alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2567. Limitation of damages; marking and notice

Owners may give notice to the public by physically associating with or affixing to the container of seed of a variety or by fixing to the variety, a label containing either the words "Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited" or the words "Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited" and after the certificate issues, such additional words as "U.S. Protected Variety". In the event the variety is distributed by authorization of the owner and is received by the infringer without such marking, no damages shall be recovered against such infringer by the owner in any action for infringement, unless the infringer has actual notice or knowledge that propagation is prohibited or that the variety is a protected variety, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. As to both damages and injunction, a court shall have discretion to be lenient as to disposal of materials acquired in good faith by acts prior to such notice.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §127, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1557; Pub. L. 96–574, §19(b), Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3351; Pub. L. 103–349, §11, Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3142.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–349 in first sentence struck out "novel" before "variety or" and before "variety, a", and in second sentence struck out "novel" before "variety is distributed".

1980—Pub. L. 96–574 substituted "either the words 'Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited' or the words 'Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited' " for "the words 'Propagation Prohibited' ".

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Nov-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 Dec-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   Nov-30-1999
<CASH>                              21,117
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    2,311,736
<ALLOWANCES>                       111,000
<INVENTORY>                      3,359,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 6,808,885
<PP&E>                           1,429,367
<DEPRECIATION>                     839,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   9,304,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            3,475,779
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                           131,079
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                       3,591,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     3,722,508
<SALES>                         26,139,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   976,524
<CGS>                           18,348,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 6,815,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 201,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    862,557
<INCOME-TAX>                       374,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                487,946
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       487,946
<EPS-BASIC>                            5
<EPS-DILUTED>                            5


</TABLE>
#### 1552.213-70 Notice to suppliers of equipment.

As prescribed in 1513.507(b), the Contracting Officer shall insert the following contract clause in orders for or lease of commercially available equipment.

# Notice to Suppliers of Equipment (APR 1984)

(a) It is the general policy of the Environmental Protection Agency that Contractor or vendor prescribed leases or maintenance agreements for equipment will NOT be executed.

(b) Performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vendor's commercial lease, or customer service maintenance agreement, unless specified in the Schedule, may render the vendor's performance unacceptable, thereby permitting the Government to apply such contractual remedies as may be permitted by law, regulation, or the terms of this order.

(End of clause)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984; 49 FR 24734, June 15, 1984]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC., ORDER

Plaintiffs, 11-cv-619-bbc

v.

EAST SIDE OVENS, INC.,

VOORTMAN COOKIES, LTD.

and COOKIE SPECIALTIES, INC.,

Defendants.

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC.,

Plaintiffs, 12-cv-107-bbc

v.

KEEBLER CO.,

FAMOUS AMOS CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE COMPANY, LLC.

and MURRAY BISCUIT CO. LLC.,

Defendants.

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC .,

1
Plaintiffs, 12-cv-108-bbc

v.

UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC.

and CONOPCO, INC.,

Defendants.

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC

Plaintiffs, 12-cv-109-bbc

v.

BREMNER FOOD GROUP, INC.

and TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC.,

Defendants.

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC.,

Plaintiffs, 12-cv-110-bbc

v.

THE PILLSBURY COMPANY, LLC.,

Defendant.

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

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and

GFA BRANDS, INC.,

Plaintiffs, 12-cv-111-bbc

2
v.

NESTLE USA, INC.,

Defendant.

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

On February 15, 2012, this court entered an order in the above cases for the parties

to show cause by February 22, 2012, why this case should not be transferred to the Northern

District of Illinois. Because no party has raised any objections, I am transferring the cases.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the above cases are transferred to the Northern District of

Illinois.

Entered this 23d day of February, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

BARBARA B. CRABB

District Judge

3
```

[115th Congress Public Law 133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 339]]

Public Law 115-133
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   2700 Cullen Boulevard in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Endy Nddiobong 
 Ekpanya Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 16, 2018 -  [H.R. 294]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ENDY NDDIOBONG EKPANYA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2700 Cullen Boulevard in Pearland, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Endy Nddiobong Ekpanya 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 ``Endy 
Nddiobong Ekpanya Post Office Building''.

    Approved March 16, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 294:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    Oct. 10, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Mar. 7, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §307. Application

Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent chapter 1 is not in conflict with this chapter or the Inter-American Convention as ratified by the United States. This chapter applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict with chapter 4.

(Added Pub. L. 101–369, §1, Aug. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 449; amended Pub. L. 117–90, §2(b)(1)(C), Mar. 3, 2022, 136 Stat. 27.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–90 substituted "Application" for "Chapter 1; residual application" in section catchline and inserted at end "This chapter applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict with chapter 4."

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

#### Effective Date of 2022 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–90 applicable with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after Mar. 3, 2022, see section 3 of Pub. L. 117–90, set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the entry into force of the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30, 1975, with respect to the United States (Oct. 27, 1990), see section 3 of Pub. L. 101–369, set out as a note under section 301 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Second Intermediate Accounting of Henry Weinberger et al., as Trustees of a Trust Created for Leona W. Pattiz and Remaindermen under the Will of Eva C. Weinberger, Deceased, et al., Appellants. Ralph Kartzman, as Special Guardian for Nancy I. Pattiz, an Infant, Respondent. In the Matter of the Second Intermediate Accounting of Henry Weinberger et al., as Trustees of a Trust Created for Alan C. Weinberger and Remaindermen under the Will of Eva C. Weinberger, Deceased, et al., Appellants. Milton Somerfield, as Special Guardian for Judith D. Weinberger and another, Infants, et al., Respondents.

Decrees *781of Surrogate on intermediate accounting insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and application of individual trustees for leave to apply to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles for the issuance of letters of trusteeship to themselves and to a corporate fiduciary appointed by said court, granted, with costs to all parties filing briefs payable out of the trust estate. The decedent, creator of the testamentary trust herein, died a resident of New York. The trustees are her son, her husband and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Both of the individuals have moved to Los Angeles and are domiciled there. As the corpus of the trust consists of corporate securities, the administration of the trust has become difficult due to the distance between the place of business of the corporate trustee and the residence of the individual trustees. This situation prompted the application. A special guardian appointed for infant remaindermen examined into the facts and reported favorably to it. The corporate trustee does not oppose. The Surrogate found that there is nothing in the will which either sanctions or bars the proposed transfer of the trust. An *inter vivos*trust created by the same testator prior to her death has already been transferred to California *(Matter of Morgan Guar. Trust Co.*[Weinberger], N. Y. L. J., June 7, 1963, p. 16, col. 2). In the absence of a contrary intent shown to have been held by the creator of a trust, there is nothing in our public policy which prevents such a transfer *(Matter of Matthiessen,*195 Misc. 598). Here where there is every indication that the administration of the trust will be facilitated by the transfer and no reason to believe that the donor intended to forbid a transfer under the circumstances, the application should be allowed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.05


 


COMPENSATION
FOR NON-MANAGEMENT

DIRECTORS OF THE REGISTRANT


 


As
of April 5, 2006, non-management Directors of Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (the “Registrant”) receive an annual cash retainer of
$75,000 and are reimbursed for reasonable travel and related expenses. The
annual retainer is paid quarterly; however, the fourth quarter payment will be
withheld from any Director who has been a Director for the full year for
failure to attend 75% of the total number of meetings. The chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000, and each
non-management Director who serves as a chairman of any other Committee of the
Board of Directors receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000 per
Committee. Each non-management Director who serves as a Committee member
(including as Chairman) receives $2,500 per Committee meeting and $1,500 per
unanimous written consent.


 


An annual equity retainer in the form of a grant of
1,700 RSUs is made to each non-management Director as of the day of the Company’s
Annual Meeting of Stockholders. As of each date that a dividend is paid on the
Registrant’s common stock, $0.10 par value per share (“Common Stock”), each
non-management Director holding RSUs is credited with a number of additional
RSUs equal to the product of (A) the dividend paid on one share of Common
Stock, multiplied by (B) the number of RSUs held by the non-management
Director, divided by (C) the closing price of the Common Stock on the New York
Stock Exchange on such date. The RSUs vest immediately and are payable in
Common Stock upon death, disability or termination of service.


 


Alternatively, a non-management Director may elect
to receive the annual equity retainer in the form of an option to purchase 5,100
shares of Common Stock, with an exercise price per share equal to the closing
price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date the award
is made. Such option has a ten-year term, is not forfeitable, and becomes
exercisable in one-third increments on each of the first three anniversaries of
the award date or, if sooner, upon termination of service.


 


Mr. Michael
Ainslie also receives an annual cash retainer of $40,000 for serving as a
Director of Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, an annual retainer of $10,000 for
serving as Chairman of its Audit Committee and $1,500 per committee meeting and
$1,500 per unanimous written consent for serving as a member of its Audit and
Compensation and Benefits Committees.
#### 1827.305 Administration of the patent rights clauses.
Exhibit 99.1

 

 

CEO 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 the Quarterly Report of Reliability Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
#### Alden H. Vose, Jr. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of Westport et al.

*William D. Allen*and *Melvin J. Silverman,*in support of the petition.

*Robert L. Julianelle,*in opposition.

Submitted September 10

decided October *2,*1974

The petition for certification for appeal by the defendants Frances F. Dunning et al. from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is granted.
### §16. Appeals

(a) An appeal may be taken from—

(1) an order—

(A) refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title,

(B) denying a petition under section 4 of this title to order arbitration to proceed,

(C) denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel arbitration,

(D) confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award, or

(E) modifying, correcting, or vacating an award;

(2) an interlocutory order granting, continuing, or modifying an injunction against an arbitration that is subject to this title; or

(3) a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order—

(1) granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title;

(2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title;

(3) compelling arbitration under section 206 of this title; or

(4) refusing to enjoin an arbitration that is subject to this title.

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1019(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4670, §15; renumbered §16, Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §325(a)(1), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5120.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–650 renumbered the second section 15 of this title as this section.
#### 1028.310 Contract clause for work on a Government installation.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 results of operations of Duke Energy.



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  | /s/ David L. Hauser     
|                     |  | David L. Hauser         
|                     |  | Group Vice President and
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

                         EXHIBIT 32.1

                   Section 1350 Certification
                 By Principal Executive Officer

     I,  Daniel  Greenberg, certify that the periodic report,  to
which  this  Statement  is  attached,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the  Securities  and
Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and the information  contained  in  the
periodic  report  to  which this Statement  is  attached,  fairly
present,  in  all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the registrant.

     A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  has  been
provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and
furnished to the SEC upon request.

     Dated October 1, 2003

                              /s/ Daniel Greenberg
                              Daniel Greenberg
                              Chief Executive Officer
```
#### 1330.202-2 Impracticality of submission.

The DOC Head of Agency for Procurement is authorized to determine that it is impractical to secure a Disclosure Statement, although submission is required, and to authorize contract award without obtaining the Statement.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 13, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1964

Lower Tribunal No. 14-23417

________________

Vivian Restrepo,

Petitioner,

vs.

Seidy Carrera,

Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio

Marin, Judge.

Bernstein, Chackman, Liss, and Neil Rose (Hollywood), for petitioner.

Ellsley Sobol, P.L., and Eric M. Ellsley (Plantation), for respondent.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

FERNANDEZ, J.
We grant respondent’s Motion for Clarification, withdraw this Court’s

previous opinion issued on January 20, 2016, and substitute the following opinion

in its place:

Vivian Restrepo petitions this Court to review the trial court’s order

directing petitioner to “provide cell phone numbers and/or names of providers used

during the six (6) hour period before the time of the crash and the six (6) hour

period after the crash, same to be provided within thirty (30) days from the date of

this Order.” Upon review of the petition and based on respondent’s concession of

error that the trial court’s order directing petitioner to reveal information regarding

her cell phone violates petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights, while her criminal

case is pending, and constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law

from which petitioner has no adequate remedy on appeal, we grant the petition and

quash the order requiring petitioner to provide information regarding her cell

phone number and her cell phone carrier. We express no opinion on the status of

the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights once her criminal case has concluded.

Petition granted; order quashed.

2
#### 1404.802 Contract files.

In addition to the requirements in FAR 4.802, files shall also be maintained in accordance with the provisions of 380 DM 3.
### §6. Application heard as motion

Any application to the court hereunder shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein expressly provided.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 671.)

#### Derivation

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §6, 43 Stat. 884.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 1, 2021

No. 04

- 18

- 00411

- CV

REPSOL OIL AND GAS USA, LLC as successor of Talisman Energy USA Inc, Statoil Texas

Onshore Properties, LLC, and Statoil Pipelines, LLC, and OGE, LLC,

Appellants

v.

MATRIX PETROLEUM, LLC, Matrix Petroleum Holdings LLC, JAR Resources Holdings,

L.P., and TMRX Petroleum, LLC,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court

, La Salle County, Texa s

Trial Court No. 14

- 08

- 00158

- CVL

Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Mar tinez, C hief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justic e

On August 30, 2021, all parties to this appeal jointly filed an Amended Joint Motion for

Oral Argument Schedule. T he Court GRANTS the parties’ motion, and ORDERS that t he

schedule for oral argument will be as follows:

Statoil’s Opening Argument: 15 minu tes

Repsol’s Opening Argument: 15 minutes

Matrix’s Argument: 15 minutes

OGE’s Argument: 15 minutes

Statoil’s Rebuttal Argument : 10 minutes

Repsol’s Rebuttal Argument : 10 minutes

It is so ORDE RED September 1

, 202 1

.PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
March *4,*1975.

M. P. No. 75-44.

#### In re Application of Local 1949, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

*Hogan & Hogan, Thomas S. Hogan,*for petitioner.

ORDER APPOINTING ARBITRATOR

This matter came on to be considered by Chief Justice Roberts on March 4, 1975, on the Application of Local 1949, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, requesting the Chief Justice to appoint a third arbitrator under the provisions of Sec. 28-9.1-8 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended, to arbitrate a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Town of Portsmouth and Local 1949, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, on all of the unresolved issues between said parties.

After consideration thereof it is

ORDERED:

1. The Application is granted.

2. John J. Hall of 245 Sharon Drive, Warwick, Rhode Island, is appointed as the third member and chairman of the said Arbitration Board under the provisions of Sec. 28-9.1-8 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended.
### §7451. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §542, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1063.)