alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Registrant's  unaudited interim financial statements for the quarter ended March
31, 1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to those  financial
statements.  
</LEGEND> <CIK> 0000895993
<NAME> RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II
         <S>                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                10,649,584<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,649<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,702,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          765,120<F3>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,937,115<F4>  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,702,235
<SALES>                                              0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,102  
<CGS>                                                0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,017  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             90,017 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,017 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      382
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      382

<FN>  
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships.  
<F2>Includes $8,819 due from affiliates.
<F3>Includes $176,322 due to affiliates.
<F3>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest  
in Trust with capital accounts of $12,018,985 less  
managing shareholder's accumulated deficit of $81,870.  
</FN>  
          

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.7


                      TERMINATION OF SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT

THIS TERMINATION OF SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT is entered into on January 15, 2003
but is effective as of December 29, 2001 by and between Peter Goss, 1800 North
Hill Avenue, Willow Grove, PA, 19090 ("Goss") and IWT Tesoro Corporation, a
Nevada corporation, formerly known as Ponca Acquisition Corporation (the
"Company").

RECITALS

A.            On June 29, 2000, Goss, as "Holder" entered into a shareholder
              agreement ("Shareholder Agreement") with Company wherein the
              Holder agreed that he would not transfer, sell, contract to sell,
              devise, gift, assign, pledge, hypothecate, distribute or grant any
              option to purchase or otherwise dispose of, directly or
              indirectly, its shares of Company stock, as set forth more fully
              in the Shareholder Agreement.

B.            Goss and the Company wish to terminate the terms of the
              Shareholder Agreement, effective as of December 29, 2001.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows:

1.       The Shareholder Agreement is terminated as of December 29, 2001 and
shall be of no further force or effect.

2.       This Agreement shall be governed by Nevada law, without giving effect
to any conflict of laws principles.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set
forth above.

                                        IWT TESORO CORPORATION

/s/ Peter R. Goss                       By:/s/ Henry J. Boucher, Jr.
----------------------                     ---------------------------
    Peter R. Goss                              Henry J. Boucher, Jr. President
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-03-065 November 4, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC/PSEG MEETING ON HOPE CREEK IS RESCHEDULED

A meeting previously scheduled for November 5 between the NRC staff and officials of

PSEG Nuclear has been postponed until Monday, November 24. The meeting will begin at 9:30

a.m. in the Public Meeting Room in the NRC’s Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. 

The meeting is to discuss the results of licensing examinations given to control room

operator candidates for the Hope Creek nuclear power plant earlier this year. The plant is located

in Hancocks Bridge (Salem County), N.J., and operated by PSEG Nuclear.

###
No. 13,442.

#### Driscoll Construction Company et al. *v.*Industrial Commission et al.

(31 P. [2d] 491)

Decided April 2, 1934.

Mr. William T. Burris, Mr. Charles J. Bibar, for plaintiffs in error.

■ Mr. Paul P. Prosser, Attorney General, Mr. M. S. Ginsberg, Assistant, Mr. S. Arthur Henry, for defendants in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission awarded compensation for temporary total disability to Erker, an employee of the Driscoll Construction Company. The *569company and its insurer carried the case to the district court, which affirmed the award. Company and insurer ask us to reverse district court and commission.

The claimant was employed to work on road construction, operating one of the company’s drag scrapers (colloquially known as “fresnos”), he supplying his own team of horses in connection therewith. Other employees had like employment. The company made no arrangements for the stabling of teams on the ground, and Erker and others stabled their horses in a barn about half a mile distant. On the morning of the accident Erker harnessed his team to his wagon, and started driving to the construction work. He was driving along a trail parallel with the road under construction when, between one and two hundred feet from the fresno to which he was to hitch his team, the wagon overturned and he was thrown out, sustaining compensable injuries.

The assignments of error filed here, as well as the petitions for review before the commission, present the contention that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the claimant’s employment. It is urged that, since the employee had not yet hitched his team to the vehicle he was to operate, the accident happened ‘£ en route to his work” and consequently outside the field of actual operation. But it was necessary for Erker to bring his own horses. Traveling by wagon as he did was a natural, and as the evidence shows, the customary, way of getting the team upon the ground, as the terms of his employment required him to do. Moreover, the evidence shows without contradiction that almost immediately before Erker was injured his boss, laboring under a mistake of fact, reprimanded him for being late, and ordered him to hurry to the fresno. The resulting-haste may easily have been the direct cause of the accident. Whether it was or not, the accident did happen, and Erker was at the time doing just what his employment demanded of him. The case comes clearly within the letter and spirit of our Colorado act and the decisions *570of this court. The principle applied in *State Fund v. Industrial Commission,*89 Colo. 426, 3 P. (2d) 414, is properly applied in the situation before us. Here, as there, the “special circumstances” call for approval of the commission’s award and of the affirmance thereof by the district court.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Butler concur.
§ 182.51 Prevention of improper payment of claims. ( a ) *Double payment of claim.* The drawback claimant must certify to CBP that the claimant has not earlier received payment on the same import entry for the same designation of goods. If, notwithstanding such a certification, such an earlier payment was in fact made to the claimant, the claimant must repay any amount paid on the second claim.
( b ) *Preparation of Certification of Origin.* The drawback claimant must, within 30 calendar days after the filing of the drawback claim under this subpart, submit to CBP a written statement as to whether the claimant has prepared, or has knowledge that another person has prepared, a certification of origin provided for under § 182.12 and pertaining to the goods which are covered by the claim. If, following such 30-day period, the claimant prepares, or otherwise learns of the existence of, any such certification of origin, the claimant must, within 30 calendar days thereafter, disclose that fact to CBP.
[CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35590, July 6, 2021]
#### Mason-Seaman Transportation Company v. John Purroy Mitchel, as Mayor, etc., and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### § 1201.11 Scope and policy.

The regulations in this subpart apply to Board appellate proceedings except as otherwise provided in § 1201.13. The regulations in this subpart apply also to appellate proceedings and stay requests covered by part 1209 unless other specific provisions are made in that part. These regulations also apply to original jurisdiction proceedings of the Board except as otherwise provided in subpart D. It is the Board's policy that these rules will be applied in a manner that expedites the processing of each case. It is the Board's policy that these rules will be applied in a manner that ensures the fair and efficient processing of each case.

[74 FR 9343, Mar. 4, 2009]
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-64 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
### §7106. Delegation of supervision of assistance

With the approval of the President, the head of an executive agency may delegate or otherwise arrange to have another executive agency carry out or supervise a project or class of projects jointly financed under this chapter. A delegation—

(1) shall be made under conditions ensuring that duties and powers delegated are exercised consistent with law; and

(2) may not relieve the head of an executive agency of responsibility for the proper and efficient management of a project for which the agency provides assistance.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1038.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7106 | 42:4256. | Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. 93–510, §7, 88 Stat. 1606. |

In the section, before clause (1), the words "to have another executive agency carry out or supervise" are substituted for "to other Federal agencies powers and functions relating to the supervision or administration" to eliminate unnecessary words. In clause (1), the words "under conditions ensuring" are substituted for "only on such conditions as may be appropriate to assure", the word "consistent" is substituted for "in full conformity", and the word "law" is substituted for "applicable statutory provisions and policies", to eliminate unnecessary words. In clause (2), the words "for which the agency provides assistance" are substituted for "funded by their agencies", for clarity because the source provisions do not provide for funding. The words "of Federal assistance", "for other agencies to perform", "such activities with respect to", and "under this section" are omitted as unnecessary.
#### § 1645.6 Basis for calculation of share prices.

The total fund basis for a TSP core fund will be the sum of the number of shares in all individual accounts from all sources of contributions in that fund as of the opening of business on each business day.

[70 FR 32215, June 1, 2005, as amended at 87 FR 31681, May 24, 2022]
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between 188-190 Second Avenue Realty Corporation, Appellant, and United Service Employees Union Local No. 377, C.I.O., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
narrative legend
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            3193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22252
<ALLOWANCES>                                       492
<INVENTORY>                                      33226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 67189
<PP&E>                                           36226
<DEPRECIATION>                                   12859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  118367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            50481
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       67885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    118367
<SALES>                                          46137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 46137
<CGS>                                            39025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    39025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (210)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (898)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (898)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10(p)

                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO TRUST AGREEMENT NO. 1

      This First Amendment to Trust Agreement No. 1 is made on this 10th day of
September, 2002, by and between Cleveland-Cliffs Inc, an Ohio corporation
("Cleveland-Cliffs"), and KeyBank National Association, a national banking
association, (formerly KeyTrust Company of Ohio, N.A.) ,as trustee (the
"Trustee").

                                  WITNESSETH:

      WHEREAS, on June 12, 1997, Cleveland-Cliffs and the Trustee entered into a
Trust Agreement No. 1, amended and restated effective June 1, 1997 ("Trust No.
1");

      WHEREAS, Trust No. 1 was amended by the Amendments to Exhibits to Trust
No. 1, effective January 1, 2000;

      WHEREAS, Cleveland-Cliffs and the Trustee desire to further amend Trust
No. 1; and

      WHEREAS, Section 12 of Trust No. 1 provides that such Trust No. 1 may be
amended by Cleveland-Cliffs and the Trustee.

      NOW, THEREFORE, effective September 10, 2002, Cleveland-Cliffs and the
Trustee hereby amend Trust No. 1 to provide as follows:

      The last sentence of Section 4 of Trust No. 1 is hereby amended to read as
follows:

      "Thereafter, upon the request of the Company, the Trustee shall pay to
Cleveland-Cliffs the excess, if any, of the balance in the Master Account over
140% of the aggregate of all of the Fully Funded amount."
<PAGE>
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cleveland-Cliffs and the Trustee have caused
counterparts of this First Amendment to Trust Agreement No. 1 to be executed on
their behalf on September 10, 2002, each of which shall be an original First
Amendment to Trust Agreement No. 1.

                                    CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC


                                    By: /s/ Randy L. Kummer
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Its: SVP, Human Resources
                                           -------------------------------------

                                    KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                    as Trustee

                                    By: /s/ Kelley Clark
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Its: VP
                                           -------------------------------------

                                    and

                                    By: Thor Haraldsson
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Its: AVP
                                           -------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 63142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Performance Review Board Membership

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the names of members of a Performance 
Review Board for the Department of the Army.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Ervin, U.S. Army Senior 
Executive Service Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower & 
Reserve Affairs, 111 Army, Washington, DC 20310-0111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, 
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review 
boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of 
senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations 
to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the 
performance of these executives.
    The members of the Performance Review Board for The Office of the 
Surgeon General are:
    1. MG Joseph G. Webb, Jr., Deputy Surgeon General, Office of the 
Surgeon General.
    2. Mr. John C. Metzler, Jr., Director of Cemetery Operations, 
Arlington National Cemetery, Military District of Washington.
    3. Ms. Patricia A. Rivers, Chief, Environmental Division, 
Directorate of Military Programs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-24196 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
§ 1201.43 Sanctions. The judge may impose sanctions upon the parties as necessary to serve the ends of justice. This authority covers, but is not limited to, the circumstances set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section. Before imposing a sanction, the judge shall provide appropriate prior warning, allow a response to the actual or proposed sanction when feasible, and document the reasons for any resulting sanction in the record. ( a ) *Failure to comply with an order.* When a party fails to comply with an order, the judge may: ( 1 ) Draw an inference in favor of the requesting party with regard to the information sought;
( 2 ) Prohibit the party failing to comply with the order from introducing evidence concerning the information sought, or from otherwise relying upon testimony related to that information;
( 3 ) Permit the requesting party to introduce secondary evidence concerning the information sought; and
( 4 ) Eliminate from consideration any appropriate part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party that fails to comply with the order.
( b ) *Failure to prosecute or defend appeal.* If a party fails to prosecute or defend an appeal, the judge may dismiss the appeal with prejudice or rule in favor of the appellant.
( c ) *Failure to make timely filing.* The judge may refuse to consider any motion or other pleading that is not filed in a timely fashion in compliance with this subpart.
( d ) *Exclusion of a representative or other person.* A judge may exclude or limit the participation of a representative or other person in the case for contumacious conduct or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When the judge excludes a party's representative, the judge will afford the party a reasonable time to obtain another representative before proceeding with the case.
( e ) *Cancellation, suspension, or termination of hearing.* A judge may cancel a scheduled hearing, or suspend or terminate a hearing in progress, for contumacious conduct or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice on the part of the appellant or the appellant's representative. If the judge suspends a hearing, the parties must be given notice as to when the hearing will resume. If the judge cancels or terminates a hearing, the judge must set a reasonable time during which the record will be kept open for receipt of written submissions.
[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989, as amended at 77 FR 62366, Oct. 12, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 62797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24132]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 62797]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2005-03 of October 16, 
                2004

                
Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to 
                the Government of Brazil

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State, [and] the 
                Secretary of Defense

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 
                of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
                Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby 
                certify, with respect to Brazil, that: (1) interdiction 
                of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily 
                engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country's 
                airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary 
                threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the 
                national security of that country; and (2) that country 
                has appropriate procedures in place to protect against 
                innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in 
                connection with such interdiction, which shall at a 
                minimum include effective means to identify and warn an 
                aircraft before the use of force is directed against 
                the aircraft.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register and 
                to notify the Congress of this determination.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, October 16, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04-24132
Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P