alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21
 ENTITY
    
    JURISDICTIONAux Sable Liquid Products Inc.
    
    DelawareAux Sable Liquid Products LP
    
    DelawareBaton Rouge Fractionators LLC
    
    DelawareBaton Rouge Pipeline LLC
    
    DelawareBlack Marlin Pipeline LLC
    
    TexasCarbonate Trend Pipeline LLC
    
    DelawareCardinal Operating Company, LLC
    
    DelawareCardinal Pipeline Company, LLC
    
    North CarolinaDiscovery Gas Transmission LLC
    
    DelawareDiscovery Producer Services LLC
    
    DelawareGoebel Gathering Company, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareGulf Star Deepwater Services, LLC
    
    DelawareGulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC
    
    DelawareHi-Bol Pipeline LLC
    
    DelawareLaurel Mountain Midstream Operating LLC
    
    DelawareLaurel Mountain Midstream, LLC
    
    DelawareMarsh Resources, LLC
    
    DelawareMid-Continental Fractionation and Storage, LLC
    
    DelawareNorthwest Pipeline GP
    
    DelawarePacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP
    
    DelawarePacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LLC
    
    DelawareParachute Pipeline LLC
    
    DelawarePine Needle LNG Company, LLC
    
    North CarolinaPine Needle Operating Company, LLC
    
    DelawareTransCardinal Company, LLC
    
    DelawareTransCarolina LNG Company, LLC
    
    DelawareTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
    
    DelawareWamsutter LLC
    
    DelawareWFS Enterprises LLC
    
    DelawareWFS Gathering Company, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareWFS-Liquids LLC
    
    DelawareWFS-Pipeline LLC
    
    DelawareWGP Development, LLC
    
    DelawareWGPC Holdings LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Energy Solutions LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Field Services Company, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Field Services Group, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Field Services-Gulf Coast Company, L.P.
    
    DelawareWilliams Flexible Generation, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Four Corners LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Gas Processing Gulf Coast Company, L.P.
    
    DelawareWilliams Gulf Coast Gathering Company, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Laurel Mountain, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Mobile Bay Producer Services, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareWilliams NGL Marketing, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Oil Gathering, L.L.C
    
    DelawareWilliams Pacific Connector Gas Operator, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Partners Finance Corporation
    
    DelawareWilliams Partners Operating LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams PERK, LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Pipeline GP LLC
    
    Delaware




---



##### 



ENTITY
    
    JURISDICTIONWilliams Pipeline Operating LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Pipeline Partners Holdings LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Pipeline Partners L.P.
    
    DelawareWilliams Pipeline Services LLC
    
    DelawareWilliams Uinta Gathering, LLC
    
    Delaware
§ 10.102 How and when is a claim for wage loss compensation filed? ( a ) Form CA-7 is used to claim compensation for periods of disability not covered by COP. ( 1 ) An employee who is disabled with loss of pay for more than three calendar days due to an injury, or someone acting on his or her behalf, must file Form CA-7 before compensation can be paid.
( 2 ) The employee shall complete the front of Form CA-7 and submit the form to the employer for completion and transmission to OWCP. The form should be completed as soon as possible, but no more than 14 calendar days after the date pay stops due to the injury or disease. All such notices should be submitted electronically wherever feasible to facilitate processing of such claims. All employers that currently do not have such capability should create such a method by December 31, 2012.
( 3 ) The requirements for filing claims are further described in 5 U.S.C. 8121.
( b ) Form CA-7 is also used to claim compensation for additional periods of disability following the initial injury. ( 1 ) It is the employee's responsibility to submit Form CA-7. Without receipt of such claim, OWCP has no knowledge of continuing wage loss. Therefore, while disability continues, the employee should submit a claim on Form CA-7 each two weeks until otherwise instructed by OWCP.
( 2 ) The employee shall complete the front of Form CA-7 and submit the form to the employer for completion and transmission to OWCP.
( 3 ) The employee is responsible for submitting, or arranging for the submittal of, medical evidence to OWCP which establishes both that disability continues and that the disability is due to the work-related injury. Form CA-20a is submitted with Form CA-7 for this purpose.
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

DAY HIGH

 1,870

 2,790

 3,831

 4,616

 4,957

 2,267

 567

 738

 1,095

 3,380

 5,101

 3,861

 5,047

 10,946

 13,334

 14,912

 14,781

 13,513

 13,487

 12,907

 13,548

 12,734

 11,582

 11,764

 10,409

 9,157

 6,461

 8,100

 11,369

 13,954

 133

 139

 145

 142

 147

 142

 141

 141

 143

 145

 145

 138

 139

 196

 2,288

 1,455

 1,614

 505

 505

 505

 494

 497

 437

 406

 462

 451

 399

 471

 783

 1,284

 366

 555

 748

 898

 927

 416

 221

 227

 276

 473

 905

 887

 1,503

 4,461

 7,765

 6,351

 5,734

 5,290

 5,259

 4,937

 4,842

 4,301

 3,925

 3,854

 3,538

 3,158

 2,743

 2,802

 3,675

 5,907

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 11, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
§ 202.3 Company or person principally engaged in non-carrier business. ( a ) With respect to any company or person principally engaged in business other than carrier business, but which, in addition to such principal business, engages in some carrier business, the Board will require submission of information pertaining to the history and all operations of such company or person with a view to determining whether some identifiable and separable enterprise conducted by the person or company is to be considered to be the employer. The determination will be made in the light of considerations such as the following: ( 1 ) The primary purpose of the company or person on and since the date it was established;
( 2 ) The functional dominance or subservience of its carrier business in relation to its non-carrier business;
( 3 ) The amount of its carrier business and the ratio of such business to its entire business;
( 4 ) Whether its carrier business is a separate and distinct enterprise.
( b ) In the event that the employer is found to be an aggregate of persons or legal entities or less than the whole of a legal entity or a person operating in only one of several capacities, then the unit or units competent to assume legal obligations shall be responsible for the discharge of the duties of the employer.
### SUBCHAPTER III—KERMIT ROOSEVELT FUND
### SUBCHAPTER II–A—FOREIGN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SALES
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report of Patni Computer Systems Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Surjeet Singh, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 04,  2008 |                    |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       |                    |
|                       | /s/ Surjeet Singh       |   |
|                       | Surjeet Singh           |   |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
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 Quarterly Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Andrew Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.      By: /s/ Andrew Liu, CEO and Chairman  Date:August 12, 2010
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

 312

 308

 286

 313

 334

 348

 337

 357

 354

 342

 331

 312

 331

 318

 316

 310

 301

 299

 308

 299

 300

 314

 330

 325

 322

 333

 324

 314

 307

 286

 289

 194

 206

 215

 215

 230

 250

 224

 198

 226

 251

 261

 260

 266

 260

 270

 264

 247

 248

 245

 246

 239

 239

 246

 251

 256

 262

 266

 267

 269

 261

 255

 265

 258

 254

 264

 279

 289

 273

 264

 287

 285

 284

 279

 283

 285

 288

 282

 276

 269

 268

 265

 263

 264

 272

 273

 276

 280

 285

 285

 280

 271

 266

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 2, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 404.1585 Trial work period for persons age 55 or older who are blind. If you become eligible for disability benefits even though you were doing substantial gainful activity because you are blind and age 55 or older, you are entitled to a trial work period if— ( a ) You later return to substantial gainful activity that requires skills or abilities comparable to those required in the work you regularly did before you became blind or became 55 years old, whichever is later; or
( b ) Your last previous work ended because of an impairment and the current work requires a significant vocational adjustment.
Comments on Peer Review Documents on “ Meta

- Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality

Improvements ”

June 3, 2015

All five reviewers commend t he EPA authors for their work on this project. This is clearly an i mportant, and dif ficult, task and the review ers understand that. Thei r suggestions are meant to improve this document in several dimensions.

I would like to highlight some topics that appear in all the reviews ’ comments. First, it is always problematic to use research to answer questions that are outside the scope of the analysis itself. This occurs when trying to quantify relationships outside of the original range of data in regression analysis, and when conducting meta

- analysis which includes variables not in the original studies. It occurs when the studies used are partial equilibrium analyses, but need to be used to estimate full equilibrium

outcomes. But by clearly outlining what is being done, and by discussing the problems with doing this, the authors of the EPA study can make it clear why this is necessary.

The reviewers have pointed out some ar eas of the paper that they feel could use clarification through better descriptions, or through explanatory examples. It is important to remember that the audience for this work may not be as familiar with some of the techniques being used, so clarit y wil l be key.

Most reviewers questioned t he assumption on the 100 mile distance used. A survey of what is used in the literature would be helpful. Additionally, sensitivity analysis might make clear the costs of this assumption. Sensitivity analysis on other assumptions and model specifications would also be helpful, as suggested by the reviewers.

In the discussion of the two models, MRM1 and MRM2, more direct comparisons are called for by several reviewers. This is mentioned in the report itself, so it is assumed that this work is in progress. In addition, the suggestion that a ta ble be included that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the two specifications is good. Ag ain, an audience that is not as familiar with the two models, but who needs to choose between them for a particular situation, would find such a table very helpful.

As mentioned by several reviewers, this document suggests several areas for future research. Highlighting those areas, and discussing what exactly would be needed, wil l be a valuable resource for the EPA and for researchers in these areas.
#### § 6.95 Consumer tasting or sampling at retail establishments.

An industry member may conduct tasting or sampling activities at a retail establishment. The industry member may purchase the products to be used from the retailer, but may not purchase them from the retailer for more than the ordinary retail price.
#### § 1002.102 Does the five-year service limit include periods of service that the employee performed before USERRA was enacted?

It depends. USERRA provides reemployment rights to which an employee may become entitled beginning on or after December 12, 1994, but any uniformed service performed before December 12, 1994, that was counted against the service limitations of the previous law (the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act), also counts against USERRA's five-year limit.
Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0985: Selected records pertaining to the August 4, 2015 

notice of data availability (NODA) for the EPA’s updated ozone transport modeling for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the December 3, 2015 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update 

proposal (from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500)

Click on links to see documents.

August 4, 2015 NODA: Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard

Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0001

2017 Ozone Contributions

2017 Ozone Contributions

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0007

August 4, 2015 NODA: Details about Provided Emissions Data Files

Details about Provided Emissions Data Files

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0008

December 3, 2015 Proposed Rule: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0067

Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Proposal 

Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Proposal

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0075

Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document

Ozone Transport Policy Analysis TSD

Regulations.gov document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0186

*******************************************end*****************************************************
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

DAY HIGH

 5,483

 7,118

 7,278

 8,845

 9,333

 10,469

 10,500

 9,370

 8,090

 6,853

 6,801

 7,967

 8,009

 9,050

 9,134

 8,487

 8,209

 10,180

 9,641

 10,957

 9,845

 10,591

 10,852

 10,244

 8,613

 8,247

 8,779

 8,935

 10,003

 10,490

 1,077

 1,234

 1,267

 1,403

 1,738

 1,766

 2,029

 2,048

 1,888

 1,646

 1,496

 2,235

 2,676

 2,979

 2,585

 2,016

 2,177

 2,177

 2,064

 2,325

 2,641

 2,820

 2,680

 2,478

 2,530

 2,674

 2,748

 3,243

 3,709

 3,400

 2,770

 3,212

 3,329

 4,067

 4,926

 5,585

 5,645

 5,230

 4,716

 4,219

 3,877

 4,740

 5,076

 4,932

 4,943

 4,307

 4,734

 4,915

 5,083

 5,790

 5,827

 6,450

 6,404

 5,999

 5,509

 5,407

 5,347

 5,504

 6,061

 6,206

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 25, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
No. 11,787.

#### O’Brien, et al. *v.*Houston, et al.

Decided December 27, 1927.

Action for breach, of contract. Judgment for defendants.

*Affirmed.*

1. *Contract’*— Breach. One cannot be hold for breach of a written contract executed by another, to which he was not a party.

2. *Failure to Mead.*In the absence of fraud or concealment, one executing a written contract will not be heard to say that he did not know its contents.

*Error to the .District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. Julian H. Moore, Judge.*

Messrs. Morrissey, Mahoney & Scoeield, Mr. Harold G-. King, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John S. Stidger, for defendants in error.

*Department One.*

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

In an action by Mike and Nell O’Brien against Houston a verdict was directed for defendant and the plaintiffs bring error.

The evidence for the plaintiffs was that they made an oral contract with Houston that he should sell them certain lots and build for them a house thereon according to a certain plan, for all of which they were to pay him $5,000, the first payment of which, $1,400, was to be and was made by the delivery and receipt of an automobile *110at that price; that the house was built, but not according to the agreement, so they refused to accept it and demanded the return of. the car.

The defendants ’ evidence was that Houston was agent for the owner of the lots; that he was not a contractor, and did not build or agree to build the house, but that plaintiffs entered into a written contract with one Gardner whereby he agreed to build it and they to pay him $5,000 for it, including the lots. This contract is in evidence. Houston has the car but testifies with some corroboration that he traded two lots to Gardner for it.

The district court’s opinion was that the written contract precluded any claim that Houston had contracted to build the house and that consequently he could not be held for a breach of such contract. We think the court was right. The complaint contains two causes of action, both ambiguous, but whatever they mean they rest on the proposition that Houston made an oral contract to build the house which is refuted by the incontrovertible evidence that finally not he, but Gardner made a written contract which merged all previous negotiations.

The plaintiffs admit signing the written contract, but they say that they did not read it, that they thought it named Houston as the contractor; if there be no fraud or concealment, however, one cannot say that he did not know the contents of a contract he has executed *(Jaeger v. Whitsett,*3 Colo. 105; *Askey v. Fidelity Sav. Ass’n,*37 Colo. 432, 439, 86 Pac. 1025; *Parker v. McGinty,*77 Colo. 458, 460, 463, 239 Pac. 10, Ann. Cas. 1913A 432, n.), and there was no allegation of any fraud or concealment of Gardner’s name in the contract. The plaintiffs signed it, they saw Gardner sign it and Houston did not sign it.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Burke, Mr. Justice Whitford and Mr. Justice Sheafor concur.
Exhibit 99.1
 Orion Energy Systems, Inc. Receives Notice from NYSE Amex
    About Orion Energy Systems
 www.oesx.com
 Investor Relations Contact     sjensen@oesx.com
 Safe Harbor Statement
  1




---



##### 



http://www.sec.gov http://www.oesx.com
 2
Exhibit 10.1

  

  
    
      

      

      35 Wilbur Street Associates, LLC

      19 Wilbur Street

      Lynbrook, NY 11563

      

      

      August 14, 2018

      

      

      Mr. Thomas Wegman

      Advance Biofactures Corp.

      35 Wilbur Street

      Lynbrook, NY 11563

      

      

      
        	
                Re:

              	
                Lease dated November 21, 2013 between 35 Wilbur Street Assoc., LLC and Advance Biofactures Corp., premises; 35 Wilbur Street, Lynbrook, NY 11563.

              


      

       

        

      Dear Mr. Wegman:

       

        

      It is our understanding that you would like to renew the lease.  The current lease expires on November 30, 2018. We propose that the current terms
          of the lease remain in effect except where the following is concerned:

      

      

      
        	 	
                1)

              	
                The lease will be renewed for 1 (one) year at the rate of $137,994 annually. $11,499.50/ month.

              


      

      
        	 	 — 	
                This will be less 14.89% of the utilities.

              


      

      

      

      A current copy of the certificate of liability insurance is required. 

       

        

      Sincerely yours,

       

        

      Valorie Mancuso

      Controller

      

      

      	
              Thomas Wegman, President

            	
              Richard Arote Jr.

            
	
              Advanaced Biofactures Corp.

            	
              35 Wilbur Street Assoc. LLC

            
	 	 
	
              /S/ Thomas Wegman

            	
              /S/Richard Arote Jr.
Exhibit 8.1
 (BAKER BOTTS LLP)
    
    2001 ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS, TEXAS

752012980


TEL +1 
214.953.6500

FAX +1 
214.953.6503

www.bakerbotts.com
    
    ABU DHABI
AUSTIN
BEIJING
DALLAS
DUBAI
HONG KONG
HOUSTON
LONDON
MOSCOW
NEW YORK
PALO ALTO
RIYADH
WASHINGTON




---



##### 



(BAKER BOTTS LLP)
    

July 20, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3931 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 620 Central Avenue Suite 1A in Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, 
  as the ``Chief Petty Officer Adam Brown United States Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF PETTY OFFICER ADAM BROWN UNITED STATES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 620 Central Avenue Suite 1A in Hot Springs National Park, 
Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the ``Chief Petty Officer 
Adam Brown United States Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Chief 
Petty Officer Adam Brown United States Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 620 Central Avenue Suite 1A in Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, 
  as the ``Chief Petty Officer Adam Brown United States Post Office''.
```