alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §58108. Charges for transportation subject to subtitle IV of title 49

(a) Prohibition.—A carrier may not charge, collect, or receive for transportation subject to subtitle IV of title 49 of persons or property, under any joint rate, fare, or charge, or under any export, import, or other proportional rate, fare, or charge, that is based in whole or in part on the fact that the persons or property affected are to be transported to, or have been transported from, a port in a territory or possession of the United States or in a foreign country, by a carrier by water in foreign commerce, any lower rate, fare, or charge than the carrier charges, collects, or receives for the transportation of persons or similar property for the same distance, in the same direction, and over the same route, in commerce wholly within the United States, unless the vessel used for the transportation is or was at the time of the transportation documented under the laws of the United States.

(b) Suspension of Prohibition.—Whenever the Secretary of Transportation believes that adequate shipping facilities to or from any port in a territory or possession of the United States or a foreign country are not being provided by vessels documented under the laws of the United States, the Secretary shall certify this fact to the Surface Transportation Board. On receiving the certification, the Board may by order suspend the operation of subsection (a) with respect to the rates, fares, and charges for the transportation by rail of persons and property transported from or to be transported to those ports, for such time and under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may specify in the order or in any supplemental order.

(c) Termination of Suspension.—Whenever the Secretary believes that adequate shipping facilities are being provided to those ports by vessels documented under the laws of the United States, and certifies that fact to the Board, the Board may order the termination of the suspension.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1673.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 58108 | 46 App.:884. | June 5, 1920, ch. 250, §28, 41 Stat. 999; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §12, eff. June 10, 1933; June 29, 1936, ch. 858, §§204, 904, 49 Stat. 1987, 2016; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(50), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 157; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §321(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 950. |

Section

The words "territory or possession" are substituted for "possession or dependency" for consistency in the revised title.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140

OFFICE OF AIR, WASTE AND TOXICS

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Background and Discussion of Potential Redesignation of the Tacoma-Pierce

County Fine Particulate Matter Area to Attainment. FROM: Jeff Hunt, Air Quality Planner THRU: Debra Suzuki, Air Programs Unit Manager TO: Docket File On September 11, 2014, Nancy Helm, Tribal Air Team Lead, and I held a teleconference with Mary Basballe, Air Quality Manager for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. We discussed the requirements and implications of redesignating the Tacoma-Pierce County fine particulate (PM2
. s) matter area to attainment status. Mary expressed support for our proposed course of action and would let us know if there were any further concerns on behalf of the Puyallup Tribe. During our conversation Mary raised two issues relevant to the Tacoma-Pierce County area redesignation. First, Mary described the rationale for discontinuing the PM 2.5 monitor located on tribal land in the area, scheduled for discontinuation on September 30, 2014. We agreed with Mary's perspective, noting the historically low PM2.s levels monitored in the area. Second, Mary pointed out a recent example of Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) issuing a burn ban notice of violation on tribal trust land. I confirmed with PSCAA that the notice of violation was issued inadvertently and they are taking steps to improve the accuracy of their address list. On October 2, 2014, the Puyallup Tribe and PSCAA held a teleconference and successfully resolved this issue. Lastly, Mary asked if it was necessary to formally send a letter requesting redesignation of the tribal trust land on behalf of the Puyallup Tribe. I noted that the EPA often appreciates a letter of support, but a formal letter is not necessary. I also noted that I would record our conversation as a memo to the docket file which could serve as documentation of the Puyallup Tribe's support for redesignating the area to attainment if there were no further issues to discuss. 

# K,,hl \id-
### Geochemical exploration near the Getchell mine, Humboldt County, Nevada

By: Ralph Leroy EricksonA. P. MarranzinoUteana OdaW.W. Janes

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1198A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001021810
<NAME>                        InteliData Technologies Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                                     28,434
<SECURITIES>                               17,011
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,130
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,155)
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           47,737
<PP&E>                                      4,786
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             51,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8,179
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       39
<OTHER-SE>                                 43,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               51,291
<SALES>                                        54
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,516
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            7,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (57)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,843)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.07)


</TABLE>
### §870. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992

Section, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §46, 39 Stat. 966; Feb. 26, 1919, ch. 49, §§2, 4, 40 Stat. 1182; Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 501, §6, 53 Stat. 1226, related to salaries of district court officials. See section 604 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 38 of act June 25, 1948, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 1 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
§ 18.12 Letter of certification. ( a ) A letter of certification may be issued by MSHA for a component intended for incorporation in a complete machine or accessory for which an approval may be subsequently issued. A letter of certification will be issued to an applicant when a component has met all the applicable requirements of this part. Included in the letter of certification will be an assigned MSHA certification number that will identify the certified component.
( b ) A letter of certification will be accompanied by a list of drawings, specifications, and related material covering the details of design and construction of a component upon which the letter of certification is based. Applicants shall keep exact duplicates of the drawings, specifications, and descriptions that relate to the component for which a letter of certification has been issued; and the drawings and specifications shall be adhered to exactly in production of the certified component.
( c ) A component shall not be represented as certified until the applicant has received MSHA's letter of certification for the component. Certified components are not to be represented as “approved” or “permissible” because such terms apply only to completely assembled machines or accessories.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS 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 of FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    PAUL G.
ANDERSON                 
|    |  | Paul G. Anderson Chief Executive Officer



Date: November 29, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1220.014 Allocation of joint costs and credits. ( a ) Joint costs shall be grouped in cost pools for allocation to NPSL and non-NPSL operations in reasonable proportion to the beneficial or causal relationships which exist between a specific cost pool and the operations. That portion of a joint cost pool that may be allocated to NPSL operations is called an allocable joint cost.
( b ) The following allocation principles apply in allocating joint costs: ( 1 ) *G & G.* G & G shall be allocated on a line mile per tract basis.
( 2 ) *Wages and salaries.* Wages and salaries that are not charged as direct on the basis of time spent on a particular job shall be allocated on a reasonable and equitable basis.
( 3 ) *Compensated personal absence, payroll taxes and personal expenses.* These items shall be allocated on the same basis as wages and salaries.
( 4 ) *Transportation costs.* Transportation costs for employees that are not charged direct shall be allocated on the same basis as their wages and salaries.
( c ) Joint credits shall be allocated in the same manner as joint costs.
( d ) When the NPSL is made a part of a unit, the allowed costs shall be charged to the NPSL capital account on the basis specified in the unit operating agreement as approved by the BSEE Director. Revenues and other credits shall be made to the NPSL accounts on the same basis as specified in the approved operating agreement. Joint costs of an NPSL and a non-NPSL tract that are adjacent to one another and are on the same structure shall be allocated on a basis approved by the BSEE Director.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 1, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0580 Lower Tribunal No. 15-0373 CC

________________ 

### Sergio Sabillion , Appellant, vs. 

### United Automobile Insurance Company ,

Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge. Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant. Michael J. Neimand, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JAMES BERGER, a single 

man also known as Magic Mike,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 05-35752

CITY OF SEATTLE; VIRGINIA D.C. No.

ANDERSON, Director of Seattle CV-03-03238-JLR

Center; MICHAEL B. ANDERSON,  Western District of

Emergency Service Manager for Washington,

Seattle Center; TEN UNKNOWN Seattle

EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS, of the Seattle ORDER Center and the City of Seattle, all

in both their individual and

official capacities,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Filed September 2, 2009

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson,

Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins,

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez,

Marsha S. Berzon, Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr.

and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellee Michael Berger is awarded attorneys’ fees on

appeal.

Contrary to the respondents’ suggestion, the fee request

was timely. A request for attorneys’ fees must be filed no later

than fourteen days after the expiration of the period within

12201
which a petition for rehearing might have been filed. See 9th

Cir. R. 39-1.6. Although the applicable procedural rules,

national and local, do not expressly provide for the filing of

a petition for full court rehearing en banc, they apply generally to the procedures governing rehearing en banc, with no

exception for full court en banc. See 9th Cir. R. 35-3; Fed. R.

App. P. 35, 40. Indeed, in every circuit but ours, every petition for rehearing en banc is a petition for full court en banc,

so the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure necessarily apply

to such petitions. Our General Orders so recognize, as they

expressly contemplate the filing of a petition for rehearing en

banc before the full court within fourteen days after the filing

of an en banc disposition. See 9th Cir. Gen. Order 5.8. 

The court received Appellee’s petition within fourteen days

after the expiration of the period within which a petition for

a full court rehearing might have been filed. Appellee’s petition is therefore timely.

The determination of an appropriate amount of fees on

appeal is referred to the Appellate Commissioner, who shall

conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate. The

Appellate Commissioner’s order is subject to reconsideration

by the panel. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9. 

12202 BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
#### Le Dans, Ltd., v. John P. Deley, Doing Business under the Name of Bureau of Ethical Security.

Motion for leave to reargue appeal or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 45—UNINSPECTED COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSELS**

Sec.
4501.
Application.
4502.
Safety standards.
4503.
Fishing, fish tender, and fish processing vessel certification.
[4503a.
Repealed.]
4504.
Prohibited acts.
4505.
Termination of unsafe operations.
4506.
Exemptions.
4507.
Penalties.
[4508.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2022**—Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXV, §11509(c), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4137, struck out item 4503a "Alternate safety compliance program".

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–282, title V, §508(d), title VI, §601(c)(1), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4273, 4289, added item for 4503a and struck out item 4508 "Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee".

**2010**—Pub. L. 111–281, title VI, §604(c)(4), (e)(2), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2965, 2966, substituted "Fishing, fish tender, and fish processing vessel certification" for "Fish processing vessel certification" in item 4503 and "Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee" for "Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee" in item 4508.

**2002**—Pub. L. 107–295, title III, §331(b), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2105, inserted "Safety" before "Advisory Committee" in item 4508.

**1988**—Pub. L. 100–424, §2(a), Sept. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 1585, in chapter heading substituted "UNINSPECTED COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSELS" for "FISH PROCESSING VESSELS", substituted "Safety standards" for "Regulations" in item 4502, "Fish processing vessel certification" for "Equivalency" in item 4503, "Prohibited acts" for "Penalties" in item 4504, and added items 4505 to 4508.
#### MORIARITY v. WAGNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

1. Landlord and Tenant—Dispossession—Execution op Judgment—Acts of Officer—Question for Jury.

Where a warrant for the removal of the property of a tenant directed the officer to remove the tenant’s property “from the store floor in the house and premises known as 512 West 42nd Street,” and, in an action against the officer for the loss of plaintiff’s property so removed, plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that defendant entered and removed such property from a part of the building other than the “store floor," whether the property lost was so wrongfully removed was a question for the jury.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, First District.

Action by Philip Moriarity against Andrew Wagner. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HOOKER, JJ.

E. J. Heilner, for appellant.

Robert Lyon, for respondent.

WOODWARD, J.

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant, without lawful authority, entered premises occupied by the plaintiff, as tenant, at 512 West Forty-Second street, in the city of New York, removed therefrom certain personal property, and placed it on the sidewalk; and that as a result of such unlawful act the said property was lost, to the plaintiff’s damage in the sum of which judgment is demanded.

The defense interposed was that, after judgment duly rendered by the Municipal Court of the city .of New York in a summary proceeding brought by the plaintiff’s landlord to recover possession of the said premises, a warrant was duly issued by a justice of the said court, and delivered to the defendant as a marshal of said city, commanding him to remove the plaintiff as tenant from the said premises, and to put the said landlord in full possession thereof; and that the plaintiff’s property was removed from the said premises under authority of such warrant.

It is conceded that the warrant authorized the defendant to remove the plaintiff’s property “from the store floor in the house and premises known as Number 512 West 42nd Street.” The important *865question to be determined at the trial was, what part of the premises occupied by the plaintiff was included in the “store floor” ? The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses tended to show that the defendant entered and removed the plaintiff’s property from a part of the building other than the “store floor,” and it was for this unlawful act of the defendant that the plaintiff brought this action to recover damages. But it was a question of fact, and should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. All concur.
Document

Exhibit 4.14

FOURTH 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 provide that certain participants who terminate employment in connection with the divestiture of Cardinal Health’s Cordis business shall become fully vested in any Employer Contributions and/or Special Contributions, to the extent not already fully vested.


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 August 2, 2021.


1.     Section 4.01 of the Plan is amended by adding the following paragraph to the end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 4.01 or any other provision of the Plan, a Participant who becomes an employee of Bayou Purchaser, Inc. or a subsidiary thereof (and thereby terminates employment from the Employer) as a result of the Company’s sale of its Cordis business shall become 100% vested in his or her Employer Contribution Account and Special Contribution Account, as applicable, as of August 2, 2021, or as of such other closing date of the Company’s sale of its Cordis business.” 


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


CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
FINANCIAL BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE


By:  Kendell Sherrer                


Its:  VP, Compensation and Benefits        


Date:  July 28, 2021