alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 404.1601 Purpose and scope. This subpart describes the standards of performance and administrative requirements and procedures for States making determinations of disability for the Commissioner under title II of the Act. It also establishes the Commissioner's responsibilities in carrying out the disability determination function. ( a ) Sections 404.1601 through 404.1603 describe the purpose of the regulations and the meaning of terms frequently used in the regulations. They also briefly set forth the responsibilities of the Commissioner and the States covered in detail in other sections.
( b ) Sections 404.1610 through 404.1618 describe the Commissioner's and the State's responsibilities in performing the disability determination function.
( c ) Sections 404.1620 through 404.1633 describe the administrative responsibilities and requirements of the States. The corresponding role of the Commissioner is also set out.
( d ) Sections 404.1640 through 404.1650 describe the performance accuracy and processing time standards for measuring State agency performance.
( e ) Sections 404.1660 through 404.1661 describe when and what kind of assistance the Commissioner will provide State agencies to help them improve performance.
( f ) Sections 404.1670 through 404.1675 describe the level of performance below which the Commissioner will consider a State agency to be substantially failing to make disability determinations consistent with the regulations and other written guidelines and the resulting action the Commissioner will take.
( g ) Sections 404.1680 through 404.1683 describe the rules for resolving disputes concerning fiscal issues and providing hearings when we propose to find that a State is in substantial failure.
( h ) Sections 404.1690 through 404.1694 describe when and what action the Commissioner will take and what action the State will be expected to take if the Commissioner assumes the disability determination function from a State agency.
[46 FR 29204, May 29, 1981, as amended at 62 FR 38451, July 18, 1997; 71 FR 16445, Mar. 31, 2006; 76 FR 24808, May 3, 2011]
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 10

- 00754

- CV IN RE Trust Created Under the Last Will and Testament of Leslie Duncan MAURER
From the Probate Court No

. 1 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- PC

- 3521 Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2010
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On July 6, 2010, t he trial court signed a final judgment in this case

. On July 23, 2010,

a ppellant filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 4, 2010. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). A nd, a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on October 19, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. However, a ppellant did not file its notice of appeal until October 20, 2010. Similarly, appellant did not file a motion for extension of time until October 20, 2010. 1

1 In its motion to extend time, appellant clearly states that the notice of appeal and the motion to extend time were filed on October 20, 2010. Likewise, the certificate of service on both the notice of appeal and motion to extend time indicate that the no tice of appeal and motion to extend time were forwarded to opposing counsel on October 20, 2010.04

- 10

- 00754

- CV

- 2

- A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace peri od provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v.
Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passe d, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court = s jurisdiction.” Id. Because appellant’s motion to extend time to file its notice of appeal was untimely filed,

we denied appellant’s motion to extend time to file its notice of appeal on November 10, 2 010. And, because appellant’s notice of appeal was filed late and was not filed within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by November 29, 2010 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack o f jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
##### 



Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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 in respect of those items required to
    be described or presented in such Report under
    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934.



|                                 | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Thomas W. Stoelk             | 
|                                 | 
|Name: Thomas W. Stoelk           | 
|Title:   Chief Financial Officer | 
|Date:   March 7, 2006            |
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 HIGH

 269

 266

 280

 286

 273

 307

 292

 309

 304

 296

 297

 285

 280

 268

 269

 261

 266

 257

 282

 307

 303

 292

 302

 295

 277

 278

 271

 262

 217

 212

 223

 219

 229

 229

 232

 240

 248

 246

 253

 245

 242

 234

 220

 217

 217

 205

 211

 207

 227

 237

 227

 235

 243

 224

 235

 230

 242

 243

 246

 247

 245

 253

 253

 259

 268

 266

 266

 258

 257

 248

 245

 239

 236

 227

 230

 238

 254

 256

 249

 252

 257

 250

 247

 241

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 15, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### In the Matter of the Application of Cornelius M. Carney, Respondent, to Compel an Accounting by Thomas F. Powers, an Attorney, Appellant, for Moneys, etc.

Order modified so as to direct the referee to make inquiry as to the circumstances under which this agreement was made and as to its legality and fairness, and report the same to the court with his conclusions; and by striking therefrom the provision vacating and declaring void the agreement between Powers and Cornelius M. Carney, and the direction that any moneys found due on the assumption that this agreement is void be paid by Powers to Carney, and reserving determination of the defendant’s liability until the coming in of the report. The accounting as directed by the order appealed from shall be taken if the referee is of the opinion that the agreement should be vacated. As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs to either party. All concurred.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE02897
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2012110EN.01000601.xml

| 17.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/6

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in respect of imports into the Union of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China: modification of the name of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate

2012/C 110/05

Imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China were subject to definitive anti-dumping duties, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (1). The measures expired on 17 September 2010.

1

Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd, a company located in the People’s Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of certain finished polyester filament fabrics were subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 14,1 % by the aforementioned Regulation, has informed the Commission that on 12 April 2010 it changed its name into Zhengda United Holding Group Co., Ltd.

The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous name of Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd during the period starting on the name change date, 12 April 2010, and ending on the expiry date of the measures, 17 September 2010.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005. Therefore, the reference to:

Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd

should be read as:

Zhengda United Holding Group Co., Ltd

in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005.

The TARIC additional code A617 previously attributed to Shaoxing Zhengda Group Co., Ltd shall apply to Zhengda United Holding Group Co., Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 16.9.2005, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 4.20
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT
 Amendment Agreement Company
    Defined Terms .
 Amendment .
  All Other Terms Unchanged .
 Conflicting Provisions .




---



##### 



Counterparts
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]




---



##### 



BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC.By:
    /s/ Mark P. WagenerName:
    Mark P. WagenerTitle:
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerBAIN CAPITAL VENTURE FUND 2007, L.P.By:
    Bain Capital Venture Partners 2007, L.P.its general partnerBy:
    Bain Capital Venture Investors, LLCits general partnerBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaAuthorized PersonBATTERY VENTURES VI, L.P.By:
    Battery Partners VI, LLCGeneral PartnerBy:
    /s/ Morgan JonesName:
    Morgan JonesIts:
    Member Manager/s/ Douglas A. KelleyDOUGLAS A. KELLEYCourt-appointed trustee and receiver,
     on behalf of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC, RTB
     Holdings, LLC, EBP Select Holdings LLC, and
     Thomas
J. Petters




---



##### 



REQUIRED HOLDERS:
Bain Capital Venture Fund 2001, L.P.By:
    Bain Capital Venture Partners, L.P.its General PartnerBy:
    Bain Capital Investors, LLCits General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaAuthorized PersonBCIP Associates III, LLCBy:
    BCIP Associates IIIits sole member and managerBCIP ASSOCIATES III-B, LLCBy:
    BCIP Associates III-B, LLCits sole member and managerBy:
    Bain Capital Investors, LLCtheir Managing PartnerBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaAuthorized PersonBROOKSIDE CAPITAL PARTNERS FUND, L.P.By:
    Brookside Capital Investors, L.P.its general partnerBy:
    Brookside Capital Management, LLCits general partnerBy:
    /s/ IllegibleName:Its:




---



##### 



REQUIRED HOLDERS (continued):
RGIP, LLCBy:
    /s/ IllegibleName:Its:
    Authorized PersonBAIN CAPITAL VENTURE FUND 2007, L.P.By:
    Bain Capital Venture Partners 2007, L.P.its general partnerBy:
    Bain Capital Venture Investors, LLCits general partnerBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaAuthorized PersonBCIP VENTURE ASSOCIATESBy:
    Bain Capital Investors, LLCits managing partnerBy:
    Bain Capital Venture Investors, LLCits Attorney-in-factBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaManaging Director




---



##### 



REQUIRED HOLDERS (continued):
BCIP VENTURE ASSOCIATES BBy:
    Bain Capital Investors, LLCits managing partnerBy:
    Bain Capital Venture Investors, LLCits Attorney-in-factBy:
    /s/ Michael KrupkaMichael KrupkaManaging DirectorBATTERY VENTURES VI, L.P.By:
    Battery Partners VI, LLCGeneral PartnerBy:
    /s/ Morgan JonesName:
    Morgan JonesIts:
    Member ManagerBATTERY INVESTMENT PARTNERS VI, LLCBy:
    /s/ Morgan JonesName:
    Morgan JonesIts:
    Member Manager
#### § 8.11 Meaning of terms.

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms have the meanings given in this section. Any other term defined in the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and used in this part shall have the meaning assigned to it by that Act.

*Act.* The Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

*Administrator.* The Administrator, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.

*Appropriate TTB officer.* An officer or employee of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) authorized to perform any functions relating to the administration or enforcement of this part by TTB Order 1135.8, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 8, Exclusive Outlets.

*Industry member.* Any person engaged in business as a distiller, brewer, rectifier, blender, or other producer, or as an importer or wholesaler, of distilled spirits, wine or malt beverages, or as a bottler, or warehouseman and bottler, of distilled spirits; industry member does not include an agency of a State or political subdivision thereof, or an officer or employee of such agency.

*Product.* Distilled spirits, wine or malt beverages, as defined in the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

*Retailer.* Any person engaged in the sale of distilled spirits, wine or malt beverages to consumers. A wholesaler who makes incidental retail sales representing less than five percent of the wholesaler's total sales volume for the preceding two-month period shall not be considered a retailer with respect to such incidental sales.

[T.D. ATF-74, 45 FR 63256, Sept. 23, 1980, as amended by T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20425, Apr. 26, 1995; T.D. ATF-428, 65 FR 52020, Aug. 28, 2000; T.D. TTB-44, 71 FR 16923, Apr. 4, 2006]
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-127681) on Form S-8 of Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 30, 2007 and December 28, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for thefifty-three weeks ended December 31, 2006, fifty-two weeks ended December 30, 2007, and fifty-two weeks ended December 28, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 28, 2008, whichreports appear in the December 28, 2008, annual report on Form 10-K of Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. 

Our report on theconsolidated financial statements dated March 13, 2009, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, in fiscalyear 2006, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, in fiscal year 2007. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Orlando, Florida 

March 13, 2009 

Certified Public Accountants
§ 404.1256 Limitation on State's liability for contributions for multiple employment situations—for wages paid prior to 1987. ( a ) *Limitation due to multiple employment.* Where an individual in any calendar year performs covered services as an employee of a State and as an employee of one or more political subdivisions of the State, or as an employee of more than one political subdivision; and the State provides all the funds for payment of the amounts which are equivalent to the taxes imposed on the employer under FICA on that individual's remuneration for those services; and no political subdivision reimburses the State for paying those amounts; the State's agreement or modification of an agreement may provide that the State's liability for the contributions on that individual's remuneration shall be computed as though the individual had performed services in employment for only one political subdivision. The State may then total the individual's covered wages from all these governmental employers and compute the contributions based on that total subject to the wage limitations in § 404.1047.
( b ) *Identification of employees in multiple employment.* An agreement or modification of an agreement providing for the computation of contributions as described in paragraph (a) of this section shall identify the class or classes of employees to whose wages this method of computing contributions applies. For example, the State may provide that such computation shall apply to the wages paid to all individuals for services performed in positions covered by a particular retirement system, or to the wages paid to all individuals who are members of any two or more coverage groups designated in an agreement or modification. The State shall promptly notify SSA if the conditions in paragraph (a) of this section are no longer met by any class or classes of employees identified in an agreement or modification. In its notification, the State shall identify each class of employees and the date on which the conditions ceased to be met.
( c ) *Effective date.* In the agreement or modification, the State shall provide that the computation of contributions shall apply to wages paid after the effective date stated in the agreement or modification. That date may be the last day of any calendar year; however, it may be no earlier than January 1 of the year in which the agreement or modification is submitted to SSA.
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 HIGH

 189

 262

 543

 1,284

 2,220

 1,307

 639

 382

 321

 261

 194

 599

 1,032

 980

 1,031

 4,172

 2,183

 1,112

 1,605

 462

 261

 189

 166

 160

 165

 177

 175

 609

 2,788

 4,060

 2,321

 150

 151

 152

 153

 154

 155

 155

 154

 153

 154

 154

 150

 150

 148

 152

 176

 161

 155

 149

 145

 149

 149

 147

 144

 143

 142

 143

 145

 147

 149

 148

 162

 169

 204

 276

 408

 328

 246

 209

 203

 193

 174

 185

 275

 287

 329

 1,005

 516

 342

 382

 221

 181

 163

 156

 152

 151

 152

 149

 208

 487

 696

 516

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 3, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
#### § 345.110 Reports of compensation of employees.

The provisions of part 209 of this chapter shall be applicable to the reporting of compensation under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act to the same extent and in the same manner as they are applicable to the reporting of compensation under the Railroad Retirement Act.
§ 30.713 If OWCP reduces a fee, may a provider request reconsideration of the reduction? ( a ) A physician or other provider whose charge for service is only partially paid because it exceeds a maximum allowable amount set by OWCP may, within 30 days, request reconsideration of the fee determination. ( 1 ) The provider should make such a request to the district office with jurisdiction over the employee's claim. The request must be accompanied by documentary evidence that the procedure performed was either incorrectly identified by the original code, that the presence of a severe or concomitant medical condition made treatment especially difficult, or that the provider possessed unusual qualifications. In itself, board certification in a specialty is not sufficient evidence of unusual qualifications to justify a charge in excess of the maximum allowable amount set by OWCP. These are the only three circumstances that will justify reevaluation of the paid amount.
( 2 ) A list of district offices and their respective areas of jurisdiction is available upon request from the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Washington, DC 20210, or at *http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/index.htm .* Within 30 days of receiving the request for reconsideration, the district office shall respond in writing stating whether or not an additional amount will be allowed as reasonable, considering the evidence submitted.
( b ) If the district office issues a decision that continues to disallow a contested amount, the provider may apply to the Regional Director of the region with jurisdiction over the district office. The application must be filed within 30 days of the date of such decision, and it may be accompanied by additional evidence. Within 60 days of receipt of such application, the Regional Director shall issue a decision in writing stating whether or not an additional amount will be allowed as reasonable, considering the evidence submitted. This decision is final, and shall not be subject to further review.
[84 FR 3056, Feb. 8, 2019]
# C_2012018EN.01001301.xml

| 21.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/13

---

Publication pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

2012/C 18/10

On 7 December 2011, the Vilnius District Court made a ruling on initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against AB Bankas Snoras and on appointment of bankruptcy administrator, as such the 24 November 2011 decision adopted by the Resolution of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania No 03-196 to permanently revoke the banking licence of AB Bankas Snoras entered into effect.

---