period  ending  June 30,  2004  as filed with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission   on    the   date  hereof  (the  "Report"),
we,  Anthony  C.  Dike,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer,  certify,  pursuant  to
18 U.S.C. 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.

     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
InterCare DX, Inc.,   and  will  be  retained   by   InterCare  DX, Inc..,   and
furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.


DATE: February 25,   2005          By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                                         Chairman  and  CEO
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Joseph F. Carcare

Alcorn, C. J., House, Cotter, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued October 6

decided October 6, 1970

*Ralph F. Scofield,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*Joseph T. Qormley, Jr.,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Pee Curiam.

The sole assignment of error on this appeal is that there was not sufficient evidence before the jury to support a finding that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of breaking and entering with violence. The evidence printed in the appendix to the brief of the state discloses that there is no merit to this assignment of error.

There is no error.