alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §594. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 27, 1906, ch. 3559, §4, 34 Stat. 520, provided that settlers who had actually established themselves in town sites of Heyburn and Rupert, Idaho, prior to Mar. 5, 1906, in permanent buildings not easily moved, should be given right to purchase lots so built upon at an appraised value. Section was based on part of section 4 of act June 27, 1906. The remainder of section 4 is classified to sections 561 and 568 of this title.
#### Corhill Corporation, Respondent, v. S. D. Plants, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from order, entered March 30, 1960, insofar as it denies motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously dismissed as moot. Order, entered June 3, 1960, insofar as it denies the motion to dismiss the amended complaint under subdivision 6 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the amended complaint, with costs. The contract provided that the making and acceptance of final payment should constitute “a waiver * * * of all claims by the Subcontractor, except those previously made and still unsettled.” It is undisputed that on or about January 15, 1960, plaintiff sent defendant two invoices, one marked “Final Payment ”, and that on or about January 23, 1960, payment was made and accepted in the aggregate amount of the invoices. No facts are stated in the opposing affidavits on either motion which tend to show that at the time of final payment unsettled claims existed which had been made by plaintiff prior thereto. Nor are there any evidentiary averments relating any prior negotiations to the legal claims expressed in the amended complaint. The letter dated December 13, 1957, is a plea for relief from the contract, not an assertion of claims under the contract. Accordingly, there is no factual issue requiring a trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Eager, JJ. [23 Mise 2d 349.] [See *post,*p. 986.]
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JER Investors
Trust Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Tae-Sik Yoon, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                            |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/    J. MICHAEL
MCGILLIS
|Date: March 31, 2008 |  | Name: Title:               |  | J. Michael McGillis Chief Financial
Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.10 Lender requirements.

The requirements set forth in part 202 of this chapter regarding approval, recertification, withdrawal of approval, approval for servicing, report requirements and conditions for supervised mortgagees, nonsupervised mortgagees, investing mortgagees, and governmental and similar institutions, apply to these programs.

[62 FR 20081, Apr. 24, 1997]
#### Noah T. Greene, Respondent, v. Charles B. Folks, as President of Local 431 of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Appellant.

Order entered on November 10, 1961, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The sole ground advanced was that the matters set forth in the complaint are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 91.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard J. Adamson, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated April 20, 1960, denying, without a hearing, his *coram nobis*application to vacate a judgment of the same court, rendered September 7, 1954, convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, unarmed, and sentencing him to serve a term of 15 to 30 years. Order affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jonathan Earl Epps, Jr., Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00046

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017F00133 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jonathan Earl Epps, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability
to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 2 8 , 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAULA SKER STON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56624 D.C . No. 8:11-c v-00803-DDP-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Pa ula Ske rston, a

n attorne y , a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola tions of he r Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Ramire

z v . C ity of Bue n a Park

, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd we 

# FIL ED APR 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Ske rston fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts la c ke d re a s ona ble suspic ion to c onduc t a n inve stiga

tory stop. Se eLibe ral v . Estrada , 632 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th C ir. 2011) (re a sona b le suspic ion re q

u ire s tha t a n offic e r have

“ spe c ific , a

rtic ula ble fa c ts whic h, toge the r with obje c tive and re a sona ble infe re n c e s, form the ba sis for suspe c ting tha t the pa rtic ula r pe rson de ta ine d

is e nga ge d in c rim i na l a c tivity ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se e also Hiibe l v . Six t

h J udic ial Dist. C

ourt of N e v ., Humboldt C

nty . , 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004) (inquiry into a suspe c t’ s ide ntity

is a “ routine and a c c e pte d” pa rt of a n inve stiga tory stop a

nd se rve s im

porta nt gove rnm e nt inte re sts, inc luding inform ing an offic e r that the suspe c t is wa nte d for a ny othe r offe nse ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 6 2 4 2
§ 203.433 Assignments, pledges and transfers by approved mortgagee. ( a ) An assignment, pledge, or transfer of an insured mortgage or group of insured mortgages, not constituting a final sale, may be made by an approved mortgagee to another approved mortgagee provided the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) The assignor, pledgor or transferor shall remain the mortgagee of record.
( 2 ) The Commissioner shall have no obligation to recognize or deal with any party other than the mortgagee of record with respect to the rights, benefits and obligations of the mortgagee under the contract of insurance.
( b ) An assignment or transfer of an insured mortgage or group of insured mortgages may be made by an approved mortgagee to other than an approved mortgagee provided the requirements under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are met and the following additional requirements are met: ( 1 ) The assignee or transferee shall be a corporation, trust or organization (including but not limited to any pension trust or profit-sharing plan) which certifies to the approved mortgagee that: ( i ) It has assets of $100,000 or more; and
( ii ) It has lawful authority to hold an insured mortgage or group of insured mortgages.
( 2 ) The assignment or transfer shall be made pursuant to an agreement under which the transferor or assignor is obligated to take one of the following alternate courses of action within 1 year from the date of the assignment or within such additional period of time as may be approved by the Commissioner: ( i ) The transferor or assignor shall repurchase and accept a reassignment of such mortgage or group of mortgages.
( ii ) The transferor or assignor shall obtain a sale and transfer of such mortgage or group of mortgages to an approved mortgagee.
( c ) Notice to or approval of the Commissioner is not required in connection with assignments, pledges or transfers pursuant to this section.
#### Dorothy Fitzgerald et al. v. National House Cleaning Contractors, Inc.

Motion for leave to appeal as poor persons granted only insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard upon a typewritten or mimeographed record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points, upon condition that the appellants serve one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed record and one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points on the attorney for the respondent and file 6 typewritten copies or 19 mimeographed copies of both the record on appeal and appellants’ points with this court. Concur ■—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
AFS-14-279-E 

September 18, 2014 

 Exemption No. 11056 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0313 

Mr. Herman F. Gillis, III 

Director of Operations 

Dynamic Airways 

701 North Terminal Service Road 

Greensboro, NC 27409 

Dear Mr. Gillis: 

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

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

On May 12, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Dynamic Airways (Dynamic), for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, permits Dynamic Airways to 

substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA 

inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade 

training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a 

landing. Dynamic Airways has requested the relief be extended to operations outside the 

United States. 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Dynamic. 

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

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the 

FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not 

provide a level of safety equivalent to the rule. The petitioner has limited experience as a part 

121 carrier and needs to monitor and validate the training program for a newly added aircraft, 
2 

one B-767. To date, Dynamic has expanded operations to include four B-767s and has not 

received final approval for its training program. 

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

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 10430; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, Dynamic Airways is hereby denied an exemption from 

14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ JAMES A. CALDERJames A. CalderChief Financial Officer
Document

Exhibit 4.15



FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CARDINAL HEALTH 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN
FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUERTO RICO
(As Amended and Restated January 1, 2020)


Background Information


A.    Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) previously adopted and currently maintains the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan for Employees of Puerto Rico (the “Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees of Cardinal Health and its subsidiaries and affiliates.


B.    Section 11.02 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended at any time through a written resolution adopted or approved by the Financial Benefit Plans Committee (“FBPC”) with respect to any amendment that, when aggregated with any other amendment or amendments approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of $5 million or less.


C.    The FBPC has concluded that the amendment set forth below, when aggregated with any other amendments set to be approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of less than $5 million.


D.    The FBPC desires to amend the Plan to clarify the Plan’s definition of “Compensation” with respect to certain special payments pursuant to the Hospital Worker Relief Program.


Amendment of the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan for Employees of Puerto Rico


The Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective as of May 23, 2022.


1.     Section 1.08 of the Plan is amended by adding the following new subsection 1.08(x) immediately following subsection 1.08(ix):


“(x)    Amounts paid to an Employee pursuant to the Hospital Worker Relief Program, or pursuant to any other special relief programs providing for payments to Employees which are funded by the Government of Puerto Rico, its instrumentalities or municipalities, or the U.S. Government (regardless of whether such payments are paid through an Employer’s payroll), except to the extent that such amounts are required to be included in Compensation pursuant to the provisions or requirements of the special relief program, the Code, the U.S. Code or ERISA, as applicable.”


2.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
FINANCIAL BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE


By:  /s/ Kendell Sherrer            


Its:  VP, Compensation and Benefits        


Date:      May 23, 2022
- Front Matter
Information Page
Title Page
Citation Page
Table of Contents
Tables
Figures
Acknowledgments

- Chapter 1 - Introduction
- Chapter 2 - Date of First Union
- Chapter 3 - Date of First Birth
- Chapter 4 - Age at First Sexual Intercourse
- Chapter 5 - Summary and Conclusion
- References

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T01:37:15-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 35.1300 Purpose and applicability.

The purpose of this subpart R is to provide standards and methods for evaluation and hazard reduction activities required in subparts B, C, D, and F through M of this part.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc., (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard V. Secord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: /s/ Richard V. Secord
---------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Acting Financial Officer

October 17, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,769,800
<SECURITIES>                                 7,370,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,485,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   275,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,936,600
<PP&E>                                       1,015,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 346,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,900,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,361,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,537,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,900,200
<SALES>                                      3,644,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,644,200
<CGS>                                          423,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  423,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,115,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,723,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,740,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,740,900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T00:23:25-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2890 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2890

         To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,8 Naphthalamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,8 Naphthalamide.

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

SECTION 1. 1,8 NAPHTHALAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.11.02      1H Benz(de)         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         isoquinoline 1,3                                                   31/2008
                         (2H) Dione (CAS
                         No. 81-83-4)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2925.19.42)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLONIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, a California

Not-For-Profit Corporation, dba MERCY

HOSPITAL; GOLDEN EMPIRE MANAGED

CARE, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California

Corporation; and MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS,

LP,

Defendants. /

No. CV-09-2192 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

1. The First and Second Counts of the Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s counts Three, Four and Five are dismissed, without prejudice.

Dated: June 22, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-02192-MMC Document 61 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1