alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §30702. Application

(a) In General.—Except as otherwise provided, this chapter applies to a carrier engaged in the carriage of goods to or from any port in the United States.

(b) Live Animals.—Sections 30703 and 30704 of this title do not apply to the carriage of live animals.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1516.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30702(a) | (no source). | |
| 30702(b) | 46 App.:195. | Feb. 13, 1893, ch. 105, §7, 27 Stat. 446. |

Section

Subsection (a) is added based on language appearing in various source provisions restated in this chapter. The word "carriage" is substituted for "transporting", and the word "goods" is substituted for "merchandise or property", to use the same terminology as in the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (Apr. 16, 1936, ch. 229, 49 Stat. 1207). The words "to or from any port in the United States" are substituted for "from or between ports of the United States and foreign ports" in 46 App. U.S.C. 190 and 193, "from or between ports of the United States of America and foreign ports" in 46 App. U.S.C. 191, and "to or from any port in the United States of America" in 46 App. U.S.C. 192, for clarity and consistency. See Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U.S. 69 (1900).
#### § 972.103 Definition of “conversion.”

For purposes of this subpart, the term “conversion” means the removal of public housing units from the inventory of a PHA, and the provision of tenant-based or project-based assistance for the residents of the public housing units that are being removed. The term “conversion,” as used in this subpart, does not necessarily mean the physical removal of the public housing development.
### §617r. Consent given States to negotiate supplemental compacts for development of Colorado River

The consent of Congress is given to the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming to negotiate and enter into compacts or agreements, supplemental to and in conformity with the Colorado River compact and consistent with this subchapter for a comprehensive plan for the development of the Colorado River and providing for the storage, diversion, and use of the waters of said river. Any such compact or agreement may provide for the construction of dams, headworks, and other diversion works or structures for flood control, reclamation, improvement of navigation, division of water, or other purposes and/or the construction of power houses or other structures for the purpose of the development of water power and the financing of the same; and for such purposes may authorize the creation of interstate commissions and/or the creation of corporations, authorities, or other instrumentalities.

(a) Such consent is given upon condition that a representative of the United States, to be appointed by the President, shall participate in the negotiations and shall make report to Congress of the proceedings and of any compact or agreement entered into.

(b) No such compact or agreement shall be binding or obligatory upon any of such States unless and until it has been approved by the legislature of each of such States and by the Congress of the United States.

(Dec. 21, 1928, ch. 42, §19, 45 Stat. 1065.)
#### DINGER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 20, 1905.)

Action by Frederick Dinger against the city of New York. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Smith, J., at Special Term. 86 N. Y. Supp. 577.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

I, BJ Mendenhall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. ("CTI");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-5(e) and 15d-5(e) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financing reporting; and;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  February 13, 2004 /s/ BJ Mendenhall
 -----------------------
 BJ Mendenhall
 Chief Financial Officer
(No. 90-CC-2698

#### Dimas Guzman, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 13, 1992.*

Dimas Guzman, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondents motion to dismiss, due notice having been given, no objection having been filed, and the Court being advised, finds:

Claimant filed this claim seeking to recover the *305amount of an unemployment insurance warrant issued by the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The Division of Benefit Payment Control of the Department of Employment Security holds administrative hearings to determine whether a warrant should be reissued. The claims adjudicator denied reissuance of the warrant.

Section 3 — .104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3 — 104) states that jurisdiction to review final administrative decisions is vested in the circuit court. The fact that the review of the decision of the Division of Benefit Payment Control is provided through administrative review in the circuit court prevents the Court of Claims from assuming jurisdiction over claims such as the instant one. *Rivera v. State*(1981), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375; *Moore v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108; *Anaya v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 161.

We further find that Respondents counsel learned that, notwithstanding and unaware of the above Court of Claims decision, attorneys for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago and the Department of Employment Security entered into a consent decree before Federal Judge Prentice Marshall in a case entitled *Bums.*As part of such decree, the parties agreed to add language to Benefit Payment Control’s written administrative decisions that suggested that a person aggrieved by the decision should proceed in the Court of Claims. Respondent’s counsel informed both the Legal Assistance Foundation and the Illinois Department of Employment Security of the jurisdictional problem of which the signers of the consent decree were unaware. The Department of Employment Security is attempting to resolve this problem by administratively reissuing or rehearing those pending cases, such as the instant one, where review was erroneously sought in the Court of Claims, so that claimants *306will have enough time to seek review in the circuit court.

In the motion at bar, Respondent seeks dismissal without prejudice and with leave to file if the Benefit Control Division of the Department of Employment Security does not reissue its administrative decision. Respondent does not indicate how the Court should proceed with the case should it be dismissed and then refiled. Jurisdiction cannot be vested with a court solely based on agreement of the parties and Respondent does not suggest the cited cases are wrong.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and without leave to refile.
**Exhibit      21.1**

| 1.   | NGPC              Funding GP, LLC, a Texas limited liability              company |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | NGPC              Nevada, LLC, a Nevada limited liability              company |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | NGPC              Funding, LP, a Texas limited partnership |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | NGPC              Asset Holdings GP, LLC, a Texas limited liability              company |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | NGPC              Asset Holdings, LP, a Texas limited              partnership |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6.   | NGPC              Asset Holdings II, LP, a Texas limited              partnership |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7.   | NGPC              Asset Holdings III, LP, a Texas limited              partnership |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### In the Matter of William Gerbino, Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul the State Liquor Authority’s determination made October 10, 1961, suspending petitioner’s restaurant liquor license for a period of 10 days. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 8, 1961, made pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition. The license was suspended upon a finding that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises, in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Determination annulled, without costs. Under all the circumstances of this case, it is our opinion that the evidence as to whether petitioner knew or should have known of gambling on the licensed premises was too insubstantial to sustain the Authority’s finding and determination *(Matter of Conservative Grouping Corp.*v. *Epstein,*13 A D 2d 805, affd. 10 N Y 2d 956; *Matter of Stanwood United*v. *O’Connell,*283 App. Div. 79, affd. 306 N. Y. 749). Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Rabin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Brennan, J., dissent and vote to confirm the determination on the authority of *Matter of Avon Bar & Grill*v. *O’Connell*(301 N. Y. 150).
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Company, certifies 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.




/s/ David
  Lichtenstein


David
Lichtenstein


Chairman,
President, and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


March 31,
2010
EXHIBIT 10


February 26, 1996


Composite Deferred Series, Inc.
601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 801
Spokane WA  99201-0613

Gentlemen:

     In  connection  with an amendment to the  Registration  Statement now being
filed by your company with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to an
offering  of capital  stock of the  corporation  without  par  value,  we hereby
certify that, as attorneys of this  corporation,  we have examined the corporate
proceedings  relating  to the  incorporation  of the  company,  the  By-laws and
Distributor and Management Contract,  and all other matters hereinafter referred
to.

     It is our opinion that  Composite  Deferred  Series,  Inc. is a corporation
duly organized and existing  under the laws of the State of Washington,  with an
authorized  capital stock of  10,000,000,000  shares  without par value,  all of
which  shares are of one class and  nonassessable  and,  upon  being  issued for
proceeds  to the  company of not less than the net asset value of such shares at
the  time of sale,  will be  fully  paid  for  under  the  laws of the  State of
Washington.

Very truly yours,

PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN,
  BROOKE & MILLER LLP

/s/ Lawrence R. Small
Lawrence R. Small
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 10

February 26, 1996



Composite Deferred Series, Inc.
601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 801
Spokane, WA  99201-0613

Gentlemen:

     We hereby  consent to the use of our written  opinion  dated  February  26,
1996, upon the validity of the incorporation of Composite Deferred Series,  Inc.
and upon the  designation of the authorized  common stock of said company in the
Articles  of  Incorporation.  We also  consent to the use of our  opinion to the
extent it may be necessary  to describe the common stock being  offered for sale
pursuant to the Prospectus.

Very truly yours,

PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN,
  BROOKE & MILLER LLP
/s/ Lawrence R. Small
Lawrence R. Small
#### § 1229.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to promote the effective utilization of the capabilities of the States in developing and maintaining an efficient and effective Federal royalty management system.
#### Mildred Fleer, Respondent, v. Martin Fleer, Appellant.

Order, entered August 16, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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 the operations of                the                Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ *Sundaresan              Raja* |   |   |   |
| Sundaresan                Raja          |   |   |        |
| Chief                Executive Officer  |   |   |   |
| September 22, 2006                 |   |   |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Derek R. McClain, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Trammell Crow Company;

2.                Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of  theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)                All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 19, 2004 | /s/ DEREK R. MCCLAIN       |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                         | Derek R. McClain           |
| * *                     | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1206

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

#### § 1206.263 [Reserved]
### §10506. Trusts

Section 10505 of this title does not prevent an employer from making deductions from the wages of a seaman, with the written consent of the seaman, if—

(1) the deductions are paid into a trust fund established only for the benefit of seamen employed by that employer, and the families and dependents of those seamen (or of those seamen, families, and dependents jointly with other seamen employed by other employers, and the families and dependents of the other seamen); and

(2) the payments are held in trust to provide, from principal or interest, or both, any of the following benefits for those seamen and their families and dependents:

(A) medical or hospital care, or both.

(B) pensions on retirement or death of the seaman.

(C) life insurance.

(D) unemployment benefits.

(E) compensation for illness or injuries resulting from occupational activity.

(F) sickness, accident, and disability compensation.

(G) purchasing insurance to provide any of the benefits specified in this section.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 571.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 10506 | 46:599 |

Section 10506 permits deductions to be made from wages of seamen on coastwise voyages if the deductions are to be used for the benefit of the seamen or their families.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

November 13, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) regarding Tier 3

FROM: Michael Olechiw

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

This memo documents a meeting held on November 13, 2013 between representatives of AAM

and EPA to discuss Tier 3.

The agenda is shown below. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify points in the Tier 3 rule.

Agenda:

1. Program Start

2. Full Useful Life

3. US06 PM Standards

4. R-Factor
EXHIBIT 4.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY


         I, JOHN M. LOWBER, the duly elected and acting Secretary of General
Communication, Inc., an Alaska corporation, do hereby certify and declare that
the document attached hereto as Exhibit 4.1A is a true and correct copy of
Amendment No. 1, dated as of June 7, 2002, to the General Communication, Inc.
Amended and Restated 1986 Stock Option Plan, revised in accordance with the
amendments to the plan adopted by the shareholders of General Communication,
Inc. at the annual shareholder meeting held on June 6, 2002.

         EXECUTED this 12th day of August, 2002 at Anchorage, Alaska.


                           GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.



                                            By:  /s/
                                                 John M. Lowber, Secretary


         SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 12th day of August, 2002.


                                                 /s/
                                                 Notary Public in and for Alaska
                                                 My Commission Expires:   1/8/03
#### POLAND, Respondent, v. UNITED TRACTION CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 1, 1903.)

Action by Eliza Poland against the United Traction Company.

No opinion. Motion granted.
#### Robert E. Houston et al. *v.*George Krawshuk et al.

*Ronald L. Lepine,*in support of the petition.

*Robert J. Reeve,*in opposition.

Decided January 21, 1993

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 11530) is denied.
#### § 990.116 Environmental review requirements.

The environmental review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR parts 50 and 58 are applicable to the Operating Fund Program.