alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wheelock, Lovejoy & Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Spriesch Tool & Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
§ 1229.2 Requirements for infant bouncer seats. Each infant bouncer seat must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2167-22, *Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats,* approved on approved May 1, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. A read-only copy of the standard is available for viewing on the ASTM website at *www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/ .* You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone (610) 832-9585; *www.astm.org .* You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479, email *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov ,* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ,* or go to: *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .* [87 FR 54366, Sept. 6, 2022]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 108th District Court of Potter County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on March 31,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Travon La Shae Ginn v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00118-CR Trial Court Number: 66,042-E

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated March 31, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on November 5, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
#### Dennis Riddell et al., Respondents, v June A. Brown, Appellant, and Great Lakes Energy Partners, L.L.C., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 4.)

[821 NYS2d 141]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Larry M. Himelein, A.J.), entered January 9, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied as moot the cross motion of defendant June A. Brown for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of defendant Great Lakes Energy Partners, L.L.C. for contractual indemnification.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Salomon Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P. II (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities         Exchange Act of1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial         conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R.McAuliffe, Jr. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief FinancialOfficer and Director

May 12,2006

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

209) ll-K- (I) -22 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:55 AM Sheet 209 of 325 
P.2 

ANALYSIS OF KEY ECONOMIC TEST PARAMETERS IN THE 

POWERPLANT AND INDUSTRIAL FUEL USE ACT. 

EEA, Inc. 

II-K-(I)-22 

January 26, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-22
§ 1502.15 Appearance. ( a ) A person who has filed a notice of participation under § 1502.16 may appear in person or by counsel or other representative in any hearing and, subject to § 1502.27, may be heard concerning all relevant issues.
( b ) The presiding officer may strike a person's appearance for violation of the requirements regarding conduct in § 1502.28.
#### Emily Broglie et al., Appellants, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Mae-Crate, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Melvin L. Flanigan hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                        |  |     |  |                                                                  
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2008 |  |     |  |                                                                  
|                        |  | By: |  | /s/ MELVIN L. FLANIGAN Melvin L. Flanigan Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc. and will be retained by
DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### §10226. Nuclear Regulatory Commission training authorization

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized and directed to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear powerplant operators, supervisors, technicians and other appropriate operating personnel. Such regulations or guidance shall establish simulator training requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear powerplant operator licenses and for operator requalification programs; requirements governing NRC administration of requalification examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear powerplant simulators, and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear powerplant licensee personnel training programs. Such regulations or other regulatory guidance shall be promulgated by the Commission within the 12-month period following January 7, 1983, and the Commission within the 12-month period following January 7, 1983, shall submit a report to Congress setting forth the actions the Commission has taken with respect to fulfilling its obligations under this section.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title III, §306, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2262.)
### subpart iii—programs for prevention of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation
### subpart 4—transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking
December 30, 2014 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-14-0118 – REQUEST BY 

DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC., FOR EXEMPTIONS FROM 

CERTAIN EMERGENCY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 

The Commission has approved the staff's recommendation to grant Duke Energy Florida's 

requested exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 

CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” The staff should 

continue to review other exemption requests, already in process, and provide timely 

recommendations to the Commission. 

The staff should proceed with rulemaking on decommissioning. For budgeting purposes, the 

decommissioning rulemaking should be considered a Commission-directed rulemaking. This 

rulemaking should address: issues discussed in SECY-00-0145 such as the graded approach 

to emergency preparedness; lessons learned from the plants that have already (or are currently) 

going through the decommissioning process; the advisability of requiring a licensee's PostShutdown Decommissioning Activity Report to be approved by NRC; the appropriateness of 

maintaining the three existing options for decommissioning and the timeframes associated with 

those options; the appropriate role of state and local governments and non-governmental 

stakeholders in the decommissioning process; and any other issues deemed relevant by the 

NRC staff. 

The staff should set an objective of early 2019 for completion of this rulemaking. If the staff 

determines that it will not be feasible to complete the elements of the rulemaking addressing 

emergency planning and preparedness by early 2019, because of the necessary interactions 

with FEMA, state, and local officials, the staff should inform the Commission. The staff should 

engage the Commission, if needed, to make these emergency planning interactions as timely 

and effective as possible. In the near term, staff experts should continue processing current 

and pending applications for decommissioning amendments and exemptions until that 

regulatory work is complete. 

The staff paper scheduled to be delivered to the Commission in January 2015, in response to 

SRM-14-0066, should focus on providing information about the anticipated schedule and 

resources for the rulemaking addressing decommissioning. 

cc: Chairman Macfarlane 

 Commissioner Svinicki 
 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 Commissioner Burns 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Form 8860, qualified zoneacademy bond credit [electronic resource].**
 
1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001| 2002 | 2003| 2004 | 2005| 2006 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.51:8860/
Item Number:0964-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:000553977
 
February 7, 2020
### SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION ON AGING
§ 1307.3 Prohibition of children's toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates. ( a ) As provided in section 108(a) of the CPSIA, the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) , dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) is prohibited.
( b ) In accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-*n*-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-*n*-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), or dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) is prohibited.
( c ) In accordance with section 108(c) of the CPSIA, the restrictions stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to any plasticized component part of a children's toy or child care article or any other component part of a children's toy or child care article that is made of other materials that may contain phthalates.
[82 FR 49982, Oct. 27, 2017, as amended at 83 FR 34764, July 23, 2018]
exv10w11w20



 





 


Exhibit 10.11.20





    SECOND
    AMENDMENT TO

    THE 2004 STOCK OPTION, RESTRICTED STOCK AND DEFERRED STOCK UNIT
    PLAN OF LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.



 



    THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO the 2004 STOCK OPTION, RESTRICTED STOCK
    AND DEFERRED STOCK UNIT PLAN OF LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL,
    INC. (this “Amendment”), dated as of
    March 8, 2007, is made and adopted by LEAP WIRELESS
    INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
    “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not
    otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
    them in the Plan (as defined below).



 




    RECITALS



 



    WHEREAS, the Company maintains The 2004 Stock Option, Restricted
    Stock and Deferred Stock Unit Plan of Leap Wireless
    International, Inc. (as amended to date, the
    “Plan”);



 



    WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth
    below;



 



    WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Plan, the Plan may
    be amended by the Board of Directors of the Company; and



 



    WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved this
    Amendment pursuant to resolutions adopted on March 8, 2007.



 



    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company
    hereby amends the Plan as follows:



 



    3. Section 2.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to
    read as follows:



 



    (a) The shares of stock subject to Awards shall be Common
    Stock, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.3.
    Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10.3, the
    aggregate number of such shares which may be issued with respect
    to Awards granted under the Plan shall not exceed 8,300,000. The
    shares of Common Stock issuable with respect to such Awards may
    be either previously authorized but unissued shares or treasury
    shares.



 



    2. This Amendment shall become effective upon the approval
    thereof by a majority of the votes cast by the Company’s
    stockholders voting at a meeting of the stockholders at which a
    quorum is present in person
    and/or by
    proxy. Upon such approval, this Amendment shall be and is hereby
    incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All other terms
    and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as
    specifically modified herein. The Plan, as amended by this
    Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed.



 



    I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted
    by the Board of Directors of Leap Wireless International, Inc.
    on March 8, 2007.



 


			
	 	    By: 
	
    /s/  Robert
    J. Irving, Jr.









    Name: Robert J. Irving, Jr.



			
	 	    Title: 
	
    Secretary
§ 890.1072 Collecting penalties and assessments. ( a ) *Agreed-upon payment schedule.* At the time OPM imposes penalties and assessments, or the amounts are settled or compromised, the provider must be afforded the opportunity to arrange an agreed-upon payment schedule.
( b ) *No agreed-upon payment schedule.* In the absence of an agreed-upon payment schedule, OPM must collect penalties and assessments under its regular procedures for resolving debts owed to the Employees Health Benefits Fund.
( c ) *Offsets.* As part of its debt collection efforts, OPM may request other Federal agencies to offset the penalties and assessments against amounts that the agencies may owe to the provider, including Federal income tax refunds.
( d ) *Civil lawsuit.* If necessary to obtain payment of penalties and assessments, the United States may file a civil lawsuit as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 8902(i).
( e ) *Crediting payments.* OPM must deposit payments of penalties and assessments into the Employees Health Benefits Fund.
§ 1110.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part 1110: ( 1 ) Limits the entities required to provide certificates in accordance with section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as amended (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), to importers and U.S. domestic manufacturers;
( 2 ) Specifies the content, form, and availability requirements of the CPSA that must be met for a certificate to satisfy the certificate requirements of section 14(a); and
( 3 ) Specifies means by which an electronic certificate shall meet those requirements.
( b ) This part 1110 does not address issues related to type or frequency of testing necessary to satisfy the certification requirements of CPSA section 14(a). It does not address issues related to CPSA section 14(g)(4) concerning advance filing of electronic certificates of compliance with the Commission and/or the Commissioner of Customs.
[Civil No. 309.]

#### BEN. JAMES et al., Appellants, v. THE NEPTUNE MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, and JOEL SEYMOUR, Trustee, Appellees.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. R. E. Sloan, Judge.

George G. Berry, for Appellants.

W. H. Stilwell, for Appellees.

June 16, 1890.

Dismissed.
#### § 303.24 Pile fabrics and products composed thereof.

The fiber content of pile fabrics or products composed thereof may be stated on the label in such segregated form as will show the fiber content of the face or pile and of the back or base, with percentages of the respective fibers as they exist in the face or pile and in the back or base: *Provided,* That in such disclosure the respective percentages of the face and back be given in such manner as will show the ratio between the face and the back. Examples of the form of marking pile fabric as to fiber content provided for in this section are as follows:

100% Nylon Pile

100% Cotton Back

(Back constitutes 60% of fabric and pile 40%).

Face—60% Rayon, 40% Nylon

Back—70% Cotton, 30% Rayon

(Face constitutes 60% of fabric and back 40%).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Herman Baida, Respondent. Edward Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, imposing a disqualification for benefits for forty-two days commencing November 1, 1950. The commissioner contends that the disqualification should be made effective as of October 10, 1950. The difference between the commissioner and the Appeal Board grows out of the following facts: The claimant had been employed by a lithographing company as an offset stripper. The claimant had become dissatisfied with the job and, under date of October 8,1950, he wrote to his employer giving him notice that he would leave on or before November 1st. Upon receipt of this notice on October 9th, the employer forthwith discharged the claimant. The claimant filed for unemployment insurance benefits on October 10, 1950. The commissioner contends that the disqualification for forty-two days provided in paragraph (e) of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law should have been imposed upon the claimant as of October 10th, upon the ground that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. On the other hand, the board found that except for the discharge by the employer, the claimant would have continued to work until November 1st, the effective day of his resignation, and therefore it imposed the statutory disqualification for voluntarily leaving employment as of that date. The practical effect of the board’s decision is to relieve the claimant of any penalty since the claimant obtained a permanent job with another employer on October 23d. We believe that the board was plainly right. The statute does not impose a penalty of disqualification for provoking a discharge by giving notice of resignation. An employee is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits upon his discharge from employment, even though the discharge was for good cause or was otherwise provoked by the employee. The statutory penalty of disqualification is imposed only for voluntarily leaving the employment and, in this ease, the voluntary quitting would have become effective on November 1st, if it had not been for the prior discharge by the employer. So far as the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art. 18) is concerned, the claimant could have left the employer on November 1st, without notice. He should not be penalized for having given notice in advance of that date. Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
No: 15-016 March 12, 2015

CONTACT: Dave McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Staff to Prepare Supplement to

Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified the public today the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the Department of Energy’s environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed 

geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in 

Nevada. 

In today’s Federal Register notice, the NRC staff explains the decision to supplement the EIS 

that DOE submitted in 2008. During its review, the NRC staff found the EIS did not adequately address 

all of the repository-related effects on groundwater, or from surface discharges of groundwater. In 

2013, the Commission asked DOE to prepare a supplement. Instead, DOE updated its analysis of 

potential groundwater impacts after closure of a repository at the site, and in February 2015 the 

Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare the supplement. The NRC staff will use the DOE 

analysis in preparing the supplement.

The supplement will describe a key aquifer at the site and look at the potential for contaminants 

to reach it. It will analyze the degree of potential contamination and how water and contaminants could 

move. And it will discuss how soil, surface materials and the surrounding environment might be 

impacted by contaminated groundwater.

The NRC staff expects to issue a draft supplement for public comment in late summer. 

Notifications will be made through the Federal Register, an email distribution list, a press release, the 

NRC website and media announcements in Nevada. During the comment period, the staff plans to hold 

three public meetings – two in Nevada and one at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md. – and a public 

webcast and teleconference. Details on those meetings will be announced later. After considering the 

comments received, the staff expects to issue a final supplement next spring.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133645 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY, LLC, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 133645 

 COA: 270453 

Genesee CC: 05-081083-CH 

COMERICA BANK, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

NORMA J. HETTICH, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1114 

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

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

November 21, 2007 

 Clerk