alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank Pryga, Appellant-Respondent, *v.*Frank L. Will, Respondent, and Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., Appellant.

Fourth Department,

March 16, 1949.

*Byron R. Woodin*for appellant-respondent.

*McKinley L. Phillips*for Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., appellant.

*Robert N. Palmer*for Frank L. Will, respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell through a coal hole allegedly negligently maintained by defendants in a public sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant Will and leased in part to defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., for commercial purposes, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor against defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., for $2,000 and in favor *53of defendant Will for no cause of action. Plaintiff and defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., on this appeal challenge the adverse verdicts. On the trial plaintiff introduced in evidence, over the objection of defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., section 5 of chapter II of the Ordinances of the City of Dunkirk, New York, which provided: “ Section 5. It shall be the duty of every owner or occupant of any premises fronting on any public street or ground to keep the sidewalk of the same in good order and repair, and he shall allow no accumulation of refuse to remain thereon.”

The court instructed the jury that negligence might be predicated upon a violation of this ordinance, and said defendant excepted. We think that this instruction was prejudicial error. The ordinance did not assume to make the owner or occupant of the abutting premises liable for injury or damage sustained by reason of a failure to keep the sidewalk in good order and repair. (See *City of Rochester*v. *Campbell,*123 N. Y. 405, 413; *Willis*v. *Parker,*225 N. Y. 159.) On plaintiff’s appeal we conclude that the verdict in favor of the defendant Will is against, the weight of the evidence. On this record we think a new trial should be granted as to both defendants.

All concur. Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
#### § 2885.10 When is a grant or TUP effective?

A grant or TUP is effective after both you and BLM sign it. You must accept its terms and conditions in writing and pay any necessary rent and monitoring fees as set out in §§ 2885.19 and 2885.23 of this subpart. Your written acceptance constitutes an agreement between you and the United States that your right to use the Federal lands, as specified in the grant or TUP, is subject to the terms and conditions of the grant or TUP and applicable laws and regulations.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1963

_____________________________

WILLIAM ISIAH JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

May 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

William Isiah Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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

 254

 249

 225

 238

 251

 249

 243

 220

 219

 203

 200

 198

 186

 185

 206

 193

 192

 193

 156

 122

 111

 118

 143

 137

 99

 96

 106

 108

 104

 100

 101

 246

 224

 221

 224

 239

 235

 212

 205

 202

 192

 196

 185

 179

 181

 181

 179

 184

 157

 123

 111

 104

 103

 116

 100

 91

 88

 97

 105

 98

 99

 99

 250

 233

 223

 230

 247

 243

 225

 211

 212

 196

 197

 190

 182

 183

 189

 185

 187

 181

 137

 116

 107

 110

 129

 115

 93

 92

 102

 106

 101

 99

 100

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 22, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 7,902

 7,901

 7,893

 7,889

 7,899

 7,913

 7,896

 7,844

 7,797

 7,730

 7,664

 7,592

 7,525

 7,428

 7,341

 7,255

 7,172

 7,078

 6,944

 6,790

 6,618

 6,449

 6,299

 6,128

 5,936

 5,742

 5,558

 5,395

 5,233

 5,071

 4,921

 263

 263

 263

 263

 263

 264

 263

 261

 260

 258

 255

 253

 251

 248

 245

 242

 239

 236

 231

 226

 221

 215

 210

 204

 198

 191

 185

 180

 174

 169

 164

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
§ 2565.3 Subdivision. ( a ) *Subdivision of land and payment therefore.* After the entry is made, the townsite will be subdivided by the United States into blocks, lots, streets, alleys, and municipal public reservations. The expense of such survey will be paid from the appropriation for surveys in Alaska reimbursable from the lot assessments collected.
( b ) *Lot assessments.* The trustee will assess against each lot, according to area, its share of the cost of the subdivisional survey. The trustee will make a valuation of each occupied or improved lot in the townsite and assess upon such lots, according to their value, such rate and sum in addition to the cost of their share of the survey as will be necessary to pay all other expenses incident to the execution of his trust which have accrued up to the time of such levy. More than one assessment may be made if necessary to effect the purpose of the Act of March 3, 1891, and this section.
( c ) *Award and disposition of lots after subdivisional survey.* On the acceptance of the plat by the Bureau of Land Management, the trustee will publish a notice that he will, at the end of 30 days from the date thereof, proceed to award the lots applied for, and that all lots for which no applications are filed within 120 days from the date of said notice will be subject to disposition to the highest bidder at public sale. Only those who were occupants of lots or entitled to such occupancy at the date of the approval of final subdivisional townsite survey or their assigns thereafter, are entitled to the allotments herein provided. Minority and coverture are not disabilities.
#### § 2091.4 Segregation and opening resulting from the allowance of entries, leases, grants or contracts.
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

 344

 414

 478

 527

 281

 326

 368

 406

 405

 363

 373

 401

 416

 443

 399

 390

 395

 377

 379

 380

 356

 347

 309

 283

 292

 305

 287

 286

 270

 256

 255

 287

 354

 402

 273

 256

 270

 290

 369

 340

 331

 356

 370

 381

 402

 365

 364

 373

 364

 345

 349

 342

 307

 284

 271

 275

 290

 277

 268

 246

 244

 240

 307

 375

 440

 415

 272

 300

 322

 381

 382

 351

 366

 392

 406

 428

 382

 380

 387

 372

 356

 368

 349

 336

 297

 279

 281

 300

 281

 277

 256

 252

 249

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 2, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
#### § 2568.93 Is there a limit to how much water frontage my allotment can include?

Yes, in some cases. You will normally be limited to a half-mile (referred to as 160 rods in the regulations at 43 CFR part 2094) along the shore of a navigable water body. If you apply for land that extends more than a half-mile, BLM will treat your application as a request to waive this limitation. As explained in 43 CFR 2094.2, BLM can waive the half-mile limitation if it determines the land is not needed for a harborage, wharf, or boat landing area, and that a waiver would not harm the public interest.
### §328. Rules and regulations

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe any necessary regulations for the purpose of administering the provisions of sections 323 to 328 of this title.

(Feb. 5, 1948, ch. 45, §6, 62 Stat. 18.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Enforcement functions of Secretary or other official in Department of the Interior relating to compliance with rights-of-way across Indian lands, issued under section 321 et seq. of this title with respect to pre-construction, construction, and initial operation of transportation system for Canadian and Alaskan natural gas transferred to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, until first anniversary of date of initial operation of Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1979, §§102(e), 203(a), 44 F.R. 33663, 33666, 93 Stat. 1373, 1376, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, effective July 1, 1979, pursuant to Ex. Ord. No. 12142, §1–101, June 21, 1979, 44 F.R. 36927, set out as a note under section 719e of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System abolished and functions and authority vested in Inspector transferred to Secretary of Energy by section 3012(b) of Pub. L. 102–486, set out as an Abolition of Office of Federal Inspector note under section 719e of Title 15. Functions and authority vested in Secretary of Energy subsequently transferred to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects by section 720d(f) of Title 15.
§ 652.200 What is the purpose of this subpart? ( a ) This subpart provides guidance to States to implement the services provided under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by WIOA, in a one-stop delivery system environment.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided, the definitions contained in part 651 of this chapter and sec. 2 of the Wagner-Peyser Act apply to this subpart.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.7


AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
ACXIOM CORPORATION
NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRAL PLAN


WHEREAS, Acxiom Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Acxiom Corporation Non-Qualified Deferral Plan (the “Plan”), amended and restated effective January 1, 2009;


WHEREAS, the Company wishes to revise the Plan to reflect changes in the corporate structure of the Acxiom Corporation controlled group; and


WHEREAS, Section 6.3 of the Plan authorizes the Board or a properly authorized committee of the Board to amend the plan from time-to-time.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:


1.    Effective September 20, 2018, the Plan shall be transferred from being maintained by Acxiom Corporation to Acxiom Holdings, Inc.  All references to Acxiom Corporation, including where “Acxiom Corporation” appears in the Plan name and other benefit plan names that have been transferred to Acxiom Holdings, Inc., shall be amended accordingly.
2.    Effective October 2, 2018, Acxiom Holdings, Inc. shall be renamed LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.  All references to Acxiom Holdings, Inc., including where “Acxiom Holdings, Inc.” appears in the Plan name and other benefit plan names, shall be amended accordingly.
3.    Plan Section 1.2(i) is restated in its entirety as follows:
(i)    Employer:  Effective September 20, 2018 is Acxiom Holdings, Inc., and any related company which, consistent with authorization by Acxiom Holdings, Inc., has adopted the Plan, and any successor or successors thereto.  By its adoption of this plan, an Employer shall be deemed to appoint Acxiom Holdings, Inc. its exclusive agents to exercise on its behalf all of the power and authority conferred by this Plan upon the Employer.  Effective October 2, 2018, all references to “Acxiom Holdings, Inc.” in this definition shall be changed to “LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.”


1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party hereto has executed this amendment on the 14th day of September, 2018.


                        ACXIOM CORPORATION


            
                        By:       /s/ Jerry C. Jones
                            
ACXIOM HOLDINGS, INC.


            
                        By:       /s/ Jerry C. Jones
                            


    2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57862-57863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21725]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 03-2704]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Birmingham, AL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document editorially amends 47 CFR 73.202(b), the Table 
of FM Allotments for Birmingham, Alabama, which was published in the 
Federal Register of Friday, September 19, 2003, (68 FR 54855). The 
Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register, of

[[Page 57863]]

September 19, 2003, a document which removed Channel 295C and added 
Channel 295C0 at Birmingham, Alabama. See 68 FR 54855. This document 
amends 47 CFR 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Alabama, by 
removing Channel 295C0 at Birmingham, Alabama because Channel 295C was 
reallotted to Homewood, Alabama in an earlier rulemaking proceeding, MM 
Docket No. 01-104. See 68 FR 33654, published June 5, 2003.

DATES: Effective on September 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the 
Federal Register of September 19, 2003, (68 FR 54855), which amended 
Sec.  73.202(b), the FM Table of Allotments under Alabama by removing 
Channel 295C and adding Channel 295C0 at Birmingham. However, Channel 
295C at Birmingham was reallotted to Homewood, Alabama in a prior 
rulemaking proceeding. See 68 FR 33654, published June 5, 2003.

Need for Correction

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations currently 
contains under Sec.  73.202(b), the FM Table of Allotments under 
Alabama Channel 295C0 at Birmingham, therefore Channel 295C0 at 
Birmingham needs to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation of part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 54, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Alabama, is 
amended by removing Channel 295C0 at Birmingham.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-21725 Filed 9-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6521

BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00139-FDW)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barney Adrian Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Barney Adrian Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Dunlap has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. Dunlap’s motions to expand 

the record, to place the case in abeyance, to amend or correct 
3

the petition, to appoint counsel, for a transcript at Government 

expense, and for an evidentiary hearing are denied. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mario Backhaus, Appellant, v. Max Kaderli et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
#### § 668.280 Are there any other ways in which an entity may be designated as an INA grantee?

Yes, for an area which would otherwise go unserved. The Grant Officer may designate an entity, which has not submitted an NOI, but which meets the qualifications for designation, to serve the particular geographic area. Under such circumstances, DINAP will seek the views of Native American leaders in the area involved about the decision to designate the entity to serve that community. DINAP will inform the Grant Officer of their views. The Grant Officer will accommodate their views to the extent possible.
### §1771b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–95, §4, Aug. 18, 1987, 101 Stat. 705, which related to approval of prior transfers and extinguishment of aboriginal title and claims of Gay Head Indians, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 725.453 Notice of hearing.

All parties shall be given at least 30 days written notice of the date and place of a hearing and the issues to be resolved at the hearing. Such notice shall be sent to each party or representative by certified mail.
§ 669.360 May grantees provide emergency assistance to MSFW's? ( a ) Yes, Emergency Assistance (as defined in § 669.110) is a form of the related assistance that is authorized under WIA section 167(d) and may be provided by a grantee as described in the grant plan.
( b ) In providing emergency assistance, the NFJP grantee may use an abbreviated eligibility determination process that accepts the applicant's self-attestation as final evidence of eligibility, except that self-attestation may not be used to establish the requirements of legal working status in the United States, and Selective Service registration, where applicable.
§ 30.200 What is a summary probate proceeding? ( a ) A summary probate proceeding is the disposition of a probate case without a formal hearing, which is conducted on the basis of the probate file received from the agency. A summary probate proceeding may be conducted by a judge or an ADM.
( b ) A decedent's estate may be processed summarily if the estate involves only funds in an IIM account and the total value of the estate does not exceed $300 on the decedent's date of death, including: ( 1 ) Funds deposited into the IIM account on or before the date of death; and
( 2 ) Funds accrued on or before the date of death.
### §1300l–5. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–434, title II, §207, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4535, which related to adoption of a tribal constitution and bylaws and election of tribal officials, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
§ 726.2 Purpose and scope of this part. ( a ) This part provides rules directing and controlling the circumstances under which a coal mine operator shall fulfill his insurance obligations under the Act.
( b ) This Subpart A sets forth the scope and purpose of this part and generally describes the statutory framework within which this part is operative.
( c ) Subpart B of this part sets forth the criteria a coal mine operator must meet in order to qualify as a self-insurer.
( d ) Subpart C of this part sets forth the rules and regulations of the Secretary governing contracts of insurance entered into by coal mine operators and commercial insurance sources for the payment of black lung benefits under part C of the Act.
( e ) Subpart D of this part sets forth the rules governing the imposition of civil money penalties on coal mine operators that fail to secure their liability under the Act.
#### § 2711.5 Conveyance documents.

Patents and other conveyance documents issued under this part shall contain a reservation to the United States of all minerals. Such minerals shall be subject to the right to explore, prospect for, mine, and remove under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe. However, upon the filing of an application as provided in part 2720 of this title, the Secretary may convey the mineral interest if all requirements of the law are met. Where such application has been filed and meets the requirements for conveyance, the authorized officer may withhold issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance on lands sold under this part until processing of the mineral conveyance application is completed, at which time a single patent or document of conveyance for the entire estate or interest of the United States may be issued.
#### § 2569.701 If Congress makes lands available within a National Wildlife Refuge, what additional rules apply?

Any Certificate of Allotment for lands within a National Wildlife Refuge will contain provisions that the lands remain subject to the laws and regulations governing the use and development of the Refuge.