alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.10 Material required for MSHA records. In order that MSHA may know exactly what it has tested and approved, it keeps detailed records covering each investigation. These records include drawings and actual equipment as follows: ( a ) *Drawings.* The original drawings submitted with the application for the tests and the final drawings which the manufacturer must submit to MSHA before the approval is granted, to show the details of the device as approved. These drawings are used to identify the device in the approval and as a means of checking the future commercial product of the manufacturer.
( b ) *Actual equipment.* If MSHA so desires, parts of the devices that are used in the tests will be retained as records of the equipment submitted. If the device is approved, MSHA reserves the right to require the manufacturer to submit one, with the approval plate attached and without cost to MSHA, as a record of his commercial product.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 28 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00030

- CV

SHEILA G. WILSON , Appellant

V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGING & DISABILITY S ERVICES AND BRENDA BROOKS, INDIV IDUALLY AND IN HER C APACITY AS

SUPERVISOR , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 41237

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed October 1 , 2012. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.2

On January 30, 2013, notification was transmitted to all parties of th e court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison and McCally

.
##### 



Exhibit 10.27
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.
PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
 rd
  1.
    
    Lighthouse, LLC and any other entity which produces business for the programs
contemplated under this agreement inserted immediately following any reference to
Risk Transfer Holdings, Inc.2.
    
    Section VI, PREMIUMS AND ACCOUNTING, line 3 shall be modified by replacing
fifteenth with tenth.3.
    
    Section VIII F, TERM AND TERMINATION, shall be amended by deleting the
Companys address and replacing 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606.and replacing Daryl B. Williams, President with Paul R. Hughes, CEO4.
    
    Exhibit A, Section A shall be modified by adding the following:
 Program Description
    
    Line of Business
    
    Maximum Rate of CommissionE-Comp.
    
    Workers Comp.
    
    12%
 5.
    
    Exhibit B, shall be modified by inserting the following as the first sentence
of the page.A separate profit sharing calculation will be completed for each individual program
managed by the Partner Agent.6.
    
    Exhibit B, LEGEND, Table 1, Line 15, page 12 shall be modified by inserting the
following after $20 Million:for an individual program




---



##### 



7.
    
    Exhibit B, LEGEND, other defined terms used in this Agreement, Section B, shall
be modified by deleting the first sentence and replacing with the following:The Initial Profit Sharing Year of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2005 to
December 31, 2005.
   th
  BY:
    
    /s/ William LoderNAME:
    
    William LoderTITLE:
    
    Chief Underwriting OfficerPARTNER AGENTBY:
    
    /s/ Paul HughesNAME:
    
    Paul R. HughesTITLE:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
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


     In connection with this Annual Report of NexxNow, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Berthold, Chief
Executive Officer and I, Sterling Shepperd, Chief Financial Officer,of the
Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.



August 12, 2009


                                /s/ GARY BERTHOLD
                                ___________________________
                                    Gary Berthold
                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                /s/ STERLING SHEPPERD
                                ___________________________
                                    Sterling Shepperd
                                    Chief Financial Officer
130 STAT. 1446 PUBLIC LAW 114–283—DEC. 16, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3218: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

May 23, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 5, considered and passed Senate; passage vitiated. 

Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–283 

114th Congress 

An Act 

Designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1221 State 

Street, Suite 12, Santa Barbara, California, as the ‘‘Special Warfare Operator 

Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis ‘Lou’ J. Langlais Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIAL WARFARE OPERATOR MASTER CHIEF PETTY 

OFFICER (SEAL) LOUIS ‘‘LOU’’ J. LANGLAIS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1221 State Street, Suite 12, Santa Barbara, 

California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Special Warfare 

Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis ‘Lou’ J. Langlais 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Special Warfare Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) 

Louis ‘Lou’ J. Langlais Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 16, 2016. 

Dec. 16, 2016 

[H.R. 3218] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
##### 



Page 10 of 26Exhibit 99(b) KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-A OFFICERS CERTIFICATE JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ELT
    
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, IT4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
    
    60 Wall Street, 26th Floor-MS NYC60-2606New York, NY 10004
    
    New York, NY 10007Attn: ITS Global Debt
    
    Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency GroupPhone: (212) 623-5427
    
    Structured FinanceFax: (212) 623-5933
    
    Phone: (212) 250-8522Fax: (212) 797-8606KeyBank National Association
    
    Key Consumer Receivables LLC800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
    
    c/o KeyBank National AssociationCleveland, OH 44114
    
    800 Superior Ave, 4th FloorAttn: President, KER
    
    Cleveland, Ohio 44114Phone: (216) 828-4293
    
    Attn: President, KERFax: (216) 828-9301
    
    Phone: (216) 828-4293Fax: (216) 828-9301
 Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between KeyBank National Association,
successor in interest to Key Bank USA, National Association as Master Servicer and Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency, as Subservicer, dated as of August 1, 2004 (the Agreement),
the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of PHEAA as Subservicer from
the inception of the Trust, through December 31, 2004, and of its performance under the Agreement
has been made, and (ii) to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on the review, PHEAA as
Subservicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period. The undersigned also hereby certifies that the Subservicer has disclosed to the Master Servicer and
to the Trusts certified public accountants all significant deficiencies relating to the
Subservicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review conducted
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard
as set forth in the Agreement. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATIONASSISTANCE AGENCY, SubservicerDate: February 22, 2005
    
    By: /S/ RICHARD E. WILLEYName: Richard E. WilleyTitle: President and CEO
§ 553.51 What are the penalties for not complying with this part? ( a ) If you fail to comply with the financial responsibility requirements of OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2716 or with the requirements of this part, then you may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $57,617 per COF per day of violation (that is, each day a COF is operated without acceptable evidence of OSFR).
( b ) BOEM will determine the date of a noncompliance. BOEM will assess penalties in accordance with an OSFR penalty schedule using the procedures found at 30 CFR part 550, subpart N. You may obtain a copy of the penalty schedule from BOEM at the address in § 553.45.
( c ) BOEM may assess a civil penalty against you that is greater or less than the amount in the penalty schedule after taking into account the factors in section 4303(a) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2716a).
( d ) If you fail to correct a deficiency in the OSFR evidence for a COF, then the Director may suspend operation of a COF in the OCS under 30 CFR 250.170 or seek judicial relief, including an order suspending the operation of any COF.
[76 FR 64623, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 43069, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 10711, Feb. 15, 2017; 83 FR 8933, Mar. 2, 2018; 84 FR 11224, Mar. 26, 2019; 85 FR 7221, Feb. 7, 2020; 86 FR 19784, Apr. 15, 2021; 87 FR 15335, Mar. 18, 2022; 88 FR 9752, Feb. 15, 2023; 89 FR 4818, Jan. 25, 2024]
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9421 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 108 North Main Street in Bucoda, Washington, as the ‘‘Mayor Rob Gordon Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 9421 EH

1 SECTION 1. MAYOR ROB GORDON POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 108 North Main Street in 

4 Bucoda, Washington, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Mayor Rob Gordon Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor Rob Gordon 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9421 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Bucoda, Washington, as the ‘‘Mayor Rob Gordon al Service located at 108 North Main Street in
EXHIBIT
      23.1






**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
      Statements:




(a)  the
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-124505) pertaining to
      the Employees’ Stock Option Plan of OccuLogix, Inc.; and


(b)  the
      Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-141098) and related
      prospectus of OccuLogix, Inc. for the registration of 9,441,749 shares of common
      stock;




of
      our
      reports dated March 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule of OccuLogix, Inc., OccuLogix, Inc. management's
      assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
      and
      the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of OccuLogix,
      Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
      December 31, 2006.







March
      15,
      2007       /s/
      Ernst & Young LLP


Toronto,
      Canada
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Barrett, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 574]—

Spain, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered February 11, 2003, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment, (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered March 18, 2003, which vacated defendant’s sentence of imprisonment and sentenced him to a term of probation, and (3) from a judgment of said court, rendered April 8, 2005, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2000, defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced to five years of probation and inpatient treatment. He subsequently violated the terms of *1089his probation on three separate occasions. With respect to the first two instances, defendant admitted the violations. After the first violation he was continued on probation and, after the second violation, he was sentenced to continuing probation and six months in jail.* In the third instance, defendant was found guilty of the violation following a hearing and was sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

We preliminarily note that, inasmuch as defendant has not raised any issues concerning the propriety of the February 2003 and March 2003 judgments, his appeals from those judgments are deemed abandoned *(see People v Campbell,*10 AD3d 736, 737 [2004]). Turning to the April 2005 judgment, defendant’s sole contention is that the imposition of the five-year prison term was harsh and excessive. We do not agree. In revoking defendant’s probation and resentencing him to prison after the third violation, County Court fully considered his criminal history and long-term substance abuse, as well as his repeated, protracted inability to comply with the conditions of his probation despite having been provided with considerable leniency and multiple opportunities to do so. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that County Court abused its discretion, nor do we find that any extraordinary circumstances exist which would warrant a modification of the sentence, which was less than the maximum, in the interest of justice *(see People v Drake,*36 AD3d 967, 968 [2007]; *People v Walts,*34 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 850 [2007]; *People v Medinilla,*279 AD2d 891 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 803 [2001]). Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.

Mercure, J.E, Feters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

*

 Upon the first probation violation, defendant was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2Vs to 7 years. That sentence, however, was later determined to be illegal and, as such, it was vacated and defendant was placed back on probation.
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2672

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Derrick Uraye Stricklin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2009

Filed: July 22, 2009 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Stricklin appeals the district court’s1

 order reducing his sentence from

151 months to 121 months in prison pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and

Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Because Stricklin filed

a stipulation in the district court, in which he agreed to imposition of a 121-month

sentence without the need for a hearing, he may not challenge that sentence on appeal.

See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant could

not complain on appeal that district court sentenced him at low end of Guidelines
-2-

range, as his lawyer had asked); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.

1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence

may not challenge that punishment on appeal).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to

withdraw on the condition that counsel inform Stricklin about the procedures for filing

petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
#### Nicholas A. Karger, Respondent, v. Pierre F. Nesi, Defendant, and Nadine Farber, Also Known as Countess Nadine De Navarro, et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on June 14, 1960, as denies defendants-appellants’ motion for a final order of preclusion with respect to Items 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17 of their demand unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 21     


                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

     The Partnership is a partner of the following joint ventures: 
JMB/Piper Jaffray Tower Associates, a general partnership, which is a
partner in (i) OB Joint Venture II, a general partnership, which is a
partner of 222 South Ninth Street Limited Partnership, a limited partner-
ship, which holds title to the Piper Jaffray Tower office building in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and (ii) OB Joint Venture, a general partnership,
which holds title to the land underlying the Piper Jaffray Tower office
building; JMB/Piper Jaffray Tower Associates II, a general partnership
which also is a partner in OB Joint Venture, a general partnership, which
holds title to the land underlying the Piper Jaffray Tower office building;
900 3rd Avenue Associates, a general partnership, which is a partner of
Progress Partners, a general partnership, which holds title to 900 Third
Avenue Building located in New York, New York; Maguire Thomas Partners -
South Tower, a limited liability company, which holds title to Wells Fargo
Center - IBM Tower located in Los Angeles, California; and C-C California
Plaza Partnership, a general partnership, which holds title to the
California Plaza office building in Walnut Creek, California.  Reference is
made to the Notes for a description of the terms of such venture
partnerships.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04761

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 04761\04761_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04761\04761_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04761\04761_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04761\04761_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04761\04761_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04761\04761_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04761\Follow-up and resubmittals\1st review email response.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Follow-up and resubmittals\original_04761_PartC.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Follow-up and resubmittals\Part C_Loveridge Road Power Plant.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Follow-up and resubmittals\Part D_Loveridge Road Power Plant.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Follow-up and resubmittals\Part H_Loveridge Road Power Plant.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Supplemental Documents\04761_Deadline Extension Approval.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 04761\Supplemental Documents\04761_S2_Water Discharge Sketch_091509.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04761\04761_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04761\04761_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
§ 44.41 Summary decision. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material fact.* ( 1 ) Where no genuine issue of a material fact is found to have been raised, the administrative law judge may issue an initial decision to become final 30 days after service thereof, unless, within such time, any party has filed an appeal with the Assistant Secretary. Thereafter, the Assistant Secretary, after consideration of the entire record, may issue a final decision.
( 2 ) An initial decision and a final decision made under this paragraph shall include a statement of— ( i ) Findings and conclusions, and the reasons therefor, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) Any terms and conditions of the rule or order.
( 3 ) A copy of an initial decision and final decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issues of fact.* Where a genuine question of material fact is raised, the administrative law judge shall, and in any other case may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Subpart C of this part.
### Bauxite deposits of Tennessee

By: John Crawford DunlapH. R. BergquistL.C. CraigE.F. Overstreet

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1199L

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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