alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 17—NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—APPROVAL OF COVENANT AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
1801.
Approval of Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
1802.
Consideration of issues affecting relations with United States.
1803.
Financial assistance to Government of Northern Mariana Islands.
1804.
Direct grant assistance.
1805.
Failure to meet performance standards; resolution of issues; withholding of funds.
1806.
Immigration and transition.
1807.
Technical assistance program.
1808.
Operations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—JUDICIAL MATTERS

1821.
District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
1822.
Jurisdiction of District Court; original jurisdiction; procedural requirements.
1823.
Appellate jurisdiction of District Court; procedure; review by United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit; rules.
1824.
Relations between courts of United States and courts of Northern Mariana Islands; applicability of statutory provisions.
1825.
Effective date.
1826.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS

1841.
Funds and services.
1842.
Covering into Commonwealth treasury of tax proceeds collected pursuant to Covenant.
1843.
Exemption from taxation for income derived from sources within Commonwealth.
1844.
Political union between Territory of Guam and Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
1845.
Plans for development, utilization, and conservation of water and related land resources.
1846.
Exemption from assessment and taxation of real property owned by Commonwealth in United States capital.
### **CHAPTER 63—INVESTIGATING MARINE CASUALTIES**

Sec.
6301.
Investigation of marine casualties.
6302.
Public investigations.
6303.
Rights of parties in interest.
6304.
Subpoena authority.
6305.
Reports of investigations.
6306.
Penalty.
6307.
Notifications to Congress.
6308.
Information barred in legal proceedings.
6309.
Voyage data recorder access.

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Chapter 63 sets forth the scope and procedures for the investigation of marine casualties and incidents that are required to be reported by Chapter 61, as well as the rights of parties involved in a casualty.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2022**—Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVIII, §11807(b), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4165, added item 6304 and struck out former item 6304 "Subpena authority".

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–265, title II, §207(b), Oct. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 3747, added item 6309.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–324, title III, §313(b), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3922, added item 6308.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
§ 576.300 In general. ( 1 ) Funds not awarded by HUD due to failure by the recipient to submit and obtain HUD approval of a consolidated plan will be reallocated in accordance with §§ 576.301 through 576.303.
( 2 ) Recaptured funds will be awarded by formula. In October and April each year, HUD will determine if the amount of recaptured funds is at least 30 percent of the most recent fiscal year appropriation. If so, HUD will amend all existing grants and reallocate the funds. If the amount is less than 30 percent of the most recent fiscal year appropriation, the funds will be reallocated in conjunction with the next fiscal year's allocation of funding.
Exhibit 99.2


                       Report of Independent Accountants

            Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)
            One Wachovia Center
            301 South College Street, DC-7
            Charlotte, NC 28288

            U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)
            Corporate Trust Department
            100 Wall Street
            New York, NY 10005


            Re:  STRATS Trust For J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. Securities, Series
                 2004-9 (the "Trust")
                 ----------------------------------------------------------

            Ladies and Gentlemen:

            We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities,
            Inc. (the "Depositor") and U.S. Bank National Association, (the
            "Trustee" and Together with the Depositor, the "Management") that
            the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
            respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as
            of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement dated
            as of July 15, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement"), in respect of
            the STRATS Trust For J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. Securities, Series
            2004-9 (the "Trust"), during the period covered by the annual report
            on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the
            year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Annual Report"). Management is
            responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our
            responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's assertions
            based on our examination.

            Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
            established by the American Institute of Certified Public
            Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
            evidence about the Depositor's and the Trustee's compliance with the
            Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered
            necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
            provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

            In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all
            material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period
            covered by the Annual Report and Management's assertions with
            respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material
            respects, for the year ended December 31, 2006.


            /s/ Aston Bell, CPA

            New York, New York
            March 13, 2007
Record of Phone Call April 2 nd , 2012 Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-###

On April 2 nd , 2012 Lyle Petik from the Fort Worth Aircraft Certifi cation Office phoned Mr. Schiffer, (Partner, Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC) to discuss the origin of the original 3300 lb hopper load limitation on the 502B exemption.

Mr. Schiffer described basic operations, spray materials and weights. Mr. Petik and Mr.

Schiffer discussed useful load s and loading calculations fo r the Air Tracto r models 502B, 502, 402B and 400.

Mr. Schiffer also expressed his preference for the exemption on the requested models, including the 502B, to be limite d by useful load instead of setting a hopper weight limit.

Mr. Schiffer stated this would allow additiona l operational flexibility by exchanging fuel weight for more hopper load.

This information is being added to the public docket.
### SUBCHAPTER II—SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
#### MANISCALCO, Respondent, v. MARITIME SOC. OF SCIACCA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. Action by Antonio Maniscalco against the Maritime Society of Sciaeca. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. John J. Freschi, for appellant. Guiseppe L. Maggio, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Against the recovery of sick benefits by the plaintiff herein the defendant urges the law on the ground that the plaintiff has not brought himself within the provisions of the rules and regulations of the defendant corporation, of which he was admittedly a member in good standing and since its incorporation. When incorporation took place is not clear from the certificate set forth in the rules and regulations in evidence, because of inconsistency in the dates of acknowledgment and approval. Nevertheless sufficient appears in the plaintiff’s society book, with admissions and other testimony, to justify the finding of the trial justice that the plaintiff was a member in good standing, and had been for more than nine months, and so entitled to sick benefits, pursuant to the provisions of articles 64, 65, and 69 of the rules and regulations of the defendant corporation. The contention that the judgment is against the weight of evidence is without merit. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,224
<SECURITIES>                                    14,422
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                       203
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,533
<PP&E>                                          15,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,590
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,306
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (11,674)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (163)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (44)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.24)


</TABLE>
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 Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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; and

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

Date: May 7, 2008



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
#### RIVERSIDE BANK v. JONES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by the Riverside Bank against W. Martin Jones.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
§ 1228.101 Terms of agreement. ( a ) Agreements entered into under this part shall be valid for a period of 3 years and shall be renewable or additional consecutive 3-year periods upon request of the State or Indian tribe which is a party to the agreement.
( b ) An agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement and upon any terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties.
( c ) A State or Indian tribe may unilaterally terminate an agreement by giving a 120-day written notice of intent to terminate.
( d ) The ONRR may commence termination of an agreement by giving a 120-day written notice of intent to terminate. ONRR shall provide the State or Indian tribe with the reasons for the proposed termination in writing if the termination is proposed because of alleged deficiencies by the State or Indian tribe in carrying out the provisions of the agreement. The State or Indian tribe will be given 60 days to respond to the notice of deficiencies and to provide a plan for correction of those deficiencies. No final action on termination shall be taken until any submission of the State or Indian tribe provided within the above prescribed 60 days has been reviewed by ONRR for content or merit.
( e ) Termination of a cooperative agreement shall not bar a later request by a State or Indian tribe to enter into a subsequent cooperative agreement.
§ 18.10 Notice of approval or disapproval. ( a ) Upon completing investigation of a complete assembly of an electrical machine or accessory, MSHA will issue to the applicant either a written notice of approval or a written notice of disapproval, as the case may require. No informal notification of approval will be issued. If a notice of disapproval is issued, it will be accompanied by details of the defects, with recommendations for possible correction. MSHA will not disclose, except to the applicant, any information upon which a notice of disapproval has been issued.
( b ) A formal notice of approval will be accompanied by a list of drawings, specifications, and related material, covering the details of design and construction of the equipment upon which the approval is based. Applicants shall keep exact duplicates of the drawings, specifications, and descriptions that relate to equipment for which an approval has been issued, and the drawings and specifications shall be adhered to exactly in production of the approved equipment.
( c ) An applicant shall not advertise or otherwise represent his equipment as approved (permissible) until he has received MSHA's formal notice of approval.
#### Saul Schwartz, Respondent, v. City of Mount Vernon, Defendant, and Board of Education of the City of Mount Vernon, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from plaintiff’s participation in a father and son baseball game on grounds owned and controlled by defendant Board of Education, the board, pursuant to section 457-a of the Civil Practice Act, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 11, 1960, denying its motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of all the evidence upon a jury trial, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court originally reserved its decision on the motion and then submitted the case to the jury. The jury, having failed to agree, did not return a verdict and was discharged. Thereafter the court made the order appealed from denying the board’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld and Christ,. JJ., concur; Beldoek and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff, then about 46 years old, entered the grounds which the defendant board maintained exclusively for the children attending an adjacent public school, and engaged in playing baseball upon such grounds. In contravention of the board’s established rules he had not procured a license for such use. Hence, he was a trespasser. Even if it be assumed that, by reason of prior acquiescence, he was justified in regarding the field as available for his purposes, nevertheless he took the premises as he found them *(Vaughan*v. *Transit Development Co., 222*N. Y. 79, 82; *Platnick*v. *Feldman,*285 App. Div. 1086). In pursuit of a ball hit outside of third base, plaintiff fell and sustained an injury. He attributes his fall to the presence of a slope along the entire length of the foul line and about 20 feet therefrom. Although he had played on the field for about two hours prior to the accident and although part of such time he had played in the vicinity of third base, grass only one inch high caused him to regard the slope as level ground. In our opinion, under the circumstances, the plaintiff, irrespective of his status, assumed whatever risk was attendant upon the existence of the slope *(Kimbar*v. *Estis,*1 N Y 2d 399, 404; *Scala*v. *City of New York,*200 Misc. 475).
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Ross, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Reargument of motion to prosecute appeal on original papers and handwritten briefs from order entered September 3, 1957 granted on court’s own motion, and on reargument, motion granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      23,249,517
<SECURITIES>                                12,299,941
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,317,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                   352,317
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,237,350
<PP&E>                                       9,613,578
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,194,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,239,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,846,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    52,267,888
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,318,235)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,239,683
<SALES>                                     39,866,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,866,751
<CGS>                                       24,468,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,640,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               269,248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             277,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,578,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,567,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,567,795
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
§ 891.808 Capital advance funds. ( a ) HUD is authorized to provide capital advance funds to expand the supply of supportive housing for the elderly and persons with disabilities in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Section 202 and Section 811 supportive housing programs. For mixed-finance projects, HUD provides a capital advance funds reservation to the sponsor, which transfers the fund reservation to the mixed-finance owner meeting the requirements of this subpart. The sponsor may transfer the fund reservation directly to the owner or to the general partner of the owner, or the sponsor may be the general partner of the mixed-finance owner if the sponsor meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
( b ) Developments built with mixed-finance funds may combine Section 202 or Section 811 units with other units, which may or may not benefit from federal assistance. The number of Section 202 or Section 811 supportive housing units must not be less than the number specified in the agreement letter for a capital advance. In the case of a Section 811 mixed-finance project, the additional units cannot cause the project to exceed the applicable Section 811 project size limit if they will also house persons with disabilities.
### §53902. Authority to provide insurance

(a) In General.—With the approval of the President, and after such consultation with interested agencies of United States Government as the President may require, the Secretary of Transportation may provide insurance and reinsurance against loss or damage from war risks as provided by this chapter whenever it appears to the Secretary that insurance adequate for the needs of the waterborne commerce of the United States cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions from companies authorized to do insurance business in a State of the United States.

(b) Consideration of Risk.—Insurance or reinsurance under this chapter shall be based, insofar as practicable, on consideration of the risk involved.

(c) Availability of Vessel During War or National Emergency.—Insurance or reinsurance for a vessel may be provided under this chapter only on the condition that the vessel will be available to the Government in time of war or national emergency.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1627.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53902 | 46 App.:1282. | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XII, §1202, as added Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 906, 64 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 101–115, §7(a), Oct. 13, 1989, 103 Stat. 694. |

Section
#### In the Matter of the Destruction of Certain Papers Filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Pursuant to Section 89 of the Judiciary Law.

Order entered.
§ 1208.10 Notices. ( a ) The ONRR shall notify each operator, by certified mail, of the Secretary's decision to take royalty oil in kind. This notice shall be mailed at least 45 days in advance of the effective date of delivery and will specify delivery points for offshore oil for OCS leases issued after September 1969.
( b ) Deliveries of royalty oil may be partially terminated only with the written approval of the Director, ONRR.
( c ) Before terminating the delivery of royalty oil taken in kind, ONRR, if possible, will notify each operator by certified mail of the change in requirements at least 30 days in advance of the effective date.
( d ) After ONRR notification that royalty oil will be taken in kind, the operator shall be responsible for notifying each working interest on the Federal lease. As soon as practicable after the date of each royalty oil sale, ONRR will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the leases from which royalty oil will be taken, the purchasers of the royalty oil, and the leases from which royalty oil deliveries will be discontinued on terminated contracts.
( e ) A purchaser cannot transfer, assign, or sell its rights or interest in a royalty oil contract without written approval of the Director, ONRR. If the purchaser changes ownership or its assets are sold or liquidated for any reason, it cannot transfer, assign, or sell its rights or interest in the royalty oil contract without written approval of the Director, ONRR. Without express written consent from ONRR for a change in ownership, the royalty oil contract shall be terminated. The successor company must meet the definition of an eligible refiner in § 1208.2 of this part for ONRR to consider assignment of the royalty oil contract.
D:\netsite-docs\lps90859\Schedule_A_DPM.pdf
### SUBCHAPTER VII—FISCAL PROVISIONS