alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 ELEV

 733.02

 733.19

 733.42

 734.04

 734.38

 734.66

 734.98

 729.11

 720.62

 720.51

 720.82

 721.09

 721.34

 721.60

 721.82

 722.05

 722.26

 720.07

 720.27

 720.48

 720.66

 720.87

 721.10

 721.27

 721.45

 721.62

 721.78

 721.93

 722.06

 722.22

 1,706

 1,713

 1,723

 1,751

 1,766

 1,779

 1,793

 1,539

 1,208

 1,204

 1,216

 1,225

 1,235

 1,244

 1,252

 1,261

 1,269

 1,189

 1,196

 1,203

 1,210

 1,217

 1,226

 1,232

 1,239

 1,245

 1,251

 1,256

 1,261

 1,267

STORAGE

+11

+7

+10

+28

+15

+13

+14

-254

-331

-4

+12

+9

+10

+9

+8

+9

+8

-80

+7

+7

+7

+7

+9

+6

+7

+6

+6

+5

+5

+6

CHANGE

9

7

8

17

11

10

10

0

-13

7

9

8

8

8

7

8

7

-3

7

7

7

7

8

6

7

6

6

6

6

6

INFLOW

 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

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 128

 154

 9

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 37

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2012 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2012

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -428 197 0 406

ACRE-FEET -428 391 0 805

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 805

 805

 1,695

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd.-2
                    and is qualified in its entirety by
                    reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>                           0000737296
<NAME>                          P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd.-2
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          997,710

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   26,766

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,024,476

<PP&E>                          1,518,521

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,542,997

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           289,155

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      2,253,842

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,542,997

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0<F1>

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<FN>
<F1>
Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting 
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
Statement of Operations subsequent to 1996. See Note A
to the financial statements for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4596 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4596

 To ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet access 
   service can devote resources to broadband deployment rather than 
          compliance with cumbersome regulatory requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2016

  Mr. Walden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet access 
   service can devote resources to broadband deployment rather than 
          compliance with cumbersome regulatory requirements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Broadband Deployment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ENHANCEMENT TO TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL 
              BUSINESSES.

    (a) In General.--The enhancements to the transparency rule of the 
Federal Communications Commission under section 8.3 of title 47, Code 
of Federal Regulations, as described in paragraphs 162 through 184 of 
the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order of the 
Federal Communications Commission with regard to protecting and 
promoting the open Internet (adopted February 26, 2015) (FCC 15-24), 
shall not apply to any small business.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
        ``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal 
        Regulations.
            (2) Small business.--The term ``small business'' means any 
        provider of broadband Internet access service that has not more 
        than--
                    (A) 1,500 employees; or
                    (B) 500,000 subscribers.
                                 <all>
```
§ 901.10 Application for enrollment. ( a ) *Form.* As a requirement for enrollment, an applicant shall file with the Executive Director of the Joint Board a properly executed application on a form or forms specified by the Joint Board, and shall agree to comply with these regulations and any other guidance as required by the Joint Board. A reasonable non-refundable fee may be charged for each application for enrollment filed.
( b ) *Additional information.* The Joint Board or Executive Director, as a condition to consideration of an application for enrollment, may require the applicant to file additional information and to submit to written or oral examination under oath or otherwise.
( c ) *Denial of application.* If the Joint Board proposes to deny an application for enrollment, the Executive Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the proposed denial and the reasons therefor, of his rights to request reconsideration, of the address to which such request should be made and the date by which such request must be made. The applicant may, within 30 days from the date of the written proposed denial, file a written request for reconsideration therefrom, together with his reasons in support thereof, to the Joint Board. The Joint Board may afford an applicant the opportunity to make a personal appearance before the Joint Board. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be rendered by the Joint Board as soon as practicable. In the absence of a request for reconsideration within the aforesaid 30 days, the proposed denial shall, without further proceeding, constitute a final decision of denial by the Joint Board.
[42 FR 39200, Aug. 3, 1977, as amended at 76 FR 17769, Mar. 31, 2011]
### §277. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 646

Section, acts Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 225, title II, 43 Stat. 926; Apr. 15, 1926, ch. 146, title II, 44 Stat. 288, provided for appointment and pay of a superintendent of Antietam Battlefield.
§ 666.130 Under what conditions may a State or DOL request revisions to the State negotiated levels of performance? ( a ) The DOL guidelines describe when and under what circumstances a Governor may request revisions to negotiated levels. These circumstances include significant changes in economic conditions, in the characteristics of participants entering the program, or in the services to be provided from when the initial plan was submitted and approved. (WIA sec. 136(b)(3)(A)(vi).)
( b ) The guidelines will establish the circumstances under which a State will be required to submit revisions under specified circumstances.
### §7208. Prohibition on additional imports from Cuba

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to alter, modify, or otherwise affect the provisions of section 515.204 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, relating to the prohibition on the entry into the United States of merchandise that: (1) is of Cuban origin; (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce, or manufacture of Cuba.

(Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title IX, §909], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–71.)
### §§841 to 843. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159

Section 841, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title III, §301, 60 Stat. 1001, related to compliance with laws, international agreements, and executive orders.

Section 842, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title III, §302, 60 Stat. 1001, authorized Secretary, where not inconsistent with authority of President, to govern duties by regulations.

Section 843, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title III, §303, 60 Stat. 1002, authorized President to delegate to Secretary authority to prescribe regulations.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
# I.ASKO Innovators in Home Comfort
April 8, 2009

Ms. Brenda Edwards Office ofEERE Mail Stop EE2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 RE: Request for information regarding possible standby and offmode energy use for unvented heaters Dear Ms. Edwards: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our response to your letter ofMarch 23, 2009. Respectfully we have submilled our answers through our membership with AHAM. You should have received adocument through Ms. Debra Brunk ofAHAM dated 4/8/2009. Sincerely,

# 2~cn~ SCOll Mohler Lasko Products, Inc Compliance Manager NSM/ris

820 Lincoln Avenue West Chesler, Pa 19:180
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.18

                                 Amendment No. 2
                                       To
                       Nastech Pharmaceutical Company Inc.
                            2004 Stock Incentive Plan

      Pursuant to the resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Nastech
Pharmaceutical Company Inc. (the "Company") on October 5, 2005, the following
amendments to the Nastech Pharmaceutical Company Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan
are hereby adopted effective as of October 5, 2005:

1.    Section 2.7, paragraph (a), is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
      with the following:

            "(a) Restricted Stock Grants. The Committee may grant restricted
      shares of Common Stock to such key persons, in such amounts, and subject
      to such transferability, vesting and forfeiture provisions, and other
      terms and conditions, as the Committee shall determine in its sole
      discretion, subject to the provisions of the Plan. Restricted stock awards
      may be made independently of or in connection with any other award under
      the Plan. A grantee of a restricted stock award shall have no rights with
      respect to such award unless such grantee accepts the award within such
      period as the Committee shall specify by accepting delivery of a Grant
      Certificate in such form as the Committee shall determine and, in the
      event the restricted shares are newly issued by the Company, makes payment
      to the Company or its exchange agent by certified or official bank check
      (or the equivalent thereof acceptable to the Company) in an amount at
      least equal to the par value of the shares covered by the award."
#### § 801.101 Establishment.

By Pub. L. 92-576, 82 Stat. 1251, in an amendment made to section 21 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921), there was established effective November 26, 1972, a Benefits Review Board, which is composed of members appointed by the Secretary of Labor.
§ 725.205 Determination of dependency; spouse. For the purposes of augmenting benefits, an individual who is the miner's spouse (see § 725.204) will be determined to be dependent upon the miner if: ( a ) The individual is a member of the same household as the miner (see § 725.232); or
( b ) The individual is receiving regular contributions from the miner for support (see § 725.233(c)); or
( c ) The miner has been ordered by a court to contribute to such individual's support (see § 725.233(e)); or
( d ) The individual is the natural parent of the son or daughter of the miner; or
( e ) The individual was married to the miner (see § 725.204) for a period of not less than 1 year.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7309

CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SC DEPT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT; SC DEPT PROBATION PAROLE 

AND PARDON SERVICES; SAMUEL GLOVER; GREENVILLE TECHNICAL 

COLLEGE, et al.; TIM RILEY, Warden, Tyger River Correctional 

Institution; ROBERT HAL MAUNEY, Warden, Northside and 

Livesay Correctional Institution; PEGGY ROGERS, Lieutenant 

at Tyger River; ROGER RABB, Casemanager at Tyger River; 

KAREN FOWLER, Caseworker at Tyger River; B. LEWIS, 

Caseworker at Tyger River; BILLY HYATT; MARY H. MCCABE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-01876-PMD)

Submitted: March 10, 2010 Decided: March 25, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, 

HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Bernard Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing Jones’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on April 2, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 

2009. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period within 

the time periods specified in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6),*

 * Although Jones stated in his notice of appeal that he did 

not receive notice of the entry of the district court’s final 

order until May 14, 2009, his notice of appeal falls outside of 

the seven-day requirement in Rule 4(a)(6)(B) and therefore a 

reopening of the appeal period is not permitted.

we 

dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of 
4

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 24, 2012

h0917

Order 

September 24, 2012

144489

_________________________________________

In re Parole of TIMOTHY J. GRIER,

_________________________________________

MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTOR,

Appellee,

v SC: 144489

COA: 304908

Macomb CC: 2011-000218-AP

TIMOTHY J. GRIER,

Appellant,

and

PAROLE BOARD,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2011 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### SUBCHAPTER I—RHODE ISLAND INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT
Exhibit 99.1


                        ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

                 Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-NC3
                     Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates

      I, Kevin Cloyd, hereby certify that I am a duly appointed Executive Vice
President of New Century Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer"), and further
certify as follows:

      1. This certification is being made pursuant to the terms of the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2005 (the "Agreement"), among
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), the Servicer
and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee").

      2. I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
year and the Servicer's performance under the Agreement and to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement throughout the year.

      Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth
in the Agreement.


Dated: March 15, 2006
<PAGE>

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 15, 2006.

                                                By: /s/ Kevin Cloyd
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                Name: Kevin Cloyd
                                                Title: Executive Vice President


            I, Joseph Tortorelli, an Assistant Secretary of the Company, hereby
certify that Kevin Cloyd is a duly elected, qualified, and acting Executive Vice
President of the Company and that the signature appearing above is his genuine
signature.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 15, 2006.

                                                By: /s/ Joseph Tortorelli
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                Name: Joseph Tortorelli
                                                Title: Assistant Secretary
#### Commissioner of Public Welfare of the City of New York, Respondent, v. Lincoln Perry, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

Editorial Note on Subpart L of Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart L of part 655 appear at 75 FR 10403, Mar. 5, 2010.

§ 655.1111 Element I—What hospitals are eligible to participate in the H-1C program? ( a ) The first attestation element requires that the employer be a “facility” for purposes of the H-1C program, as defined in INA Section 212(m)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1182 (2)(m)(6).
( b ) A qualifying facility under that section is a “subpart (d) hospital,” as defined in Section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B), which: ( 1 ) Was located in a health professional shortage area (HPSA), as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services, on March 31, 1997. A list of HPSAs, as of March 31, 1997, was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 1997 (62 FR 29395);
( 2 ) Had at least 190 acute care beds, as determined by its settled cost report, filed under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C. 1395 *et seq.*), for its fiscal year 1994 cost reporting period (*i.e.,* Form HCFA-2552-92, Worksheet S-3, Part I, column 1, line 8);
( 3 ) Had at least 35% of its acute care inpatient days reimbursed by Medicare, as determined by its settled cost report, filed under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, for its fiscal year 1994 cost reporting period (*i.e.,* Form HCFA-2552-92, Worksheet S-3, Part I, column 4, line 8 as a percentage of column 6, line 8); and
( 4 ) Had at least 28% of its acute care inpatient days reimbursed by Medicaid, as determined by its settled cost report, filed under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, for its fiscal year 1994 cost reporting period (*i.e.,* Form HCFA-2552-92, Worksheet S-3, Part I, column 5, line 8 as a percentage of column 6, line 8).
( c ) The Federal Register notice containing the controlling list of HPSAs (62 FR 29395), can be found in federal depository libraries and on the Government Printing Office Internet website at *http://www.access.gpo.gov .*
( d ) To make a determination about information in the settled cost report, the employer shall examine its own Worksheet S-3, Part I, Hospital and Hospital Health Care Complex Statistical Data, in the Hospital and Hospital Health Care Complex Cost Report, Form HCFA 2552, filed for the fiscal year 1994 cost reporting period.
( e ) The facility must maintain a copy of the portions of Worksheet S-3, Part I and Worksheet S, Parts I and II of HCFA Form 2552 which substantiate the attestation of eligibility as a “facility.” One set of copies of this document must be kept in the facility's public access file. The full Form 2552 for fiscal year 1994 must be made available to the Department upon request.
No. 11,613.

#### London Guarantee and Accident Co., et al. *v.*Industrial Commission, et al.

Decided October 4, 1926.

Proceeding under the workmen’s compensation act. Judgment of the district court affirming an award of the commission for accidental injury to a wooden leg.

*Reversed.*

1. Workmen’s *Compensation*— Personal *Injuries*— Artificial *Limbs.*Under the workmen’s compensation act compensation can be awarded for personal injuries only, and not for injury to an artificial limb.

*163
      *Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. George F. Dunklee, Judge.*

Mr. William E. Hutton, Mr. J. P. Nordlund, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. William L. Boatright, Attorney General, Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein, Assistant, for defendants in error.

*En banc.*

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

The district court affirmed an award of the commission to the claimant Chambers for the accidental injury of his wooden leg.

Compensation can be awarded for personal injuries only (C. L. §§ 4389, 4387, 4388, 4404), which means injury to the person. 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Comp. §92; *Miller v. American Steel & Wire Co.,*90 Conn. 349, 360, 97 Atl. 345, L. R. A. 1916 E, 510; *Linnane v. Aetna Brewing Co.,*91 Conn. 158, 99 Atl. 507, L. R. A. 1917 D, 77; C. J. Treatise on Work. Comp. p. 63, § 54. So in criminal law. *State v. Clayborne,*14 Wash. 622, 45 Pac. 303; 30 Cyc. 1529; Bouv. L. D. A wooden leg is a man’s property, not part of his person, and no compensation can be awarded for its injury.

Judgment reversed with directions to disaffirm the award.

Mr. Justice Campbell not participating.