alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §256. Coordination for interconnectivity

#### (a) Purpose

It is the purpose of this section—

(1) to promote nondiscriminatory accessibility by the broadest number of users and vendors of communications products and services to public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service through—

(A) coordinated public telecommunications network planning and design by telecommunications carriers and other providers of telecommunications service; and

(B) public telecommunications network interconnectivity, and interconnectivity of devices with such networks used to provide telecommunications service; and

(2) to ensure the ability of users and information providers to seamlessly and transparently transmit and receive information between and across telecommunications networks.

#### (b) Commission functions

In carrying out the purposes of this section, the Commission—

(1) shall establish procedures for Commission oversight of coordinated network planning by telecommunications carriers and other providers of telecommunications service for the effective and efficient interconnection of public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service; and

(2) may participate, in a manner consistent with its authority and practice prior to February 8, 1996, in the development by appropriate industry standards-setting organizations of public telecommunications network interconnectivity standards that promote access to—

(A) public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service;

(B) network capabilities and services by individuals with disabilities; and

(C) information services by subscribers of rural telephone companies.

#### (c) Commission's authority

Nothing in this section shall be construed as expanding or limiting any authority that the Commission may have under law in effect before February 8, 1996.

#### (d) "Public telecommunications network interconnectivity" defined

As used in this section, the term "public telecommunications network interconnectivity" means the ability of two or more public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service to communicate and exchange information without degeneration, and to interact in concert with one another.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §256, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, §101(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 76.)
#### McKEAN v. SCOTT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Questions Review able—Defenses not Pleaded.

The defense of payment, when not pleaded, cannot be considered on appeal.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by William B. McKean against Xenophon C. Scott. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. '

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Pinney, Travers & Van Slyke, for appellant.

P. Q. Eckerson, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The allegation in the complaint to the effect that at the time of the employment the defendant was engaged in business under the name of Yardum & Co. is not material, since it is merely a statement that the defendant, as an individual, was carrying on business under that name. The complaint, without this allegation, states a cause of action against the defendant. It is true that, while the evidence does not connect the defendant with Yardum & Co. as an actual member of that firm, it does show conclusively that he was financially largely interested in its affairs, having loaned the firm, in which his sister was the silent partner, large sums of money, and that other members of his father’s estate have done the same. It is clear that the plaintiff regarded the defendant as the real representative of the firm, and his mistake in that regard was, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, but natural. The employment of the plaintiff appears to have been advised by Mr. Parmele, a friend of the defendant, and the defendant approved and ratified his employment. To Mr. Parmele the defendant gave particular directions as to how he desired the plaintiff to proceed in investigating the books of Yardum & Co. The question whether or not the plaintiff was employed by the defendant was fairly raised by the evidence, and was properly submitted to the jury. The claim of the defendant that the plaintiff was paid in full when he accepted the note of A. Yardum & Co. cannot be considered here, as the defense of payment was not pleaded. McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297, 69 Am. Dec. 696; Hughes v. Cuming, 36 App. Div. 302, 55 N. Y. Supp. 256.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### SUTHERLAND v. MEAD et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

Action by George R. Sutherland against Charles H. Mead and Thomas Taft, impleaded. From an order denying a motion to open a default, defendants Mead and Taft appeal. Affirmed. A. H. F. Seeger, for appellants. Edward Hassett, for respondent.

HATCH, J.

This case is disposed of by the opinion in Sutherland v. Mead et al. (handed down herewith) 80 N. Y. Supp. 504. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Woodson Hobbs, President and Chief Executive Officer of Intellisync Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended January 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 11, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ WOODSON HOBBS                    
|Woodson Hobbs                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer



64
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700350

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL A. SCHOLLENBERGER

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support 

Battalion, School of Infantry East, Training Command, Camp Lejeune, 

NC.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major Nicholas A. Martz,

USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 8 February 2018

_________________________

Before MARKS, JONES, and GERDING, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.136 How will BSEE determine if my operating performance is unacceptable? In determining if your operating performance is unacceptable, BSEE will consider, individually or collectively: ( a ) Accidents and their nature;
( b ) Pollution events, environmental damages and their nature;
( c ) Incidents of noncompliance;
( d ) Civil penalties;
( e ) Failure to adhere to OCS lease obligations; or
( f ) Any other relevant factors.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00630-CV

Philip SIMPSON,

Appellant

v.

COUNTRY OAKS MHC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CV02529

Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due by November 2, 2023 and was not filed. We therefore 

ordered appellant to file, by November 27, 2023, his brief and a written response reasonably 

explaining his failure to timely file a brief. In our order, we cautioned appellant if he failed to 

timely file a brief and written response, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also id. R. 42.3(c). Appellant did not respond to our order. 

Accordingly, because appellant has failed to timely file a brief, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also id. R. 42.3(c). 

PER CURIAM
### **CHAPTER 115—FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS**

Sec.
11501.
Tax discrimination against rail transportation property.
11502.
Withholding State and local income tax by rail carriers.
**Exhibit      99.1**

**FORD      PRODUCTION CUTS WILL RESULT IN LAYOFFS AT NAVISTAR’S INDIANAPOLIS, IND. DIESEL      ENGINE PLANT**
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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


In connection with a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ending March 31, 2003 of Mariner Energy, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike
Wichterich, Vice President of the Company, certify that, to my knowledge, (i)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ Mike Wichterich
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Mike Wichterich
                                              Vice President
                                              Financial & Administration
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)

                                              May 15, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1928 What are my recordkeeping and documentation requirements? ( a ) Your SEMS program procedures must ensure that records and documents are maintained for a period of 6 years, except as provided below. You must document and keep all SEMS audits for 6 years and make them available to BSEE upon request. You must maintain a copy of all SEMS program documents at an onshore location.
( b ) For JSAs, the person in charge of the job must document the results of the JSA in writing and must ensure that records are kept onsite for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite for 30 days or until you release the MODU, whichever comes first. You must retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( c ) You must document and date all management of change provisions as specified in § 250.1912. You must retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( d ) You must keep your injury/illness log for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( e ) You must keep all evaluations completed on contractor's safety policies and procedures for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( f ) For SWA, you must document all training and reviews required by § 250.1930(e). You must ensure that these records are kept onsite for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite for 30 days or until you release the MODU, whichever comes first. You must retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( g ) For EPP, you must document your employees' participation in the development and implementation of the SEMS program. You must retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
( h ) You must keep all records in an orderly manner, readily identifiable, retrievable and legible, and include the date of any and all revisions.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 20442, Apr. 5, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WEIDER NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS OF,
AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,997
<SECURITIES>                                     2,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,575
<INVENTORY>                                     81,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,282
<PP&E>                                          62,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,239
<BONDS>                                        116,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,109
<SALES>                                        151,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,220
<CGS>                                           99,189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,624)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,733)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,733)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 3, 2013

s0826 

# Order

Clerk September 3, 2013

147115

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147115

COA: 305052

Ingham CC: 10

- 000402

- FH

RUSHAUN DEMARIO BURTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 23.2


                            CONSENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL


         We hereby consent to the use, in the Prospectus as outlined in
Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-8, of our name as special tax counsel
to General Communication, Inc. in the preparation of the Prospectus.

                                           HARRIS, MERICLE & WAKAYAMA, P.L.L.C.


                                                         /s/


Seattle, Washington


August 1, 2002
#### § 3280.214 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75745, Sept. 16, 2024.
### §10741. Prohibitions against discrimination by rail carriers

(a)(1) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination.

(2) For purposes of this section, a rail carrier engages in unreasonable discrimination when it charges or receives from a person a different compensation for a service rendered, or to be rendered, in transportation the rail carrier may perform under this part than it charges or receives from another person for performing a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances.

(b) This section shall not apply to—

(1) contracts described in section 10709 of this title;

(2) rail rates applicable to different routes; or

(3) discrimination against the traffic of another carrier providing transportation by any mode.

(c) Differences between rates, classifications, rules, and practices of rail carriers do not constitute a violation of this section if such differences result from different services provided by rail carriers.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 819.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 10741, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1390; Pub. L. 96–296, §33(d), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 825; Pub. L. 96–448, title II, §212, Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1912; Pub. L. 99–521, §7(h), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2995, related to prohibitions against discrimination by common carriers, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a). See sections 10741 and 15505 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 985
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 985 appear at 64 FR 67983, Dec. 3, 1999.

§ 985.1 Purpose and applicability. ( a ) *Purpose.* The Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) is designed to assess whether the Section 8 tenant-based assistance programs operate to help eligible families afford decent rental units at the correct subsidy cost. SEMAP also establishes a system for HUD to measure PHA performance in key Section 8 program areas and to assign performance ratings. SEMAP provides procedures for HUD to identify PHA management capabilities and deficiencies in order to target monitoring and program assistance more effectively. PHAs can use the SEMAP performance analysis to assess and improve their own program operations.
( b ) *Applicability.* This rule applies to PHA administration of the tenant-based Section 8 rental program (part 982 of this chapter), the project-based voucher program (part 983 of this chapter) to the extent that PBV family and unit data are reported and measured under the stated HUD verification method, and enrollment levels and contributions to escrow accounts for Section 8 participants under the family self-sufficiency program (FSS) (part 984 of this chapter).
( c ) *Small rural PHA assessments.* Subpart D of this part covers the HCV and PBV assessment for a small rural PHA as defined in § 902.101 of this chapter. Section 985.3 and subparts B and C of this part do not apply to small rural PHAs.
[63 FR 48555, Sept. 10, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 40497, July 26, 1999; 88 FR 30505, May 11, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1752 How do I remove a pipeline? Before removing a pipeline, you must: ( a ) Submit a pipeline removal application in triplicate to the Regional Supervisor for approval. Your application must be accompanied by payment of the service fee listed in § 250.125. Your application must include the following information: ( 1 ) Proposed removal procedures;
( 2 ) If the Regional Supervisor requires it, a description, including anchor pattern(s), of the vessel(s) you will use to remove the pipeline;
( 3 ) Length (feet) to be removed;
( 4 ) Length (feet) of the segment that will remain in place;
( 5 ) Plans for transportation of the removed pipe for disposal or salvage;
( 6 ) Plans to protect archaeological and sensitive biological features during removal operations, including a brief assessment of the environmental impacts of the removal operations and procedures and mitigation measures that you will take to minimize such impacts; and
( 7 ) Projected removal schedule and duration.
( b ) Pig the pipeline, unless the Regional Supervisor determines that pigging is not practical; and
( c ) Flush the pipeline.