alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Claude Manning, Respondent, v. Lee Rogers et al., Defendants, and County of Cortland, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cortland County, entered April 21, 1953, granting the plaintiff’s motion to amend a notice of claim served upon Cortland County and to amend the complaint to include the same allegations as those incorporated in the amended notice of *979claim. The notice of claim was served on Cortland County on February 5, 1952. It stated that on November 26, 1951, while the plaintiff was helping a motorist out of a ditch alongside a county highway, another automobile skidded on the highway and struck the plaintiff. The notice of claim alleged that the county was negligent in allowing the highway to become slippery and dangerous. On March 9, 1953, the plaintiff moved to amend the notice of claim and to amend the complaint to add the allegations that the county had removed or permitted to be removed a deep drainage ditch near the place of the accident and had replaced it or permitted it to be replaced with a ditch that was too shallow and that as a result water overflowed upon the highway and formed ice and slush, making the highway slippery and dangerous. The order granting leave to amend was plainly right. The amendment merely specified the cause of the slippery and dangerous condition, with the maintenance of which the county had been charged in the original notice of claim and in the original complaint. It is questionable whether any amendment was necessary but, since the plaintiff sought to make the amendment out of an excess of caution, the court was plainty right in allowing the amendment to be made. Order appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs, to the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpem and Imrie, JJ.
CDAT Submission results for Bentonite, acid-leached 

 Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached – (5 submissions) 

 CAS Number: 70131-50-9 

 Company: BASF CORP 

 Site: BASF CATALYSTS LLC, 600 EAST MCDOWELL ROAD, JACKSON, MS, 39204-5992 

 Manufactured: CBI 

 Imported: No Data Reported 

 Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : N/A 

 Volume used on the site : CBI 

 Past Production Volume : CBI 

 National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr 

 Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached 

 CAS Number: 70131-50-9 

 Company: WACKER CHEMICAL CORP 

 Site: WACKER CHEMICAL CORP, 3301 SUTTON ROAD, ADRIAN, MI, 49221-9397 

 Manufactured: CBI 

 Imported: CBI 

 Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : CBI 

 Volume used on the site : CBI 

 Past Production Volume : CBI 

 National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr 

 Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached 

 CAS Number: 70131-50-9 

 Company: APPLETON PAPERS INC 

 Site: APPLETON PAPERS INC APPLET ON PLANT, 825 E WISCONSIN AVE, APPLETON, WI, 

549113873 

 Manufactured: No Data Reported 
 Imported: 158,400 lb/yr 

 Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : NO 

 Volume used on the site : 158,400 lb/yr 

 Past Production Volume : 277,414 lb/yr 

 National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr 

 Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached 

 CAS Number: 70131-50-9 

 Company: SUD-CHEMIE NORTH AMERICA INC 

 Site: SUD-CHEMIE INC., 1600 W HILL ST, LOUISVILLE, KY, 40210 

 Manufactured: Withheld 

 Imported: Withheld 

 Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES 

 Volume used on the site : N/A 

 Past Production Volume : 654,000 lb/yr 

 National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr 

 Chemical/Generic Name: Bentonite, acid-leached 

 CAS Number: 70131-50-9 

 Company: AMCOL INTERNATIONAL 

 Site: AMCOL INTERNATIONAL, 2870 FORBS AVE, HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL, 60192 

 Manufactured: Withheld 

 Imported: Withheld 

 Is the chemical never physically at the import site? : YES 

 Volume used on the site : N/A 

 Past Production Volume : 0 lb/yr 

 National Production Volume for Chemical : 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 lb/yr
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, William T. Gochnauer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 of RedEnvelope,Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date:November 14, 2007        *By:*  */s/ WILLIAM T. GOCHNAUER*    *William T. Gochnauer*    *Interim Chief Financial Officer*
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

KMART HOLDING CORPORATION

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION (1)

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Kmart Holding
Corporation for the period ended July 28, 2004, each of the undersigned officers
of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   this Form 10-Q/A 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 this Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Kmart Holding Corporation.

Date: February 11, 2005


/s/ Aylwin B. Lewis
----------------------------------------------
Aylwin B. Lewis
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ James D. Donlon, III
----------------------------------------------
James D. Donlon, III
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

Footnote 1:

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kmart Holding
Corporation and will be retained by Kmart Holding Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 229.1013 (Item 1013) Purposes, alternatives, reasons and effects in a going-private transaction. ( a ) *Purposes.* State the purposes for the Rule 13e-3 transaction.
( b ) *Alternatives.* If the subject company or affiliate considered alternative means to accomplish the stated purposes, briefly describe the alternatives and state the reasons for their rejection.
( c ) *Reasons.* State the reasons for the structure of the Rule 13e-3 transaction and for undertaking the transaction at this time.
( d ) *Effects.* Describe the effects of the Rule 13e-3 transaction on the subject company, its affiliates and unaffiliated security holders, including the federal tax consequences of the transaction.
*Instructions to Item 1013*: 1. Conclusory statements will not be considered sufficient disclosure in response to this section. 2. The description required by paragraph (d) of this section must include a reasonably detailed discussion of both the benefits and detriments of the Rule 13e-3 transaction to the subject company, its affiliates and unaffiliated security holders. The benefits and detriments of the Rule 13e-3 transaction must be quantified to the extent practicable. 3. If this statement is filed by an affiliate of the subject company, the description required by paragraph (d) of this section must include, but not be limited to, the effect of the Rule 13e-3 transaction on the affiliate's interest in the net book value and net earnings of the subject company in terms of both dollar amounts and percentages.
#### § 201.323 Evidence: Official notice.

Official notice may be taken of any material fact which might be judicially noticed by a district court of the United States, any matter in the public official records of the Commission, or any matter which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the Commission as an expert body. If official notice is requested or taken of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, the parties, upon timely request, shall be afforded an opportunity to establish the contrary.
AAM-11-185-E 

March 01, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10219 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0147 

Mr. Brian Dunaway 

President 

Epic Helicopters, LLC 

4201 North Main Street, Suite 109 

Fort Worth, TX 76106 

Dear Mr. Dunaway: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Epic Helicopters, LLC (Epic Helicopters) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Epic Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Epic Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Epic Helicopters, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Epic Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Epic Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Epic Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraiser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
§ 232.12 Business hours of the Commission. ( a ) *General.* The principal office of the Commission, at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, is open each day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect, *provided that* hours for the filing of documents pursuant to the Acts or the rules and regulations thereunder are as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Submissions made in paper.* Filers may submit paper documents filed with or otherwise furnished to the Commission each day, except Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect.
( c ) *Submissions by direct transmission.* Electronic filings and other documents may be submitted to the Commission each day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect.
[58 FR 14670, Mar. 18, 1993; 58 FR 21349, Apr. 21, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 67761, Dec. 30, 1994; 65 FR 24800, Apr. 27, 2000; 65 FR 24800, Apr. 27, 2000; 68 FR 25799, May 13, 2003; 73 FR 32227, June 5, 2008; 86 FR 7972, Feb. 3, 2021; 88 FR 12209, Feb. 27, 2023]
SCEC-22-0000386

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

KARL O. DICKS and JAMES RYAN MALISH, Plaintiffs,

vs.

S TATE OF HAWAI # I, OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, Defendant.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of plaintiffs Karl O. Dicks and James Ryan Malish’s “Complaint,” filed on June 13, 2022, the documents attached and submitted in support, and the record, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint. See HRS § 602-5; see also HRS §§ 11-172 and 632-1. Accordingly,

It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 15, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-22-0000386 15-JUN-2022 09:39 AM Dkt. 5 ORD
EX-10.1






AMENDMENT TO

MANAGEMENT SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, United America Indemnity, Ltd. (the “Company”), formerly Vigilant International,
Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company formed with limited liability, is party to a management
shareholders’ agreement dated September 5, 2003 (the “Agreement”) with U.N. Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.
(the “FPC Shareholder”) and several individuals currently or formerly employed by the Company or
its subsidiaries in an executive capacity (the “Management Investors”);



WHEREAS, Section 5.10 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended pursuant to
a written instrument signed by the Company, the FPC Shareholder and Management Investors holding a
majority of the outstanding Shares (as defined in the Agreement) held by all Management Investors;



WHEREAS, the actions contemplated herein on behalf of each of the Company and the FPC
Shareholder have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action and no other proceedings
on the part of the Company or the FPC Shareholder are necessary to consummate the actions
contemplated herein; and



WHEREAS, the Management Investors who signatories hereto hold a majority of the outstanding
Shares held by all Management Investors as of the date hereof.



IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Section 5.1.1 of the Agreement be amended to add the following
sentence to the end thereof:



“This Agreement shall also be terminated upon the execution of a written instrument providing
for such termination by the Company, the FPC Shareholder and by Management Investors holding a
majority of the then outstanding Shares held by all Management Investors.”



IT IS FURTHER AGREED that the Agreement be terminated in accordance with Section 5.1.1
thereof, and that, among other things, all Shares and Options (as defined in the Agreement) which
were previously subject to the Agreement be free and clear of any restrictions imposed by the
Agreement.



[intentionally left blank]






1






INTENDED TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, the signatories hereto have been have caused this Agreement to
be executed as of the 1st day of January, 2006.



	 	 	 
	UNITED AMERICA INDEMNITY, LTD.

By: /s/ Troy W. Thacker

	 	U.N. HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.

By: /s/ Troy W. Thacker
	 

	 	 
	Name: Troy W. Thacker

Title: Vice-Chairman, Director

	 	Name: Troy W. Thacker

Title: Director
	 
	 	 
	MANAGEMENT INVESTORS

	 	

	 
	 	 
	/s/ William F. Schmidt

	 	/s/ Richard S. March
	 

	 	 
	William F. Schmidt

	 	Richard S. March
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Kevin L. Tate

	 	/s/ Jonathan Ritz
	 

	 	 
	Kevin L. Tate

	 	Jonathan Ritz
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Robert Cohen

	 	/s/ James B. McCreesh
	 

	 	 
	Robert Cohen

	 	James B. McCreesh
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Jerry E. Hart

	 	/s/ Timothy J. Dwyer
	 

	 	 
	Jerry E. Hart

	 	Timothy J. Dwyer
	 
	 	 







2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3962 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Blue 56. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Blue 56. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISPERSE BLUE 56. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Disperse Blue 56, (9,10- 

Anthracenedione, 1,5 (or 

1,8)-diamino-2-bromo-4,8 (or 

4,5)-dihydroxy-) (CAS No. 

68134–65–6) (provided for in 

subheading 3204.11.10) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3962 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Paul Menard, Respondent, v. Donald M. Case et al., Appellants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See post, p. 997.]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4062 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1444 Main Street in Ramona, California, as the ``Nelson `Mac' 
                  MacWilliams Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NELSON ``MAC'' MACWILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1444 Main Street in Ramona, California, as the ``Nelson 
`Mac' MacWilliams 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 ``Nelson 
`Mac' MacWilliams Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1444 Main Street in Ramona, California, as the ``Nelson `Mac' 
                  MacWilliams Post Office Building''.
```
#### §§ 249b.1-249b.99 [Reserved]
#### Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Dist. v. B. F. Goodrich Co.

October 18, 1949.

W. Scott Miller, Judge.

See also 307 Ky. 689, 211 S. W. 2d 867.

Gilbert Burnett and Blakey Helm for appellant.

Ogden, Galphin & Abell for appellee.

Van Sant, Commissioner

Dismissing appeal.

*38Since no appeal was granted in the Lower Conrt and one has not been prayed in this Court, we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment. Section 734, Civil Code of Practice. Imperial Bank of Olive Hill v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Bruner, Secretary of State, 138 Ky. 746, 129 S. W. 95.

There being no appeal, the transcript filed by appellant must be, and hereby is stricken from the Docket.