alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
u

~ tC

p i 

### U
~i



### w bo 

# I ~ o
.~

R 

### V



### ~~~~ ~~

N.
_i i I



# o V o Q 

# f 

# u u z 3 ~ 

# z
I



## ~ ~ 

## x t ( 

## ~ U) w 

### V U) 

### ~ ~ 

# G rs ~ ., 

# rJ ri) 

### ~ (1) 

# c i ~
j O

O H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O Q V O tn O i I J I i 

## i O 

## i 

# I O

- O 

## i O

- ~ - L~ O cM t~

~ - O~


## 7 c+~ l~

- — — 

## I i ,

~ 

## I i r^ V 

## ~ Cq 

### "o N
V U i I i

~ z ~ 

# u m 

# ~

~ 

# z ~ 

# z ~ 

# ~ ~ 

# x ~ ~ W ~ W ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ 0-4 

# ~ IQ 

# = ~ iW C-4

~ ~x ~ ~ U~~ 

## N z 

## w~ Q N N 

## w~ O ~ 

# z x 

# o z O 

# z p~ ~" ~4 x 

# z 

# a x~~

~ 

# xo u w~~ 

# u O U 

# ~ w 

# ~ '4t U U 

# I H U 

# ~ U, 

# ~ F. C 7 

## A° U Q p 

# ~ w~ z



# U U U z ~ U~

x 

# c x n : cn z 3 ~~] w~ ~n ~ d C~ C] U x U~-, c~1i ,~ uo cn Q ~ ~ cn .+ t cn - ~

~ 

## " n U Q o cn d cn d i ~ U 

# l
H 

# 0 N 

### 0 c7~ O 

### 0~~~~

cV O I M l O eM O LO

O 

### ~ O O H H H 

### ~~~~~~~~

N e-~ M
~--~ d+ c-+ \O H N H ~ -+ 

### U cV 

# U M 

# U ~ + 

# U tr ) 

# U n 

# U H O 

# w N Q 

### w c H n 

### c~i O 

### u~ O 

# ci O 

# c i O 

# c`
~ 

# n r H -+ 

# cn ~ 

# c! e M -t 

### ci r~ -+ 

### c~i~ r~ i 

### c H 

# n ' c N *~ 

# N 

# ~ ' M 

# N O, 

# N ~

,o ~~, ~'~



# 1 1

~~ 

# I

K p. n 

# 1

ar
#### § 57.3201 Location for performing scaling.

Scaling shall be performed from a location which will not expose persons to injury from falling material, or other protection from falling material shall be provided.
#### Joanne Guider, Respondent, v. Clement H. Guider, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Erie Trial Term adjudging defendant to be guilty of contempt court for failure to pay alimony provided under a judgment of separation.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and JJ.
#### § 585.654 [Reserved]
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

RIGOBERTO CASTREJON-TELLES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-71863

Agency No. A037-441-199

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Castrejon-Telles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-71863

(9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castrejon-Telles’ motion to

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than twenty-one years after

the BIA’s July 5, 1989, order affirming the immigration judge’s order of

deportation, and Castrejon-Telles did not establish that an exception to the filing

deadline applied. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2) (A motion to reopen “must be filed

no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was

rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30,

1996, whichever is later.”), 1003.2(c)(3) (providing exceptions).

To the extent the BIA also concluded that equitable tolling did not apply, the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that

Castrejon-Telles failed to establish due diligence. See Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-

80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud or

error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to invoke

its sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a). See Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2011).

Castrejon-Telles’ remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### § 556.400 When must I demonstrate that I am qualified to hold a lease on the OCS?

In order to bid on, own, hold, or operate a lease on the OCS, bidders, record title holders, and operating rights owners must first obtain a qualification number from BOEM.
| **Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Principles (Tables)** | 3 Months Ended                                                                                                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]** |                                                                                                                                 |
| Excise And Sales Taxes [Table Text Block]                              |   Three Months Ended March 31,   2013 2012  Surcharges reported gross$1,228 1,482  |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Tabular disclosure of the surcharges assessed by a governmental authority that are directly imposed on a revenue-producing transaction between us and a customer.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**gciinc_ExciseAndSalesTaxesTableTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**gciinc_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_OrganizationConsolidationAndPresentationOfFinancialStatementsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              [BLANK]
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       45,328,613
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      50,059,230
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,881
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                 [BLANK]
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                           [BLANK]
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,088,111
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       [BLANK]
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                        [BLANK]
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      536,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                            536,314
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                [BLANK]
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    38,371,200
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        2,856,859
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                          [BLANK]
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                    (128,582)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                         [BLANK]
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                      3,721,703
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                       [BLANK]
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                     4,730,617
<NET-ASSETS>                                49,551,797
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              202,183
<INTEREST-INCOME>                               26,758
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 [BLANK]
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 357,523
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      (128,582)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     3,612,311
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                  (3,270,774)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                          341,537
<EQUALIZATION>                            (13,535,690)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                      [BLANK]
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                       [BLANK]
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                          [BLANK]
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                        126,236
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    976,884
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            [BLANK]
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                    (13,322,735)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        [BLANK]
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                      [BLANK]
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                        [BLANK]
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                     [BLANK]
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          255,596
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             [BLANK]
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                357,523
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        51,452,150
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            16.96
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                 (0.04)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                            .42
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                           [BLANK]
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                      [BLANK]
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                           [BLANK]
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              17.34
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                    .69


</TABLE>
§ 702.12 Contents of application for exemption. An application for exemption shall include at a minimum: ( a ) The name and address of the applicant;
( b ) A list of the minerals sought to be extracted;
( c ) Estimates of annual production of coal and the other minerals within each mining area over the anticipated life of the mining operation;
( d ) Estimated annual revenues to be derived from bona fide sales of coal and other minerals to be extracted within the mining area;
( e ) Where coal or the other minerals are to be used rather than sold, estimated annual fair market values at the time of projected use of the coal and other minerals to be extracted from the mining area;
( f ) The basis for all annual production, revenue, and fair market value estimates;
( g ) A description, including county, township if any, and boundaries of the land, of sufficient certainty that the mining areas may be located and distinguished from other mining areas;
( h ) An estimate to the nearest acre of the number of acres that will compose the mining area over the anticipated life of the mining operation;
( i ) Evidence of publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of the mining area, of a public notice that an application for exemption has been filed with the regulatory authority (The public notice must identify the persons claiming the exemption and must contain a description of the proposed operation and its locality that is sufficient for interested persons to identify the operation.);
( j ) Representative stratigraphic cross-section(s) based on test borings or other information identifying and showing the relative position, approximate thickness and density of the coal and each other mineral to be extracted for commercial use or sale and the relative position and thickness of any material, not classified as other minerals, that will also be extracted during the conduct of mining activities;
( k ) A map of appropriate scale which clearly identifies the mining area;
( l ) A general description of mining and mineral processing activities for the mining area;
( m ) A summary of sales commitments and agreements for future delivery, if any, which the applicant has received for other minerals to be extracted from the mining area, or a description of potential markets for such minerals;
( n ) If the other minerals are to be commercially used by the applicant, a description specifying the use;
( o ) For operations having extracted coal or other minerals prior to filing an application for exemption, in addition to the information required above, the following information must also be submitted: ( 1 ) Any relevant documents the operator has received from the regulatory authority documenting its exemption from the requirements of the Act;
( 2 ) The cumulative production of the coal and other minerals from the mining area; and
( 3 ) Estimated tonnages of stockpiled coal and other minerals; and
( p ) Any other information pertinent to the qualification of the operation as exempt.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAYNE SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 517 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under "Item 6. Selected
Financial Data" and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-17642, Form S-8 No. 33-45131, Form S-8 No.
33-45132, Form S-8 No. 33-62863, Form S-8 No. 33-64860, Form S-8 No. 33-72494,
Form S-8 No. 33-77586, Form S-8 No. 33-77590, Form S-8 No. 333-74873, Form S-8
No. 333-68103 and Form S-3 No. 33-85898) of InterVoice, Inc. and subsidiaries
of our report dated April 7, 1999, except for Note O as to which the date is
April 27, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of InterVoice, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 1999.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 24, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9714 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9714

 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
 to require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to provide 
 testimony at annual hearings held by the Committees on the Budget of 
  the House of Representatives and the Senate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2024

 Mr. Norman (for himself, Mrs. McClain, and Mr. Lopez) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
 to require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to provide 
 testimony at annual hearings held by the Committees on the Budget of 
  the House of Representatives and the Senate, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``CBO Oversight Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ANNUAL HEARINGS REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Title II of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by 
inserting after section 203 the following new section:

       ``congressional budget office annual hearings requirement

    ``Sec. 204. During each calendar year, at the request of the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the 
Senate, the Director shall provide testimony at two hearings at each 
such Committee by the end of the calendar year. Such hearings may 
address any issue such Committees deem appropriate, including reviewing 
the accuracy of the baseline projections and estimates prepared by the 
Office during the most recently completed fiscal year.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 203 
the following:

``Sec. 204. Congressional Budget Office annual hearings requirement.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w1



 




Exhibit 10.1



First Amendment to Nextel Communications, Inc.

Change of Control Retention Bonus and

Severance Pay Plan (Effective September 19, 2002)


        Section 3(g) of the Nextel Communications, Inc. Change of Control
Retention Bonus and Severance Pay Plan is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:



		
	 	“(g) “Employer” means the Company, each of its wholly owned
subsidiaries, and any other subsidiary of the Company to which the
Plan has been extended by the Board (or by the Compensation
Committee of the Board) and which has adopted the Plan.”
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 82473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27926]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign 
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmot Energy Center, LLC..............  EG20-240-000
Mohave County Wind Farm LLC............  EG20-241-000 Weaver Wind Maine
                                          Master Tenant, LLC
                                         EG20-242-000
Weaver Wind, LLC.......................  EG20-243-000
Harts Mill Solar, LLC..................  EG20-244-000
Townsite Solar, LLC....................  EG20-245-000
Altamont Winds LLC.....................  EG20-246-000
Bluebell Solar II, LLC.................  EG20-247-000
Concho Bluff LLC.......................  EG20-248-000
Hill Top Energy Center LLC.............  EG20-249-000
Topaz Generating, LLC..................  EG20-250-000
Muscle Shoals Solar, LLC...............  EG21-1-000
Fort Hills Energy LP...................  FC20-15-000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of November 2020, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign 
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's 
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2020).

    Dated: December 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27926 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

March 25, 2015 

# Order

Clerk March 25, 2015

150146 (53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHI GAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 1 50146

v COA: 314705

Wayne CC: 12

- 010198

- F H

PAUL CHARLES SEEWALD

, Defendant

- Appell ee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association

of Michigan to participate in oral argument is DENIED

.
#### 14 Second Avenue Realty Corp. v. Anne Steven Corp.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
#### Town of New Baltimore, Respondent, v Thomas Winslow et al., Appellants.

[832 NYS2d 459]—

*1075Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Stein, J.), entered December 20, 2005 in Greene County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for permission to enter defendants’ property and remove one mobile home situated thereon.

Following a hearing in town court, defendants, who had two mobile homes on their 4.3-acre property, were found to be in violation of a town code provision prohibiting more than one mobile home on any given parcel of land. They thereafter applied for a variance, which was denied by plaintiff’s Zoning Board of Appeals on May 5, 2004. They never sought review of this determination.

Thereafter, defendants failed to remove one of the mobile homes from their property, prompting a June 2004 proceeding to enforce compliance with the prior violation order. Ultimately, an August 2005 order was issued finding that defendants’ property was not in compliance with the town code. The order enjoined defendants from continued use of the property in violation of the code and directed them to remove one mobile home within a specified period of time. In its decision, Supreme Court gave plaintiff permission, in the event that defendants did not remove one of the mobile homes, to make an application for permission to do so itself. Defendants did not file an appeal from this order nor did they comply with the order by removing a mobile home. Plaintiff then filed an application for permission to enter their property to do so. In December 2005, Supreme Court granted the application. It is from this latter order that defendants now appeal.

Having failed to seek review of the denial of their request for a variance *(see Town Bd. of Town of Greenfield v Ernst,*27 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2006]) and having failed to appeal from the August 2005 order finding them to be in violation of the town code and directing removal of a mobile home from their property (see CPLR 5513 [a]; 5515; *see e.g. Woodward v State of New York,*23 AD3d 852, 853 n 1 [2005], *lv dismissed*6 NY3d 807 [2006]; *KLCR Land Corp. v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*15 AD3d 719, 720 [2005]; *O’Connor v Sleasman,*14 AD3d 986 [2005]; *Ireland v GEICO Corp.,*2 AD3d 917 [2003]; *Murphy v Finer Home Alterations,*300 AD2d 782, 783 [2002]; *Citicorp Mtge. v*
      *1076
      *Rodelli,*249 AD2d 736 [1998]), defendants are precluded from attacking the merits of their request for a variance or the soundness of the August 2005 removal order. Thus, the limited issue now before us is the propriety of Supreme Court’s decision to permit plaintiff to enter defendants’ property to remove a mobile home. Given defendants’ repeated failures to comply as clearly ordered and given the provision in the December 2005 order permitting them to choose which mobile home plaintiff would remove, Supreme Court’s order will be affirmed *(see e.g. Town of Hempstead v Davis,*245 AD2d 366 [1997]; *Town of Coeymans v Malphrus,*160 AD2d 1178, 1179 [1990]).

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.