alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1909 What are management's general responsibilities for the SEMS program? You, through your management, must require that the program elements discussed in API RP 75 (as incorporated by reference in § 250.198) and in this subpart are properly documented and are available at field and office locations, as appropriate for each program element. You, through your management, are responsible for the development, support, continued improvement, and overall success of your SEMS program. Specifically you, through your management, must: ( a ) Establish goals and performance measures, demand accountability for implementation, and provide necessary resources for carrying out an effective SEMS program.
( b ) Appoint management representatives who are responsible for establishing, implementing and maintaining an effective SEMS program.
( c ) Designate specific management representatives who are responsible for reporting to management on the performance of the SEMS program.
( d ) At intervals specified in the SEMS program and at least annually, review the SEMS program to determine if it continues to be suitable, adequate and effective (by addressing the possible need for changes to policy, objectives, and other elements of the program in light of program audit results, changing circumstances and the commitment to continual improvement) and document the observations, conclusions and recommendations of that review.
( e ) Develop and endorse a written description of your safety and environmental policies and organizational structure that define responsibilities, authorities, and lines of communication required to implement the SEMS program.
( f ) Utilize personnel with expertise in identifying safety hazards, environmental impacts, optimizing operations, developing safe work practices, developing training programs and investigating incidents.
( g ) Ensure that facilities are designed, constructed, maintained, monitored, and operated in a manner compatible with applicable industry codes, consensus standards, and generally accepted practice as well as in compliance with all applicable governmental regulations.
( h ) Ensure that management of safety hazards and environmental impacts is an integral part of the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and monitoring of each facility.
( i ) Ensure that suitably trained and qualified personnel are employed to carry out all aspects of the SEMS program.
( j ) Ensure that the SEMS program is maintained and kept up to date by means of periodic audits to ensure effective performance.
#### Francis C. Hanley, as Executor of Hilda E. Hanley, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Central Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Williams, P. J. and McClusky, J., who dissent and vote to reverse and to grant a new trial in the following memorandum: In our opinion, there were errors in the Judge’s charge which require reversal and we also find that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario Trial Term for plaintiff in a railroad negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: March 31, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Robert DeCecco III                                                                                                           |
|-----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Robert DeCecco III                                                                                                               |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
#### NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant, v. AUBURN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against the Auburn Interurban Electric Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McLENNAN, j., not voting.
Exhibit 99.2

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Eldorado Resorts LLC and Eldorado Capital Corp. (collectively, the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 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 that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | By: | /s/ROBERT M. JONESRobert M. Jones, Chief Financial Officer
of Eldorado Resorts LLC
|------------------------ |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |     |                                                                                   

---

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

§ 250.1619 Well records. ( a ) Complete and accurate records for each well and all well operations shall be retained for a period of 2 years at the lessee's field office nearest the OCS facility or at another location conveniently available to the District Manager. The records shall contain a description of any significant malfunction or problem; all the formations penetrated; the content and character of sulphur in each formation if cored and analyzed; the kind, weight, size, grade, and setting depth of casing; all well logs and surveys run in the wellbore; and all other information required by the District Manager in the interests of resource evaluation, prevention of waste, conservation of natural resources, protection of correlative rights, safety of operations, and environmental protection.
( b ) When drilling operations are suspended or temporarily prohibited under the provisions of § 250.170 of this part, the lessee shall, within 30 days after termination of the suspension or temporary prohibition or within 30 days after the completion of any activities related to the suspension or prohibition, transmit to the District Manager duplicate copies of the records of all activities related to and conducted during the suspension or temporary prohibition on, or attached to, Form BSEE-0125, End of Operations Report, or Form BSEE-0124, Application for Permit to Modify, as appropriate.
( c ) Upon request by the District Manager or Regional Supervisor, the lessee shall furnish the following: ( 1 ) Copies of the records of any of the well operations specified in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) Copies of the driller's report at a frequency as determined by the District Manager. Items to be reported include spud dates, casing setting depths, cement quantities, casing characteristics, mud weights, lost returns, and any unusual activities; and
( 3 ) Legible, exact copies of reports on cementing, acidizing, analyses of cores, testing, or other similar services.
( d ) As soon as available, the lessee shall transmit copies of logs and charts developed by well-logging operations, directional-well surveys, and core analyses. Composite logs of multiple runs and directional-well surveys shall be transmitted to the District Manager in duplicate as soon as available but not later than 30 days after completion of such operations for each well.
( e ) If the District Manager determines that circumstances warrant, the lessee shall submit any other reports and records of operations in the manner and form prescribed by the District Manager.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 451



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

IN RE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON AUTOMATION

-- CREATION OF TASK FORCE ON UNIFORM CHARGE CODES

PER CURIAM On March 17, 2016, we published proposed changes to Administrative Order No. 8, In re Administrative Order No. 8

– Forms for Reporting Case Information in all Arkansas Trial
Courts , 2016 Ark. 130 (per curiam)

. The lack of uniform c harg e codes has been a recurrent issue in various phases of the process to automat e the court system , i mplement electronic filing , and exchange data between agencies

. Although various agencies ha ve been working to try to increase consistency in the use of charge codes between systems, we conclude that
a uniform committee should undertake the project

. The court hereby creat es the Task Force on Uniform Charge Codes, which w ill be
subordinate to the Supreme Court Committee on Automation

. The task force is charged with developing a set of uniform charge codes that shall, upon the c ourt’s approval, be used on all reporting forms and relevant filings in all Arkansas courts. We appoint the following

to se rve on the task force : Hon. Doug Schrantz, Circuit Judge, 19

- W Judicial Circuit Hon. Lynn Williams, Circuit Judge, 18

- E Judicial CircuitCite as 2016 Ark. 451

Nathan Smith, Prosecuting Attorney, 19

- W Judicial Circuit Cody Hiland, Prosecuting Attorney, 20th Judicial Circuit Lori Kumpuris , Office of Pros e cutor Coordi n ator Brad Cazort , Arkansas Crime Information Center
Brenda Deshields , Benton County Circuit Clerk
Candace Edwards , Craighead C ounty Circuit Clerk Sandy Moll , Arkansas Sentencing Commission
Tim Holthoff

, Administrative Office of the Courts Krystal A. Mann , Administrative Office of the Courts The term of these app o intments is t wo years. We will address other committee issues at a
later date. The court thanks these appointe e s for their willingness to serve on this important
endeavor. No changes to current practice regarding charge codes shall be mandated by the
Administrative Office of the Courts until the task force recommends uniform charge codes or interim guidelines that are subsequently approved by th is c ourt

. The task force should consult with other persons and agencies w ith knowledge or expertise that is relevant to the
work of the task force

. The task force shall report by June 30, 2017, to the Automation
Committee and th is court on the progress of the task force ’s work.
#### In the Matter of Morris U. Greenberg (Admitted as Morris Greenberg), an Attorney, Respondent. Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al., Petitioners.

First Department,

October 31, 1963.

*Henry Weiner (Walter H. Schulman*with him on the brief), for petitioners.

*Leonard Feldman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1943. He is charged with submitting false statements to insurance carriers in personal injury cases as to the employment, loss of earnings and injuries of his clients. These charges were, as the Referee found, amply sustained, and no mitigating circumstances were established. The offense is a serious one and goes to the heart of respondent’s fitness to continue in the profession. We see no other possible conclusion than that respondent should be disbarred *(Matter of Wysell,*10 A D 2d 199; *Matter of Shields,*16 A D 2d 50; *Matter of Lemkin,*17 A D 2d 550).

The motion and cross motion insofar as they seek confirmation of the Referee’s report are granted, and in all other respects denied. The respondent should be disbarred.

Breitel, J, P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.
#### § 965.307 Compliance schedule.

All energy conservation measures determined by energy audits to be cost effective shall be accomplished as funds are available.
|                                                         |   | Year Ended December 31, |    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|---------|
|                                                         |   | 2010                    |    |   | 2009 |   |   | 2008 |   |   | 2007 |   |   | 2006 |   |
| Earnings:                                                    |   |                    |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) before income taxes                            |   | $                       | 54,599  |   |   | $ | 52,513 |   |   | $ | (96,266 | ) |   | $ | (71,859 | ) |   | $ | (53,320 | ) |
| Fixed Charges                                                |   |                    | 34,440  |   |   |   | 21,373 |   |   |   | 22,034 |   |   |   | 22,757 |   |   |   | 17,751 |   |
| Total Earnings                                               |   |                    | 89,039  |   |   |   | 73,886 |   |   |   | (74,232 | ) |   |   | (49,102 | ) |   |   | (35,569 | ) |
| Fixed Charges:                                               |   |                    |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense, including amortization of debt issue costs |   |                    | 29,943  |   |   |   | 17,057 |   |   |   | 17,746 |   |   |   | 19,764 |   |   |   | 16,782 |   |
| Estimated interest factor of rental expense                  |   |                    | 4,497   |   |   |   | 4,316 |   |   |   | 4,288 |   |   |   | 2,993 |   |   |   | 969 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                          |   |                    | 34,440  |   |   |   | 21,373 |   |   |   | 22,034 |   |   |   | 22,757 |   |   |   | 17,751 |   |
|                                                         |   |                    |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           |   |                    | 2.6     |   |   |   | 3.5 |   |   |   | — |   |   |   | — |   |   |   | — |   |
| Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges                      |   |                    | — |   |   | $ | — |   |   | $ | 96,266 |   |   | $ | 71,859 |   |   | $ | 53,320 |   |
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EDGAR ALBERTO INDA-LARES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50156

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-04109-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Alberto Inda-Lares appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 952(a), and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50156

Inda-Lares first contends that the district court erred in denying him a minor

role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Contrary to Inda-Lares’ assertion, the

district court did not assert that a drug courier is never entitled to a minor role

adjustment. Rather, it concluded that an adjustment was not warranted in this case. 

The court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cantrell,

433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating standard of review and holding

that denial of minor role adjustment was not clear error where evidence showed

that the defendant engaged in several drug pick-ups); United States v. Hursh, 217

F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (denial of minor role adjustment not clear error

where the defendant was the sole driver and occupant of a car in which a

substantial amount of drugs were hidden).

Inda-Lares next contends that the government breached the plea agreement

by arguing on appeal that the district court did not err in refusing to grant him a

minor role adjustment, and that the government is estopped from taking this

position on appeal. A plain reading of the plea agreement demonstrates that on

appeal the government is free to support the sentence imposed, and is not bound to

any position regarding a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Schuman, 127

F.3d 815, 817-18 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Furthermore, the government’s

position on appeal is not inconsistent with its recommendation of the minor role
3 10-50156

adjustment below. Inda-Lares’ estoppel arguments therefore fail. See Russell v.

Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990) (estoppel applies where party makes an

assertion in a legal proceeding that “directly contradicts” an earlier assertion). 

Finally, Inda-Lares contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the

sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
PricewaterhouseCoopers logo here

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers Center
300 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone (646) 471-3000
Facsimile (813) 286-6000

Report of Independent Auditors

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
of Chase Home Finance LLC:

We have examined management's assertion about Chase Home Finance LLC's
(formerly known as Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation) (the "Company")
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31,2004
included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I).
 Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Company's compliance 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 Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



By: /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 11, 2005











JP Morgan Chase logo here

Exhibit I

Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards

March 11, 2005

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, Chase Home Finance LLC
(formerly known as Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation) (the "Company")
has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards
(the "standards") set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers,
("USAP"). These standards are applicable only to Company's prime and
subprime mortgage portfolios.

As of and for this same period, the Company had in effect fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $250,000,000 and $25,000,000
respectively.


/S/:  Thomas L. Wind
      Thomas L. Wind
      Co-Chief Executive Officer
      Chase Home Finance LLC

/S/:  Scott Powell
      Scott Powell
      Co-Chief Executive Officer
      Chase Home Finance LLC

/S/:  Terry L. Gentry
      Terry L. Gentry
      SVP of Servicing
      Chase Home Finance LLC
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 352 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 

mileage rate for charitable purposes to the standard mileage rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury for business purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2005 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the standard mileage rate for charitable purposes to the 

standard mileage rate established by the Secretary of 

the Treasury for business purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR CHARITABLE 

4 PURPOSES SAME AS FOR BUSINESS PUR5 POSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i) of section 170 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard 

8 mileage rate for use of passenger automobile) is amended 
2 

•HR 352 IH 

1 by striking ‘‘14 cents per mile’’ and inserting ‘‘the stand2 ard mileage rate for business purposes prescribed by the 

3 Secretary for purposes of this chapter which is in effect 

4 on the date of the contribution’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

7 December 31, 2004. 

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRecommended Strain Gage Application Procedures for Various Langley Research Center Balances and Test ArticlesThe NASA Langley Research Center uses more than 10000 strain gages per year in supporting its various research programs. The character of the testing at LaRC is such that the types of strain gage installations, the materials they are applied to, and the test environments encountered, require many varied approaches for installing strain gages. These installations must be accomplished in the most technically discerning and appropriate manner. This technical memorandum is offered as an assisting guide in helping the strain gage user to determine the appropriate approach for a given strain gage application requirement. Specifically, this document offers detailed recommendations for strain gaging the following: LaRC-Designed balances, LARC custom transducers, certain composite materials and alloys, high-temperature test articles, and selected non-typical or unique materials or test conditions.Document ID19970020057Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMoore, Thomas C., Sr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1997Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110327NASA-TM-110327Accession Number97N21577Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 519-20-21-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970020057.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024