alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### [§3522. Vacant]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to renumbering of sections 1700 to 1766 of this chapter as sections 3500 to 3566 by Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406, section 1722 of this chapter, Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1196, which related to change of program by eligible person, was repealed by Pub. L. 92–540, title IV, §402(2), Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1090.
§ 25.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 25.8 within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the respondent fails to file a timely answer, service of a notice under § 25.10(b) shall be deemed a notice of hearing for purposes of this section.
( c ) The statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
### §151304. Officers and employees

(a) Appointment.—The board of directors may appoint officers or employees, but only after the corporation has sufficient funds to pay for their services.

(b) Status and Compensation.—Officers and employees of the corporation—

(1) shall not be considered employees of the United States Government;

(2) shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service; and

(3) may be paid without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, except that an officer or employee may not be paid more than 15 percent above the annual rate of basic pay for level GS–15 of the General Schedule under section 5107 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1400; Pub. L. 106–503, title I, §113(c), Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2304; Pub. L. 108–169, title II, §206(b), Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2040.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 151304(a) | 36:5202(g)(1)(A), (2). | Oct. 26, 1992, Pub. L. 102–522, title II, §203(g)(1)(A), (2), (h), 106 Stat. 3418. |
| 151304(b) | 36:5202(h). | |

Section

Subsection (a) is substituted for the source provisions for clarity.

In subsection (b)(3), the words "relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates" are omitted as unnecessary.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is set out under section 5332 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

Section 5202(g)(1) of former Title 36, from which this section was derived, was amended after the Aug. 15, 1997, cutoff date by Pub. L. 105–276, title IV, §427(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2511, see section 5(a) of Pub. L. 105–225, set out as a Legislative Purpose and Construction note preceding section 101 of this title. The subsequent amendment made directly to this section by section 113(c)(1) of Pub. L. 106–503 replicated the prior amendment made by Pub. L. 105–276.

#### Amendments

2003—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 108–169 inserted "15 percent above" after "more than".

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–503, §113(c)(1), struck out "not more than 2" after "appoint".

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 106–503, §113(c)(2), substituted "shall not be considered" for "are not".
|                                                                                                                                                                                             |  Agriculture Network Information Center |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|       AgNIC is a guide to quality agricultural information on the Internet as selected by the National Agricultural Library, Land-Grant Universities, and other institutions.
  |
#### August F. Miller, Respondent, v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to the right to bring an action at law, if so advised. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: The complaint did not allege a fiduciary relationship between the parties nor that the plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law. At the close of all the evidence, the plaintiff was permitted, over *828objection, to amend the complaint to include such allegations. This, we think, was error since there was no proof of facts from which it could be held that there was any relationship between the parties other than that of employer and employee or principal and agent. The plaintiff was to be paid for his services as salesman on a commission basis. There was no ground shown for relief in equity in the nature of an accounting. The plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law to recover any unpaid compensation or for any damage he might have sustained by reason of any alleged fraud. It is an established rule that an agent may not have an accounting in equity from his principal in the absence of the existence of a fiduciary relationship (21 R. C. L., Principal and Agent, § 17, p. 834). There was here no running account between the parties. The plaintiff had no property of the defendant in his possession and there was no fund or property in the hands of the defendant which belonged, in equity, to the plaintiff. The fact that the defendant kept the records is insufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship. The case of *Rubin*v. *Dairymen’s League Co-op. Assn.*(259 App. Div. 23, affd. 284 N. Y. 32) on which the plaintiff relies is not in point. In that case the question of a fiduciary relationship which was alleged in the complaint was not in issue and was not passed upon. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance, and Wheeler, J., who dissents and votes for modification and affirmance in the following memorandum: In my opinion the plaintiff has alleged and proved a cause of action in equity entitling him to interlocutory judgment for an accounting. However, the judgment ordering the defendant to account should be modified. The complaint alleges facts which state an action at law, as well as one for equitable relief *(Fur & Wool Trading Co.*v. *George I. Fox, Inc.,*245 N. Y. 215) and it is well settled that where either legal or equitable relief may be had under the facts alleged, the Statute of Limitations applicable to the action at law will control. *(Keys*v. *Leopold,*241 N. Y. 189; *Kobbe*v. *McNamara,*82 *N.*Y. S. 2d 294.) The judgment should therefore be modified to require the defendant to account only from February 9, 1944, through the year 1945. (Appeal from an interlocutory judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover commissions under an employment contract.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Beeston Enterprises Ltd, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian Smith, President/Treasurer/CEO/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Brian Smith Brian Smith, President, Treasurer, CEO, CFO Dated:  August 18, 2008
#### The People of the State of Illinois for use of the State Board of Health, Defendant in Error, v. John Brod, Sr., Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,478.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 13, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action of debt by the People of the State of Illinois for the use of the State Board of Health against John Brod, Sr., to recover the penalty for practicing medicine without a license from the State Board of Health, imposed by section 9 of the Act entitled “An Act to Regulate the Practice of Medicine in the State of Illinois and to Repeal an Act therein named,” in force July 1, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 273, J. & A. 7377.) To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error. ' The statement of claim alleges a former conviction for the same offense, and because thereof claims the penalty of two hundred dollars.

The appeal was taken in the first instance to the Supreme Court and that court, holding that no constitutional question was involved, transferred the case to the Appellate Court.

Defendant contends that if the act is valid, it does not apply to him because he was practicing medicine when the act took effect;

Edwin H. Cassels and Kenneth B. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas S. Hogan, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

*359Abstract of the Decision.

1. Courts, § *150*
      ***
      *—when ruling on appeal to Supreme Court law of the case in transferred, cause.*Where on an appeal to the Supreme Court in the first instance in an action to recover a statutory penalty, that court holds that no constitutional question is involved and transfers the cause to the Appellate Court, such decision disposes of the question of the constitutionality of the act under which the proceeding is brought.

2. Physicians and surgeons, § *5*
      ***
      *—when licensing act applicable to practicing physicians.*Laws 1899, p. 273 (J. & A. If 7377), regulating the practice of medicine, is applicable to physicians practicing when the act took effect.

3. Penalties, § *16*
      ***
      *—when judgment imposing imprisonment until payment of penalty valid.*A judgment in an action to recover for the violation of a penal law may provide, for defendant’s imprisonment until the payment of the judgment and costs.
EXHIBIT 32

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Geoffrey Alison, is
the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Cape Coastal Trading
Corporation (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in
connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I
certify that:

a.       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

b.       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
          the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

/S/ Geoffrey Alison

Geoffrey Alison, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDate:  August 12, 2005





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RI Department of Environmental Management Office of Air Resources Summary of technical revisions to six Air Pollution Control Regulations and their current SIP status

March 2015

• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8 — Sulfur Content of Fuels The regulation was revised to correct the title of section 8.7. This regulation was submitted as a SIP revision on June 26, 2014 and is currently pending.

• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 15 — Control of Organic Solvent Emissions The regulation was revised to correct the numbering of subsections 15.4.10(g) and (h) and revise the references to these sections in subsections 15.2.4(b) and 15.2.5(b). This regulation was submitted as a SIP revision on September 22, 2008 and is one of several regulations where the only difference between the state version and the SIP approved version is that certain definitions were removed and added to the General Definitions Regulation.

• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 26 — Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products The regulation was revised in subsection 26.6.2 to correct the reference to another subsection. This regulation was submitted as a SIP revision on September 22, 2008 and is one of several regulations where the only difference between the state version and the SIP approved version is that certain definitions were removed and added to the General Definitions Regulation.

• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 29 — Operating Permits The regulation was revised in subsection 29.2.3 to correct the reference to another subsection. This revises the 31 January 2011 version of this regulation that was previously submitted to EPA pursuant to our implementation agreement for the Title V program that requires DEM provide EPA a copy of any promulgated amendments to the operating permit program.

• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 32 — Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Loading Operations The regulation was revised to correct a typographical error in subsection 32.1.2 and correct the symbol for degrees in subsection 32.4.3(f). This regulation was submitted as a SIP revision on September 22, 2008 and is one of several regulations where the only differencebetween the state version and the SIP approved version is that certain definitions were

removed and added to the General Definitions Regulation.
• Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 44 — Control of VOC from Adhesives and Sealants The regulation was revised to correct the number of the regulation in the heading on page 2 of the regulation. This regulation was submitted as a SIP revision on October 27, 2009 and is currently pending.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 5, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00031

- CR

IN RE Kevin DEBNAM

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On January 21, 2020, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an application for leave to file the petition. We deny as moot relator’s application because leave is not required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in an intermediate appellate court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1;

In re Medina , 04

- 19

- 00041

- CR, 2019 WL 36 0534, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Jan. 30, 2019, no pet.).

After considering the petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on February 5, 2020

.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of February, 2020

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2019CR648 4, 2019CR6485, 2019CR6494, & 2019CR6495, styled The State of Texas v. Kevin Debnam , pending in the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd presiding.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

# AGENCY:

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, and Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on November 16, and at 9 a.m. on November 17.

Topics for discussion include findings on congressionally mandated studies including: Specialty hospitals; certified registered nurse first assistants; physicians volume; cardiothoracic surgeons, and eliminating physician referrals to physical therapy. Additional presentations will include physician quality, findings from a study on employer-sponsored health benefits, and home health payment.

                        Agendas will be e-mailed approximately one week prior to the meeting. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's Web site (                        *http://www.MedPAC.gov*).                    

# ADDRESSES:

MedPAC's address is: 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20001. The telephone number is (202) 220-3700.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 220-3700.

Sarah S. Thomas,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 04-25176 Filed 11-10-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M
### §17308. Presumption of lawful conduct

For purposes of the propriety of an act or omission related to a shipment to which the regulations prescribed under section 17302 of this title apply, every officer and employee of the Federal Government and every individual acting on behalf of a wholly owned Government corporation who makes a shipment of valuables in good faith under, and substantially in accordance with, the regulations is deemed to be acting in the faithful execution of the officer's, employee's, or individual's duties of office and in full performance of any conditions of the officer's, employee's, or individual's bond and oath of office.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1283.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17308 | 40:727. | July 8, 1937, ch. 444, §5, 50 Stat. 480. |

Section
**GAO-02-745SP**                      Published: Sep 18, 2002. Publicly Released: Sep 18, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This primer on private pensions provides information on the basic features of the private pension plan system and the federal framework that governs how private plans must operate. GAO answers questions about the types of plans that private employers may sponsor, the benefits these plans provide, and the basic requirements that govern how these plans are administered.

## Full Report

Full Report (64 pages)

Accessible Text 

## GAO Contacts

### 

Barbara Bovbjerg
BovbjergB@gao.gov

(202) 512-7215

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Retirement Security

Pension plan cost controlPensionsEmployee retirement plansRetirement plan contributionsEmployee retirements401(k) plansRetirement ageBenefit paymentsEmployee compensation
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 514

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CR-12-1027

CHARLES L. STUTTE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-12-765-1]

HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,

JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

ORDERED

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

Appellant Charles Stutte was convicted of driving while intoxicated, first offense, and

resisting arrest following a bench trial in Washington County Circuit Court. Appellant argues

on appeal that both convictions should be reversed because the charges resulted from an illegal

stop and because there is insufficient evidence to support either conviction. We cannot

address the merits at this time because appellant failed to comply with the Arkansas Supreme

Court’s rules governing the contents of the abstract and addendum. Specifically, appellant

must submit a supplemental addendum that includes the dash-board video recording of the

pursuit and stop by the officer.

An appellant must include in the addendum those exhibits that are essential for our

court to understand the case, including computer disks and DVDs, if applicable. Ark. Sup.

Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). Here, the video recording of the officer’s pursuit and stop of appellant
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 514

was made part of the record and was essential in the trial court’s consideration of his argument

regarding an alleged illegal stop. In our de novo review of suppression issues, we necessarily

would need to review the entirety of the evidence before the trial court, which would include

the DVD of this recording. We will permit appellant seven calendar days to supplement his

addendum to provide the video exhibit to the members of our court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-

2(b)(4) (2012); see also Powell v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 149; Lewis v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 540.

Supplemental addendum ordered.

GRUBER and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: William B. Putman, for appellants.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2