alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 33.2 Definitions.

For the purpose of this part, the following terms mean:

*Act.* The Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1971 *et seq.*).

*Capital equipment.* Equipment or other property which may be depreciated for income tax purposes.

*Depreciated replacement costs.* The present replacement cost of capital equipment after being depreciated on a straight line basis over the equipment's depreciable life, which is standardized at ten years.

*Downtime.* The time a vessel normally would be in port or transiting to and from the fishing grounds.

*Expendable items.* Any property, excluding that which may be depreciated for income tax purposes, which is maintained in inventory or expensed for tax purposes.

*Fund.* The Fishermen's Guaranty Fund established in the U.S. Treasury under section 7(c) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 1977(c)).

*Market value.* The price property would command in a market, at the time of property loss, assuming a seller willing to sell and buyer willing to buy.

*Other direct charge.* Any levy which is imposed in addition to, or in lieu of any fine, license fee, registration fee, or other charge.

*Owner.* The owner or charterer of a commercial fishing vessel.

*Secretary.* The Secretary of State or the designee of the Secretary of State.

*Seizure.* Arrest of a fishing vessel by a foreign country for allegedly illegal fishing.

*U.S. fishing vessel.* Any private vessel documented or certified under the laws of the United States as a commercial fishing vessel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS  SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND  IN THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN  ITS ENTIRETY
BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              37,850
<SECURITIES>                        183,938
<RECEIVABLES>                       172,595
<ALLOWANCES>                        315
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              20,135
<DEPRECIATION>                      5,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      430,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             149,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            154
<OTHER-SE>                          129,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        430,035
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    61,836
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    42,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  14,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     5,065
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,349
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.22
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1437

___________

Walter B. Farver, Sr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

M. Capel, Assistant Warden, Pine *

Bluff Work Complex, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; R. Raley, * Appeal from the United States

Major, Pine Bluff Work Complex, * District Court for the

Arkansas Department of Correction; * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

R. Dobbs, Warden, Pine Bluff Work * [UNPUBLISHED]

Complex, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Williams, Lieutenant, *

Pine Bluff Work Complex, Arkansas *

Department of Corrections; Walls, *

Sergeant, Pine Bluff Work Complex, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

A.D. Smith, CO-I, Pine Bluff Work *

Complex, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1999

 Filed: April 12, 1999

___________
1The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter B. Farver, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s1 order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for failure to prosecute. Having

reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Farver’s

lawsuit without prejudice. SeeBrown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.) (per

curiam), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 88 (1998). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRAND TARZANA SURGICAL 

INSTITUTE, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF 

ILLINOIS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 20-55072

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08443-DSF-AS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District 

Judge.

Brand Tarzana Surgical Institute, Inc. (“Brand”) appeals the dismissal with 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

prejudice of its ERISA action for failure to state a claim.1 We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

“We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6).” Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). 

We take note of Glendale Outpatient Surgery Ctr. v. United Healthcare 

Servs., Case No. 19-55412, which Brand identified in its Statement of Related 

Cases, and which raises “the same or closely related issues.” See Ninth Circuit 

Rule 28-2.6. Though we are not bound by the outcome in that case, we find that 

the complaint at issue here, identical in many respects to the complaint in 

Glendale, also suffers from the same defects. See Glendale Outpatient Surgery 

Ctr. v. United Healthcare Servs., 805 F. App’x 530, 531 (9th Cir. 2020). Brand 

fails to allege that the plans at issue for its sixteen claims here are even ERISA 

plans, and fails to allege provisions in those plans, or communications from 

Defendant, that would entitle Brand to the reimbursements it claims. See Doe v. 

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 982 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2020). Brand’s description of 

what it was “typically” told by Defendant is not “enough to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). Finally, that Brand’s complaint involves multiple claims does not excuse it 

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those

necessary to explain our decision.
3 

from its obligation to allege enough facts to “give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See id. (internal citation 

omitted). Because the complaint does not “show[] that the pleader is entitled to 

relief,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the district court’s dismissal with prejudice is 

AFFIRMED.
### §50–1. Funds for mappings and investigations considered intragovernmental funds

Beginning October 1, 1990, and thereafter, funds received from any State, territory, possession, country, international organization, or political subdivision thereof, for topographic, geologic, or water resources mapping or investigations involving cooperation with such an entity shall be considered as intragovernmental funds as defined in the publication titled "A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process".

(Pub. L. 101–512, title I, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1924.)
### §57107. Vessels for other agencies

(a) In General.—The Secretary of Transportation may construct, reconstruct, repair, equip, and outfit, by contract or otherwise, vessels or parts thereof, for any other department or agency of the United States Government to the extent the other department or agency is authorized by law to do so for its own account.

(b) Effect on Contract Authorization.—An obligation incurred or expenditure made by the Secretary under this section does not affect any contract authorization of the Secretary, but instead shall be charged against the existing appropriation or contract authorization of the department or agency.

(c) Salvaging Cargoes.—

(1) Reimbursable agreements.—The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, may enter into reimbursable agreements with other Federal entities to provide legal services to such entities relating to the salvaging of cargoes for which such entities have custody, or control, or for which for such entities have trustee responsibilities from vessels in the custody or control of the Maritime Administration or its predecessor agencies. The Secretary may receive and retain reimbursement from such entities for all costs incurred related to the provision of such services.

(2) Amounts received.—Amounts received as reimbursements under this subsection shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by the Secretary or, if the period of availability of obligations for that appropriation has expired, to the appropriation of funds that is currently available to the Secretary for substantially the same purpose. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund or account.

(3) Advance payments.—Payments made in advance shall be for any part of the estimated cost as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Adjustments to the amounts paid in advance shall be made as agreed to by the Secretary of Transportation and the head of the ordering agency or unit based on the actual cost of goods or services provided.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1661; Pub. L. 116–92, div. C, title XXXV, §3508, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1976.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 57107 | 46 App.:1125a. | Feb. 6, 1941, ch. 5, §4, 55 Stat. 6; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(74), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 160. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "heretofore or hereafter", "diminish or otherwise", and "and, to the amount of such obligation or expenditure, diminish" are omitted as unnecessary.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–92 added subsec. (c).
### §971c. Utilization or occupancy of Alaskan easements; consent of agency

Lands in Alaska within an easement established under sections 971a to 971e of this title by the Secretary of the Interior may not be utilized or occupied without the permission of the Secretary, or an officer or agency designated by him. If the lands crossed by an easement established under sections 971a to 971e of this title are under the jurisdiction of a Federal department or agency other than the Department of the Interior, or of a State, Territory, or other government subdivision or agency, such permission may be granted only with the consent of such department, agency, or other governmental unit.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 848, §3, 70 Stat. 898.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 420b of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
### §70113. Maritime intelligence

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall implement a system to collect, integrate, and analyze information concerning vessels operating on or bound for waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including information related to crew, passengers, cargo, and intermodal shipments. The system may include a vessel risk profiling component that assigns incoming vessels a terrorism risk rating.

(b) Consultation.—In developing the information system under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Transportation Security Oversight Board and other departments and agencies, as appropriate.

(c) Information Integration.—To deter a transportation security incident, the Secretary may collect information from public and private entities to the extent that the information is not provided by other Federal departments and agencies.

(Added Pub. L. 107–295, title I, §102(a), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2082; amended Pub. L. 108–293, title VIII, §803(a), Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1080.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–293 inserted at end "The system may include a vessel risk profiling component that assigns incoming vessels a terrorism risk rating."
§ 886.313 Other Federal requirements. Participation in this program requires: ( a ) Compliance with ( 1 ) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Orders 11063 and 11246, and Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and
( 2 ) all rules, regulations, and requirements issued pursuant thereto.
( b ) Submission of an approvable Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan.
( c ) For projects where rehabilitation is to be completed by or at the direction of the owner, compliance with: ( 1 ) The Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
( 2 ) Where the property contains nine or more units to be assisted, the requirement to pay not less than the wage rates prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5) to all laborers and mechanics (other than volunteers under the conditions set out in 24 CFR part 70) who are employed in the rehabilitation work, and the labor standards provisions contained in the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, Copeland Anti-Kickback Act, and implementing regulations of the Department of Labor.
( 3 ) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
( 4 ) The National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665);
( 5 ) The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-291);
( 6 ) Executive Order 11593 on Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR part 800;
( 7 ) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
( 8 ) The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973;
( 9 ) Executive Order 11988, Flood Plains Management;
( 10 ) Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
[44 FR 70365, Dec. 6, 1979, as amended at 57 FR 14760, Apr. 22, 1992]
#### § 206.300 General.

This subpart provides for the establishment of the HECM Counselor Roster (Roster) and sets forth the requirements for the operation of the HECM Counselor Roster.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135022 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135022 COA: 279318 Oakland CC: 06-207993-FH DAMON LEMONTE APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
AUTHORIZATION

        Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints each of John M. Lowber, Bonnie J. Paskvan, and Alfred J. Walker,
signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity
as an affiliate of General Communication, Inc. (the "Company"), Form 4, in
accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules thereunder;

(2) do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 4, complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or
similar authority; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to,
in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

        The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power
and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever
requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights
and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the
rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges that the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the
undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the
undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

        This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned is no longer required to file Form 4, with respect to the
undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the Company,
unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact.


                                   1
<PAGE>
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 31st day of January 2004.


                                 /s/
                                 ------------------------
                                 Signature


                                 Stephen M. Brett
                                 ------------------------
                                 Print Name
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Kristina M. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 25, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    KRISTINA M.
LESLIE                                                              
|                     |  |  |  | Kristina M. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### §40704. Commission review

(a) Request for Justification.—On request of the Federal Maritime Commission, a controlled carrier shall file with the Commission, within 20 days of the request, a statement of justification that sufficiently details the carrier's need and purpose for an existing or proposed rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation and upon which the Commission may reasonably base a determination of its lawfulness.

(b) Determination.—Within 120 days after receipt of information requested under subsection (a), the Commission shall determine whether the rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation may be unjust and unreasonable.

(c) Show Cause Order.—Whenever the Commission is of the opinion that a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation published or assessed by a controlled carrier may be unjust and unreasonable, the Commission shall issue an order to the controlled carrier to show cause why the rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation should not be prohibited.

(d) Suspension Pending Determination.—

(1) Not yet effective.—Pending a determination of the lawfulness of a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation in a proceeding under subsection (c), the Commission may suspend the rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation at any time before its effective date.

(2) Already effective.—If a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation has already become effective, the Commission, on issuance of an order to show cause, may suspend the rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation on at least 30 days' notice to the controlled carrier.

(3) Maximum suspension.—A period of suspension under this subsection may not exceed 180 days.

(e) Replacement During Suspension.—Whenever the Commission has suspended a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation under this section, the controlled carrier may publish a new rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation to take effect immediately during the suspension in lieu of the suspended rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation. However, the Commission may reject the new rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation if the Commission believes it is unjust and unreasonable.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1536.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40704 | 46 App.:1708(c) (last sentence), (d). | Pub. L. 98–237, §9(c) (last sentence), (d), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 76; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, §108(9)–(15), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1908. |

Section

In subsection (d)(1), the words "in a proceeding under subsection (c)" are substituted for "in such a proceeding" for clarity.