alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9035. Qualified campaign expense limitations

#### (a) Expenditure limitations

No candidate shall knowingly incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the expenditure limitation applicable under section 315(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and no candidate shall knowingly make expenditures from his personal funds, or the personal funds of his immediate family, in connection with his campaign for nomination for election to the office of President in excess of, in the aggregate, $50,000.

#### (b) Definition of immediate family

For purposes of this section, the term "immediate family" means a candidate's spouse, and any child, parent, grandparent, brother, half-brother, sister, or half-sister of the candidate, and the spouses of such persons.

(Added Pub. L. 93–443, title IV, §408(c), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1300; amended Pub. L. 94–283, title III, §§305(a), 307(c), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 499, 501; Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, §220(z), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4037.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 315 of The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 30116 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–295 substituted "section 315(b)(1)(A)" for "section 320(b)(1)(A)".

1976—Pub. L. 94–283 substituted "limitations" for "limitation" in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted "Expenditure limitations" as heading of subsec. (a) as so redesignated and substituted "section 320(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and no candidate shall knowingly make expenditures from his personal funds, or the personal funds of his immediate family, in connection with his campaign for nomination for election to the office of President in excess of, in the aggregate, $50,000" for "section 608(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code", and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–283, title III, §305(d), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 499, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: "For purposes of applying section 9035(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954], as amended by subsection (a), expenditures made by an individual after January 29, 1976, and before the date of the enactment of this Act [May 11, 1976] shall not be taken into account."

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1974, see section 410(c)(1) of Pub. L. 93–443, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 30101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
§ 3931.40 Exploration. To conduct exploration operations under an exploration license or on a lease after lease issuance, but prior to approval of the POD, the following rules apply: ( a ) Except for casual use, before conducting any exploration operations on federally-leased or federally-licensed lands, the operator or lessee must submit to the proper BLM office for approval 3 copies of the exploration plan or a copy of the plan in an acceptable electronic format. Contact the proper BLM office for detailed information on submitting copies electronically. As used in this paragraph, casual use means activities that do not cause appreciable surface disturbance or damage to lands or other resources and improvements. Casual use does not include use of heavy equipment, explosives, or vehicular movement off established roads and trails.
( b ) The exploration activities must be consistent with the requirements of the underlying Federal lease or exploration license, and address protection of recoverable oil shale reserves and other resources and reclamation of the surface of the lands affected by the exploration operations. The exploration plan must meet the requirements of § 3931.20 and must show how reclamation will be an integral part of the proposed operations and that reclamation will progress as contemporaneously as practicable with operations.
§ 46.170 Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions. ( a ) In order to facilitate informed decision-making, the Responsible Official having ultimate responsibility for authorizing and approving proposed actions encompassed by the provisions of Executive Order (EO) 12114 shall follow the provisions and procedures of that EO. EO 12114 “represents the United States government's exclusive and complete determination of the procedural and other actions to be taken by Federal agencies to further the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act, with respect to the environment outside the United States, its territories and possessions.”
( b ) When implementing EO 12114, bureaus shall coordinate with the Department. The Department shall then consult with the Department of State, which shall coordinate all communications by the Department with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements and other arrangements in implementing EO 12114.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141709

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141709 COA: 298737 Oakland CC: 2009-225098-FH WILLIE DUANE MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 4, 2010 order 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.
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT
No. 1 to Transfer Agency Agreement


 


This Amendment (this “Amendment”)
to the Transfer Agency Agreement dated as of September 26, 2017 (the “Agreement”) is by and between DST
Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (“DST”) and XAI
OCTAGON FLOATING RATE & ALTERNATIVE INCOME TERM TRUST, a statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (“Fund”)
is effective March 16, 2021 (“Effective Date”).


 


The Fund wishes to add preferred shares of beneficial
interest, which may be divided into one or more series as determined from time to time by the Board of Trustees of the Fund, as an additional
class of shares of the Fund (“Additional Class”) to receive services under the Agreement. Each of DST and Fund hereby agree
to accept the Additional Class as additional “Shares” (as such term is defined in the Agreement) of the Fund. By its signature
below, the Fund confirms to DST, as of the Effective Date hereof, and after giving effect to this Amendment, its representations and warranties
set forth in the Agreement.


The parties acknowledge that Exhibit D, attached hereto as amended
by this Amendment, lists all active funds and “Shares” (as such term is defined in the Agreement) under the Agreement.


 


Except as specifically set forth herein, all other
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, the same being confirmed and republished hereby.
In the event of any conflict between the terms of the Agreement and the terms of this Amendment with regard to the subject matter hereof,
the terms of this Amendment shall control.


 


This Amendment may be executed by the parties
hereto on any number of counterparts, delivery of which may occur by facsimile or as an attachment to an electronic communication, each
of which shall be deemed an original, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.


 




     


     


    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have
caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written by their respective duly authorized officers.


 


	XAI OCTAGON FLOATING RATE & 	 	 	 
	ALTERNATIVE INCOME TERM TRUST	 	 	DST SYSTEMS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Benjamin McCulloch	 	By:	/s/ Rahul Kanwar 
	 	 	 	 	 



 


	Print Name:	Benjamin McCulloch	 	Print Name:	Rahul Kanwar



 


	Title:	Secretary and Chief Legal Officer	 	Title:	Authorized Representative 



 


 




    1 


     


    

  


EXHIBIT D


LIST OF FUNDS


 


	Fund 

#	Fund Name	Class of 

Shares	CUSIP
	 	XAI OCTAGON FLOATING RATE & ALTERNATIVE INCOME TERM TRUST	Common Shares	98400T106
	Preferred Shares	98400T205


 


 






    2
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-12-00032-CR

______________________________

EX PARTE: JACK H. MEYER

 

On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. F14162

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jack H. Meyer, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, which has been provided 

to us through a supplemental record by the District Clerk of Marion County. The motion is signed 

by Meyer and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant the motion. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: May 2, 2012

Date Decided: May 3, 2012

Do Not Publish
§ 422.13 Reporting an injury or property damage or loss. ( a ) An officer must immediately report orally and in writing to his/her supervisor any: ( 1 ) Injury suffered while on duty; and
( 2 ) Any loss, damage, or theft of government property.
( b ) The written report must be in detail and must include names and addresses of all witnesses.
( c ) When an officer's injuries prevent him/her from preparing a report at the time of injury, the officer's immediate supervisor must prepare the report.
( d ) The supervisor must submit all reports made under this section to the Reclamation official designated to receive them, as soon as possible after the incident occurs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          34,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,668
<PP&E>                                          73,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,013,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,696
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,917,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,013,328
<SALES>                                        179,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               307,512
<CGS>                                          217,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,471)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,517
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                106,915
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .172
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .172
        

</TABLE>
No. 14,667.

#### Jackson *v.*Trainor.

(104 P. [2d] 606)

Decided July 1, 1940.

Rehearing denied July 24, 1940.

*550Mr. Harry E. Mast, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles C. Wooldridge, Mr. Charles Ribar, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Francis E. Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment here complained of was entered on a $246 jury verdict in the Crowley county county court, to which the case had been regularly appealed for trial de novo from a justice of the peace, who had entered judgment on a $100 jury verdict rendered before him. It being a case commenced in a justice court, there are no written pleadings.

Under the only assignment of error relied upon, the plaintiff in error, defendant below, contends that it was reversible error for the county court to omit instructing the jury “as to the proper measure of damages to be considered by the jury, in connection with the claims made against the defendant by the plaintiff,” though the defendant did not request such an instruction. In support of this contention are cited the following: *Mustang Reservoir, Canal and Land Company v. Hissman,*49 Colo. 308, 112 Pac. 800; *Colorado Springs Rapid Transit Railway Company, et al. v. Albrecht,*22 Colo. App. 201, 123 Pac. 957; *Creighton et al. v. Campbell,*27 Colo. App. 120, 149 Pac. 448. These cases need not be discussed. The last mentioned case was reversed in 63 Colo. 478, 167 Pac. 975. The other two are cases of tort, and can readily be distinguished from the case at bar, which is a case on contract.

*551The record before us does not contain the oral evidence given by the plaintiff and the defendant, who were the only witnesses. It does contain what purport to be the documents constituting the contract between the parties and also what purports to be an enumeration of the specific items of damage which, as the defendant states, the plaintiff expressly claimed — both before the justice of the peace and in the county court— had resulted from violation of the contract. No objection is made to any of these items. Even if they had been objected to, we could not — in the absence of the oral evidence taken by the trial court but not presented in the record — say that the verdict in the county court does not accurately and justly represent the injury suffered by the plaintiff. No prejudice to the defendant is shown.

As a general rule, in instructing the jury, non-direction constitutes prejudice only if a proper instruction is tendered by the complaining party to fill the alleged gap. *Mining & Milling Co. v. Prentice,*25 Colo. 4, 7, 52 Pac. 210, 211. The facts disclosed by the record do not bring the present case within any valid exception to that rule. See also rule 7 of this court.

Judgment affirmed.
***Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure**Final Rule Training and Implementation Guide*including the *Supplement (2/98)***
****Click here to read or download the *Guide* and*Supplement (2/98)* for free!
The Training and Implementation Guide is designed for use by all patent professionals. It contains:-  The text of the entire Final Rule as published in the Federal Register, which includes the revised rule language, the preamble portion explaining the revisions, and an Index to the Final Rule;  A rule-by-rule summary and three by-topic summaries (four summaries altogether), the three by-topic summaries including two-page highlights of the significant revisions, a condensed summary of the significant revisions, and a detailed summary of the revisions; Selected revised forms for filing applications;
-  An extensive set of Questions and Answers;  Copies of presentation slides developed for examiner training sessions, including slides comparing the old and new requirements for filing applications; and A section on amendments in reissues and reexaminations.****
**Exhibit 31.3**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Emmis OperatingCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004 /s/ JEFFREY H. SMULYANJeffrey H. SmulyanChairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer
# FILED
December 3, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

BILLY FLOWERS ) and AMY FLOWERS, ) HICKMAN CHANCERY ) Plaintiffs/Appell

ants ) NO. 01A01-9806-C H-00315 and ) NO. 01A01-9806-C H-00286 v. ) (consolidated cases) ) CHARLES R.HORNER and ) DONALD P. HARRIS, REBA M. HORNER, ) CHANCELLOR ) Defendants/Appellees ) AFFIRMED

Douglas Thompso

n Bates, Centervi

lle, for Appella

nts. Allston Vander Ho

rst, Centerville , for Appellees.


### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N INMAN, Senio

r Judge This controversy may, perhaps, be described as a boundary dispute. The development of Riverview Estates Subdivision b egan in1971 with the recorda t ion of a plat which provided for a cul-de-sac fifty feet in width centered on the West boundar

y of Lot 23. The physical location of the cul-de-sac was moved about 183 feet westwardly

sometime b

etween 1971 and

1974, and the

description of Lot 23 was enlarged by the inclusion of a strip 30 feetwide and 133 feet long. The recorded plat was not amended to reflect the relocated cul-de-sac. Lot 23 was acquired by

the pl ai ntiffs in 1995 followi ng three mesne conveyances each of which ref erences “Lo

t 23, Riverview E

states Subdivision, Section D, as surveyed by Lonnie Gilliam, Dec. 29, 1971,” but each conveyance included the 30 X 133 tr

act.1 Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all judges part

icipat ing in the

case, may aff

irm, rever

se or modify t

he actions

of the tr ial court by memorandum opinion when a for

mal opinion would have no precedenti

al value.When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it

shall be designate

d “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be publi shed, and sha ll not be cited or relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.] 2 The pl aintiffs insist that t he location of the cul

-de-sac is fixed by

the recorded plat, and not by t he metes and boun

ds description

in her an d his predecessors’ d

eeds. The defendants own Lot 22, and they insis

t that the metes and bounds descriptions control, superim posed upon the significa

nt physical locatio n of the cul-de-sac, plain for all to see. The trial judge agre

ed with the defenda

nts, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they

relied on the recor

ded plat in any way in purchasing L ot 23. This case is peculiarly

one for affirmance

pursuant to Rule 10, R

ules of the Court of Appeals. 1 The judgment

is affirmed a

t the costs of the appe

llants.

_______________________________ William H.

Inman, Senio

r Judge CONCUR:

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

_______________________________ Herschel P. Fr

anks, Judge
§ 9185.1-1 Surveys. ( a ) *Original surveys.* Application for the original extension of the rectangular system of public land surveys to include unsurveyed townships should be filed in duplicate with the State Director for the State in which the lands are situated. The application may be in letter form, and should describe the unsurveyed area by township and range of the public surveys, and should set forth the interest of the applicant in the land and the basis of need for extension of the surveys.
( b ) *Lands omitted from original survey.* Application for the survey of an unsurveyed island or other land omitted from the original survey shall be made on Form 9600-2, or its equivalent, and filed in duplicate with the State director for the State in which lands are situated.
[35 FR 9798, June 13, 1970, as amended at 44 FR 41795, July 18, 1979]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Wind Cave Geology Driving Tour

Wind Cave National Park
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

United States Park Police