alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300j–10. Appointment of scientific, etc., personnel by Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency for implementation of responsibilities; compensation

To the extent that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency deems such action necessary to the discharge of his functions under title XIV of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.] (relating to safe drinking water) and under other provisions of law, he may appoint personnel to fill not more than thirty scientific, engineering, professional, legal, and administrative positions within the Environmental Protection Agency without regard to the civil service laws and may fix the compensation of such personnel not in excess of the maximum rate payable for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 95–190, §11(b), Nov. 16, 1977, 91 Stat. 1398.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Public Health Service Act, referred to in text, is act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, 58 Stat. 682, as amended. Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act is classified generally to this subchapter (§300f et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1977, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates

References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, §101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Roy Marx, Defendant.

Motion to direct the County Clerk of Queens County to furnish defendant with a certified copy of all the records relating to the judgment of conviction rendered against him in the County Court of Queens County on or about July 1,1957. Motion denied.
Exhibit 10.5

Addendum to Letter Employment Agreement of December 1, 2003

This
Addendum to Michael S. Gilliland's Letter Employment Agreement of December 1, 2003 (the "Agreement") is entered into effective as March 22, 2006, by and between Sabre Inc.
(the "Company") and Michael S. Gilliland ("Employee").

The
Company and Employee hereby agree that the provisions for Termination Other Than for Cause, as provided for in Section 8 the Agreement, shall be replaced with the following language:



---





Accepted
and agreed to:

|Michael S. Gilliland |  |  |  | Michael E. Haefner
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Sabre Inc.
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------

2

---



QuickLinks
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2007 INCENTIVE STOCK AND AWARDS PLAN


         


        FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2007 INCENTIVE STOCK AND AWARDS PLAN, dated November 11, 2009 (the “First Amendment”), adopted by the Board of Directors, (the “Board”) of KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc., a Delaware company (“KeyOn” or the “Company”). 


         


        BACKGROUND


         


        WHEREAS, the Board, in its capacity as administrator of the Company’s 2007 Incentive Stock and Awards Plan (the “2007 Plan”), needed to increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the 2007 Plan in order to satisfy grants made to certain participants; 


         


        WHEREAS, at a meeting of the Board, the number of shares reserved for issuance was increased by 190,000 as further provided in this First Amendment;


         


        NOW, THEREFORE, the 2007 Incentive Stock and Awards Plan is hereby amended as follows:


         


        Paragraph 6(a) “Plan Reserved” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced to read:


         


        6 (a) Plan Reserve. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15, an aggregate of 2,440,000 Shares are reserved for issuance under this Plan. The number of Shares reserved for issuance under this Plan shall be reduced only by the number of Shares delivered in payment or settlement of Awards. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company
        may issue only 2,440,000 Shares upon the exercise of incentive stock options. 


         


        BY THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, EACH OF THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE READ THE FOREGOING AND FULLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO EACH AND ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN.


         


        All other terms and the Conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.


         

        


        

        

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has approved and executed this First Amendment set forth above. 


         


        
            	
                        Jonathan Snyder

                    	
                        A. Robert Handell

                    
	 	 
	 	 
	By: /s/ Jonathan Snyder                     	By: /s/ A. Robert Handell                   
	Name: Jonathan Snyder	Name: A. Robert Handell
	Its: Chairman	Its: Secretary
§ 270.30h-1 Applicability of section 16 of the Exchange Act to section 30(h). ( a ) The filing of any statement prescribed under section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78p(a)) shall satisfy the corresponding requirements of section 30(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(h)).
( b ) The rules under section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78p) shall apply to any duty, liability or prohibition imposed with respect to a transaction involving any security of a registered closed-end company under section 30(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(h)).
( c ) No statements need be filed pursuant to section 30(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(h)) by an affiliated person of an investment adviser in his or her capacity as such if such person is solely an employee, other than an officer, of such investment adviser.
[67 FR 43537, June 28, 2002]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4429 

To temporarily suspend the duty on certain lamps used in liquid 

chromatographs or spectrophotometry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To temporarily suspend the duty on certain lamps used in 

liquid chromatographs or spectrophotometry. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LAMPS USED IN LIQUID CHROMA4 TOGRAPHY OR SPECTROPHOTOMETRY. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ultraviolet lamps filled 

with deuterium gas (provided for in subheading 

8539.49.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4429 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Para más información sobre el uso seguro de productos químicos para piscinas, 

vea el plan de seguridad para su piscina o visite

www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CS232164-D

 Vístase en forma adecuada para estar protegido; use el equipo de seguridad adecuado (por ejemplo, 

gafas, guantes y máscara de seguridad)

 Lea la etiqueta del producto antes de cada uso

 Úselos en áreas bien ventiladas

 Abra un envase de productos químicos a la vez y ciérrelo antes de abrir otro envase

 Minimice la cantidad de polvo, vapores y salpicaduras

 Mida las cantidades con cuidado

 Nunca mezcle

 Productos de cloro con ácido ya que se pueden generar gases tóxicos

 Diferentes productos químicos para piscinas (por ejemplo, diferentes tipos de productos de cloro) 

entre sí ni con otras sustancias

 Solo debe disolver con anticipación los productos químicos para piscinas cuando así lo indique la 

etiqueta del producto

 Si la etiqueta del producto indica que es necesario disolver con anticipación, agregue el producto 

químico al agua; NUNCA agregue agua al producto químico porque puede ocurrir una reacción 

violenta (posiblemente explosiva)

SIEMPRE tome de inmediato las medidas pertinentes si se derraman productos 

químicos para piscinas. Siga el Plan de Respuesta a derrames de emergencia 

para productos químicos para piscinas y asegúrese de comunicarse con las 

autoridades pertinentes y con los administradores de la piscina.

ANTES DE USAR LOS PRODUCTOS QUÍMICOS Para Piscinas

Dirección y número de teléfono de la piscina:

Número de teléfono de respuesta a emergencias:

Número de teléfono del departamento de salud local:

Protéjase usted y proteja a los nadadores de las miles DE lesiones prevenibles que ocurren cada año

 Reciba capacitación sobre la seguridad de productos químicos para piscinas (por ejemplo, durante la 

clase de capacitación para el operador)

 Pida asistencia si usted NO ha recibido capacitación para tareas específicas

 Lea toda la etiqueta del producto o las hojas informativas sobre la seguridad de los materiales 

(MSDS) antes de usar los productos

 Conozca cual es el Plan de Respuesta a derrames de emergencia para productos químicos para 

piscinas en caso de emergencia, y practique sus pasos (por ejemplo, la evacuación)

CÓMO USAR PRODUCTOS QUÍMICOS Para Piscinas de FORMA SEGURA

Seguridad de productos

químicos para piscinas: USO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2457 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2457

  To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to allow community 
  reinvestment credit for investments and other financial support to 
enable employees to establish certain employee stock ownership plans or 
                  eligible worker owned cooperatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
 and Ms. Lee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to allow community 
  reinvestment credit for investments and other financial support to 
enable employees to establish certain employee stock ownership plans or 
                  eligible worker owned cooperatives.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Ownership Opportunity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CREDIT.

    Section 804 of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 
2903) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Establishment of Esops and Ewocs.--In assessing and taking 
into account, under subsection (a), the record of a financial 
institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall 
consider as a factor capital investments, loans, loan participation, 
technical assistance, and grants by the institution to support or 
enable employees to establish employee stock ownership plans or 
eligible worker owned cooperatives that are at least 51 percent 
employee-owned plans or cooperatives and employ low- to moderate-income 
workers.''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### §§ 40.7-40.8 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Lincoln Square Slum Clearance Project, 167 West 60th Street, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appel*982lants. (And Three Other Proceedings.)

Motion [No. 183] for an extension of time and for other relief granted to the extent of directing that all of the papers, testimony and exhibits which are material to all the appeals taken from the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth separate and partial final decrees, entered in this proceeding, be printed in one appeal book, without duplication of printing, the respective appellants to pay their proportionate share of the cost of printing the same based on the portions of the record relating to their respective appeals; and the time of all the parties who have taken appeals from the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth separate and partial final decrees, entered in this proceeding, to perfect their appeals, is enlarged insofar as to extend their time to file the combined record on appeal, as hereinbefore directed, up to and including December 31, 1960, together with their appellants’ points and notice of argument for the February 1961 Term of this court, all of said appeals to be argued or submitted together on the one printed record. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Metroland Motors, Inc., Petitioner, v James P. Melton, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County), to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles which suspended the petitioner’s dealer’s registration license. At a hearing before a referee, at which the petitioner was represented by counsel, testimony was taken from a complainant, employees of the petitioner and a Motor Vehicle Department investigator. The referee found that petitioner, Metroland Motors, Inc., was aware of the fact that the 105 miles registered on the odometer on a certain vehicle was not a true reflection of the use of the vehicle and that the petitioner had failed to advise the purchaser of the true mileage or of "true mileage unknown” on the MV 50 certificate of sale which was issued with the sale (15 NYCRR 78.11). The dealer’s license was suspended for 30 days. This determination was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board of the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the board recommended that the suspension be reduced from 30 to 10 days. The commissioner approved the recommendation of the board, and ordered a suspension of the petitioner dealer’s license for a period of. 10 days. This proceeding ensued. The issue before this court is whether the determination of the commissioner is supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803, subd 4; *Matter of Stork Rest*
      *1088
      *v Boland,*282 NY 256). The purchaser testified that he agreed to purchase a demonstrator Jeep vehicle from the petitioner, through its salesman, and was informed that it had about 2,000 miles on it. After the parties had agreed on a price, the salesman advised the purchaser that the Jeep only had 105 miles on it and that additional money would be required because of the variance in mileage. The motor vehicle investigator testified that he had examined the vehicle when the odometer indicated around 300 miles, but that the vehicle’s condition indicated greater mileage. Other testimony in the record supported the view that the Jeep had mileage far in excess of the 105 miles set on the odometer. The testimony of the employees of the petitioner indicated that they alone had driven the Jeep much more than 105 miles. This record provides substantial evidence to support the determination of the commissioner *(Matter of Voerg Lincoln-Mercury v Melton,*43 NY2d 727). The findings of the hearing officer are not inconsistent with a reading of the regulations in question nor is the suspension harsh or excessive *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §17714. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section, Pub. L. 110–422, title II, §208, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4786, related to cooperative activities with NOAA to study tornadoes and other severe storms. See section 60504 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
#### In the Matter of John N. Griggs, Jr., an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York granted, pursuant to section 90 of the Judiciary Law. Respondent will be reinstated upon taking the appropriate oath. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francisco Cruz and Rogelio Soto, Appellants.

Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered as to each defendant. While each defendant appealed separately, for convenience the appeals are being disposed of in a single memorandum. Defendant-appellant Cruz was convicted on two separate counts' of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree and of the crime of assault in the first degree. Defendant-appellant Soto was convicted on two separate counts of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree and on one count of the crime of assault in the first degree. In appeals by two eodefendants of these appellants from convictions of murder in the first degree, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of one, Agron, and reversed and ordered a new trial as to the other *(People*v. *Agron,*10 N Y 2d 130). The court, in reversing and ordering a new trial for Hernandez, found there was insufficient evidence as to Hernandez to support a finding of criminal conspiracy to kill, though there was sufficient to support a finding of a conspiracy to commit assault. The court held the failure to permit examination of the Grand Jury testimony of Hector Bouilleree, the People’s principal witness, and the statements of the trial court and of the District Attorney in summation to the effect that there were no inconsistencies between Bouillerce’s Grand Jury testimony and his trial testimony, when in fact there were, constituted reversible error *(People*v. *Agron, supra).*The finding and determination made by the Court of Appeals in the case cited are applicable to and controlling in the cases before ns. It is impossible to determine how such errors affected the jury or influenced the outcome of their deliberations. In light of the disposition herein made it is unnecessary to consider the other *900points raised by appellants in their briefs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, *McNally, Stevens and*Steuer, JJ.
#### Edna E. Fairweather, as Administratrix, etc., v. John L. Sutphen and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
#### § 235.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by the Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee 05-35, Review of R03s, Fs, Ks                    

*Date:*                         February 17-18, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lynn Mertens King, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, 45 Center Dr., Rm 4AN-32F, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6402, (301) 594-5006,                         *lynn.king@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 9, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-27499 Filed 12-04-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### John M. Andrews et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 34211.)

— • Appeal by the State and the Power Authority from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded the claimants $65,000 plus interest. The claimants were the owners of some 285 acres of land having a frontage of 3,450 feet on the St. Lawrence River. The entire parcel was appropriated for the St. Lawrence Seaway and on it power lines were erected, a ship channel was constructed and the remainder is used for park purposes. The land had been used as a farm although claimants testified that the land had been held with the private development of hydroelectric power in mind and it was shown that a subsidiary of Niagara Mohawk had held options on the land for a period of time. Claimants’ expert placed a value of $196,800 on the land based on its use for industrial and commercial purposes. The appellant’s experts stated the best available use was as farm land and one included a value for river frontage for use for cottages and they valued the land at $20,300 and $17,210. In our view the court below was correct in not limiting the value of the property to its use as farm land, but on this record could consider its possible value for commercial and industrial purposes. The award by the court below was within the range of the expert testimony. The court viewed the property and based *600on this view and the evidence presented, it could properly arrive at the determination as to value which it made. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ. [19 Misc 2d 217.]