alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.1 Requirements as to form. ( a ) Each document distributed pursuant to this part 4 must be: ( 1 ) Clear and legible;
( 2 ) Paginated; and
( 3 ) Fastened in a secure manner.
( b ) Information that is required to be “prominently” disclosed under this part 4 must be displayed in capital letters and in boldface type.
( c ) Where a document is distributed through an electronic medium: ( 1 ) The requirements of paragraphs (a) of this section shall mean that required information must be presented in a format that is readily communicated to the recipient. For purposes of this paragraph (c), information is readily communicated to the recipient if it is accessible to the ordinary user by means of commonly available hardware and software and if the electronically delivered document is organized in substantially the same manner as would be required for a paper document with respect to the order of presentation and the relative prominence of information. Where a table of contents is required, the electronic document must either include page numbers in the text or employ a substantially equivalent cross-reference or indexing method or tool;
( 2 ) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall mean that such information must be presented in capital letters and boldface type or, as warranted in the context, another manner reasonably calculated to draw the recipient's attention to the information and accord it greater prominence than the surrounding text; and
( 3 ) A complete paper version of the document that complies with the applicable provisions of this part 4 must be provided to the recipient upon request.
( d ) If graphic, image or audio material is included in a document delivered to a prospective or existing client or pool participant, and such material cannot be reproduced in an electronic filing, a fair and accurate narrative description, tabular representation or transcript of the omitted material must be included in the filed version of the document. Inclusion of such material in a Disclosure Document shall be subject to the requirements of § 4.24(v) in the case of pool Disclosure Documents, and § 4.34(n) in the case of commodity trading advisor Disclosure Documents.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3038-0005) [46 FR 26013, May 8, 1981, as amended at 46 FR 63035, Dec. 30, 1981; 62 FR 39115, July 22, 1997]
### §2381. Assistance in organization

The Commission is authorized, for a period not to extend beyond five years after August 4, 1955, in the case of Oak Ridge and Richland, or, in the case of Los Alamos, not to extend beyond five years after the date it is included within this chapter, to cooperate with and assist the residents of the community in preparation for and establishment of local self-government and in the transfer of municipal installations and responsibilities to local entities. Such assistance may include payment of any amounts reasonably necessary to meet expenses incident to the establishment and organization of a city government and other local entities at the community, until such time as the municipal installations are transferred in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 8, §81, 69 Stat. 480; Pub. L. 87–719, §22, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 666.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Pub. L. 87–719 inserted "in the case of Oak Ridge and Richland, or, in the case of Los Alamos, not to extend beyond five years after the date it is included within this chapter" after "August 4, 1955,".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
1602.170-22 PSHB Program.       *Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) Program* means the Program established under 5 U.S.C. 8903c within the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1602.1—Definitions of FEHBP Terms
PUBLIC LAW 115–381—DEC. 21, 2018 132 STAT. 5119 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6780: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 28, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–381 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7521 Paula 

Drive in Tampa, Florida, as the ‘‘Major Andreas O’Keeffe Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MAJOR ANDREAS O’KEEFFE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 7521 Paula Drive in Tampa, Florida, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Major Andreas O’Keeffe Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Major Andreas O’Keeffe Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 6780] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED (Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

HaroldG. Giomi certifies as follows:

 

1.     I am the Chief Executive Officer of The BankHoldings.

 

2.     The Form 10-Q of The Bank Holdings forthe Quarter Ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of The BankHoldings.

 

 
| Date:  | August 8,  2008                        |   | /s/ Harold G. Giomi |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
|   | THE BANK HOLDINGS                           |
|   | Harold G. Giomi                             |
|   | Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §18383. In-space servicing

The Administrator shall continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that provisions are made for in-space or human servicing and repair of all future observatory-class scientific spacecraft intended to be deployed in Earth-orbit or at a Lagrangian point to the extent practicable and appropriate. The Administrator should ensure that agency investments and future capabilities for space technology, robotics, and human space flight take the ability to service and repair these spacecraft into account, where appropriate, and incorporate such capabilities into design and operational plans.

(Pub. L. 111–267, title VIII, §804, Oct. 11, 2010, 124 Stat. 2833.)
#### Verna Sekinger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond V. Sekinger, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 28757.)

All concur, except Vaughan and Piper, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and for dismissal of the claim on the gound that the award is against the weight of evidence. (The judgment awards damages on a claim for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have resulted by reason of the negligent condition of State highway.) Present— Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Piper, JJ.
Subpart 5312.90 - PILOT PROGRAM FOR

DEFENSE COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS

OPENING

INTERIM CHANGE: See Policy Memo 18-C-03 .

Parent topic: Part 5312 - Acquisition of Commercial Items
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MONICA GAVIN AND LUCIA CAREZANI, 

EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

JAMES GAVIN, DECEASED,

Petitioners

v.

ELAINE LOEFFELBEIN,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 382 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED, limited to the issues rephrased for clarity and set forth below: 

1. Did the Superior Court err by holding emergency 

guardianship orders automatically expire? 

2. Did the Superior Court err by holding that the rebuttable 

presumption that an incapacitated person is unable to 

engage in financial transactions is inapplicable to a person 

under the protection of an emergency guardian who has 

been appointed for the person and his estate?

Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. 

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

74 MAP 2017
#### Lina Walper et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Andrew Malkewicz, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 20,214.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Lanklobd and tenant, § *453*
      ***
      *—what sufficient to show surr render*o/ *premises.*The fact that repairs are made hy a lessor *109after a lessee has moved away from the premises is not sufficient as an acceptance of the premises and a surrender.

*108Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Ebank H. Gbaham, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed and judgment here with finding of facts.

Opinion filed January 5, 1915.

Statement of the Case,

Action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Lina Walper, John Walper and Rudolph Walper, heirs of Jacob Walper, deceased, against Andrew Malkewicz on a written lease. It appeared that certain premises were leased for three years to the defendant, at a total rental of $936, payable monthly in advance at the rate of $26 per month, and that during the last year the defendant moved away from the premises and failed to pay eight months’ rent. The defendant contended that the lease was can-celled and terminated. The case was tried before the court without a jury resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant, whereupon the plaintiffs brought this writ of error.

John B. Fruechtl, for plaintiffs in error.

Frank H. Novak, for defendant in error.

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

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

*1092. Landlord and tenant, § *301*—when landlord entitled to rent.*Where evidence showed the signing of a written lease, that the lessee moved away from the premises and failed to pay rental for the last eight months of his term, and the evidence failed to show that the lease was cancelled, the lessor was entitled to recover the rental due under the lease.
#### Natalie Meyersfield, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Green Bus Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action by three bus passengers to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a sudden stopping or lurching of the bus, the defendants Green Bus Lines, Inc., and Beckman, the bus owner and operator, respectively, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 11, 1960, after a jury trial, as is in favor of plaintiff Natalie Meyersfleld against them, in the amount of $17,500. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the facts, action severed as to plaintiff Natalie Meyersfleld and a new trial granted as between her and the bus owner and operator, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Natalie Meyersfleld shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in her favor from $17,500 to $10,000, in which event the judgment, as so rediiced and insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict of $17,500 in favor of said plaintiff is excessive. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Edna Conroy, Respondent, v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Appellant.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Deyo, J., dissents.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

July 3, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00241

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.P

. , et al.

,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00213 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellee ’ s amended motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to July 23, 2018.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Viola Davis, Appellant, against Lee Whalen, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Piper and Wheeler, JJ. [See 281 App. Div. 1068.]
§ 202.7 Submittals. ( a ) All required statements, reports, applications, etc. must be filed with the principal office of the Commission unless otherwise specified in the Commission's rules, schedules and forms. Reports by exchange members, brokers and dealers required by § 240.17a-5 of this chapter under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 must be filed with the appropriate regional office as provided in § 230.255(a) of this chapter under the Securities Act of 1933, and with the principal office of the Commission and the appropriate regional office as provided under § 240.17a-5(a) *et seq.* of this chapter under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
( b ) *Electronic filings.* All documents required to be filed in electronic format with the Commission pursuant to the federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder shall be filed at the principal office in Washington, DC via EDGAR by delivery to the Commission of a magnetic tape or diskette, or by direct transmission.
[41 FR 44699, Oct. 12, 1976, as amended at 58 FR 14659, Mar. 18, 1993; 59 FR 5945, Feb. 9, 1994; 73 FR 32227, June 5, 2008]
Search For Partners,  August 17, 1998

----

The Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) is the U.S.Government's clearinghouse for trade and investment information on the Newly IndependentStatesof the Former Soviet Union.  BISNIS has created the Search for Partners program to help U.S.companies find investment opportunities in the expanding markets of the Newly IndependentStates(NIS) of the former Soviet Union. The opportunities are provided solely as an informationalserviceand do not represent an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Verification of theseleads is the responsibility of the reader.
Index of Investment Opportunities
Exhibit 21. List of Subsidiaries     Name of Subsidiary Ownership CCI Southeast, LLC (“CCISE”)  100.00%Riverdale Carwash Lot 3A, LLC (“Riverdale”)  100.00%AARD-Cypress Sound, LLC (“Cypress Sound’)  51.00%AARD-TSD-CSK Firestone, LLC (“Firestone”)  51.00%South Glen Eagles Drive, LLC (“West Valley”)  51.00%119th and Ridgeview, LLC (“Ridgeview”)  51.00%53rd and Baseline, LLC (“Baseline”)  51.00%Hwy 278 and Hwy 170, LLC (“Bluffton”)  51.00%State and 130th, LLC (“American Fork”)  51.00%Clinton Keith and Hidden Springs, LLC (“Murietta”)  51.00%Hwy 46 and Bluffton Pkwy, LLC (“Bluffton 46”)  51.00%AARD Bader Family Dollar Flat Shoals, LLC (“Flat Shoals”)  51.00%AARD Westminster OP7, LLC (“Westminster OP7”)  51.00%Eagle Palm I, LLC (“Eagle”)  51.00%AARD Econo Lube Stonegate, LLC (“Econo Lube”)  51.00%AARD Bader Family Dollar MLK, LLC (“MLK”)  51.00%AARD-Charmar Greeley, LLC (“Starbucks”)  51.00%AARD-Charmar Greeley Firestone, LLC  51.00%AARD 5020 Lloyd Expy, LLC (“Evansville”)  51.00%AARD ‘2245 Main Street, LLC (“Plainfield”)  51.00%AARD-Buckeye, LLC (“Buckeye”)  51.00%AARD Esterra Mesa 1, LLC (“Esterra Mesa 1”)  51.00%AARD Esterra Mesa 2, LLC (“Esterra Mesa 2”)  51.00%AARD Esterra Mesa 3, LLC (“Esterra Mesa 3”)  51.00%AARD Esterra Mesa 4, LLC (“Esterra Mesa 4”)  51.00%AARD MDJ Goddard, LLC (“Goddard”)  51.00%AARD Charmar Arlington Boston Pizza, LLC (“Charmar Boston Pizza”)  51.00%L-S Corona Pointe, LLC (“L-S Corona”)  50.01%AARD NOLA St Claude LLC (NOLA)  51.00%
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3998 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3998

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
     certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2012

  Mr. Barrow introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
     certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL 
              TEACHERS.

    (a) Increase in Deductible Amount.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain 
expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers) is amended by 
striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$500''.
    (b) Extension.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``during 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 
2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011'' and inserting ``after December 31, 2001, 
and before January 1, 2014''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.19a3-1 [Reserved]
DISCLAIMER
 

The full text of certain NPDES permits and the associated fact sheets has been made available to 

provide online access to this public information. EPA is making permits and fact sheets available 

electronically to provide convenient access for interested public parties and as a reference for 

permit writers. The ownership of these documents lies with the permitting authority, typically a 

State with an authorized NPDES program. 

While EPA makes every effort to ensure that this web site remains current and contains the final 

version of the active permit, we cannot guarantee it is so. For example, there may be some delay 

in posting modifications made after a permit is issued. Also note that not all active permits are 

currently available electronically. Only permits and fact sheets for which the full text has been 

provided to Headquarters by the permitting authority may be made available. Headquarters has 

requested the full text only for permits as they are issued or reissued, beginning November 1, 

2002. 

Please contact the appropriate permitting authority (either a State or EPA Regional office) prior to 

acting on this information to ensure you have the most up-to-date permit and/or fact sheet. EPA 

recognizes the official version of a permit or fact sheet to be the version designated as such and 

appropriately stored by the respective permitting authority. 

The documents are gathered from all permitting authorities, and all documents thus obtained are 

made available electronically, with no screening for completeness or quality. Thus, availability 

on the website does not constitute endorsement by EPA.
§ 270.6c-10 Exemption for certain open-end management investment companies to impose deferred sales loads. ( a ) A company and any exempted person shall be exempt from the provisions of sections 2(a)(32), 2(a)(35), and 22(d) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(32), 80a-2(a)(35), and 80a-22(d), respectively] and § 270.22c-1 to the extent necessary to permit a deferred sales load to be imposed on shares issued by the company, *Provided,* that: ( 1 ) The amount of the deferred sales load does not exceed a specified percentage of the net asset value or the offering price at the time of purchase;
( 2 ) The terms of the deferred sales load are covered by the provisions of Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; and
( 3 ) The same deferred sales load is imposed on all shareholders, except that scheduled variations in or elimination of a deferred sales load may be offered to a particular class of shareholders or transactions, *Provided,* that the conditions in § 270.22d-1 are satisfied. Nothing in this paragraph (a) shall prevent a company from offering to existing shareholders a new scheduled variation that would waive or reduce the amount of a deferred sales load not yet paid.
( b ) For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Company* means a registered open-end management investment company, other than a registered separate account, and includes a separate series of the company;
( 2 ) *Exempted person* means any principal underwriter of, dealer in, and any other person authorized to consummate transactions in, securities issued by a company; and
( 3 ) *Deferred sales load* means any amount properly chargeable to sales or promotional expenses that is paid by a shareholder after purchase but before or upon redemption.
[61 FR 49016, Sept. 17, 1996]
No: 13-097 November 18, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

 

NRC Directs Staff to Complete Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed the agency staff to complete work on the 

safety evaluation report on the Department of Energy’s construction authorization application for the 

proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

The Commission has also requested DOE to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 

statement requested by the staff in order to complete its environmental review of the application.

In an Order issued today, the Commission did not direct the staff to reconstitute the Licensing 

Support Network that supported the adjudicatory hearing on the application, but did direct the staff to 

load documents in the LSN collection into the NRC’s non-public ADAMS online database. The Order 

acknowledges that documents used as references in the safety evaluation report and supplemental 

environmental impact statement will be publicly released; however, public release of all LSN 

documents will depend on whether adequate funds are available to do so. The Commission also 

directed that the adjudication continue to be held in abeyance.

Today’s action responds to an August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit ordering the agency to continue its review of the Yucca Mountain application at least 

until existing funds appropriated for the review are expended. As of Sept. 30, the agency had 

approximately $11 million in funds that were appropriated for the review.