alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1755.701 Scope. ( a ) This section covers the requirements for aerial service wires intended for aerial subscriber drops.
( b ) The aerial service wires can be either copper coated steel reinforced or nonmetallic reinforced designs.
( c ) For the copper coated steel reinforced design, the reinforcing members are the conductors. ( 1 ) The conductors are solid copper-covered steel wires.
( 2 ) The wire structure is completed by insulating the conductors with an overall extruded plastic insulating compound.
( d ) For the nonmetallic reinforced design, the conductors are solid copper individually insulated with an extruded solid insulating compound. ( 1 ) The insulated conductors are either laid parallel (two conductor design only) or twisted into pairs (a star-quad configuration is permitted for two pair wires).
( 2 ) The wire structure is completed by the application of nonmetallic reinforcing members and an overall plastic jacket.
( e ) All wires sold to RUS borrowers for projects involving RUS loan funds under §§ 1755.700 through 1755.704 must be accepted by RUS Technical Standards Committee “A” (Telecommunications). For wires manufactured to the specification of §§ 1755.700 through 1755.704, all design changes to an accepted design must be submitted for acceptance. RUS will be the sole authority on what constitutes a design change.
( f ) Materials, manufacturing techniques, or wire designs not specifically addressed by §§ 1755.700 through 1755.704 may be allowed if accepted by RUS. Justification for acceptance of modified materials, manufacturing techniques, or wire designs must be provided to substantiate product utility and long term stability and endurance.
[61 FR 26074, May 24, 1996]
#### § 1789.161 Conflicts of interest.

The standard for determining organizational conflicts of interest shall be as set forth in the FAR subpart 9.5 (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.5); however, the identification of the existence of an organizational conflict of interest may be made by either the Administrator or the cognizant Contracting Officer. In the event an organizational conflict of interest is determined to exist, the cognizant Contracting Officer shall take the actions prescribed at FAR 9.504 (48 CFR 9.504) to attempt to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict. Should these actions be deemed by the Administrator and the Contracting Officer to adequately resolve the conflict, the contracting action with the offeror/contractor may proceed. Should the Administrator or the Contracting Officer determine that an organizational conflict of interest still exists such that contract award or other contracting action cannot be taken (award of task/delivery order, etc.) the offeror/contractor shall be so informed by the Contracting Officer and be provided a reasonable opportunity to respond in accordance with FAR 9.504(e) (48 CFR 9.504(e)). After considering the contractor's response, if it is found by both the Administrator and Contracting Officer to remedy the conflict of interest, the contracting action may proceed. If the Administrator and Contracting Officer determine that the contractor's response does not resolve the conflict of interest, yet continuing with the contracting action with the offeror/contractor in question is considered in the best interest of the United States, a waiver in accordance with FAR 9.503 (48 CFR 9.503) may be executed. This waiver shall be submitted under the Contracting Officer's signature and approved by the Administrator. The Administrator has been delegated Head of Contracting Activity authority by the USDA Senior Procurement Executive solely for the purpose of waiver approval.
EXHIBIT 10(o)



STOCK EARNED IN LIEU OF CASH COMPENSATION

IN ACCORD WITH EMPLOYEMENT AGREEMENT

APPROVED BY ACTION OF THE INNOVA BOARD OF DIRECTORS.



Rose C. Smith, President & CEO, agreed to an annual salary of $110,000 paid on a monthly
basis. As the companys cash availability was at times limited so Mrs. Smith agreed to accept part of her salary payable in the form of Innova common stock, the number of shares of common stock due was determined by the closing price on the
last day of a given month, valued and due at the end of each month for which the full payment of her salary could not be paid.



Therefore, Rose C. Smith is due 742,763 shares of common stock based upon the monthly amounts listed below:



|Month          |  | Shares  |  
|-------------- |  | ------- | -
|July 2002      |  | 16,860  |  
|August 2002    |  | <34,893 | >
|September 2002 |  | 91,668  |  
|October 2002   |  | 78,567  |  
|November 2002  |  | 42,305  |  
|December 2002  |  | 61,120  |  
|January 2003   |  | 78,574  |  
|February 2003  |  | 78,574  |  
|March 2003     |  | 91,660  |  
|April 2003     |  | 91,660  |  
|May 2003       |  | 91,660  |  
|June 2003      |  | 55,008  |  



The executive agrees with this
assessment and agrees to accept the shares as above written.



|Executive          |  | For the Company    
|------------------ |  | -------------------
|                   | 
|Rose C. Smith      |  | John E. Nohren, Jr.
|President & CEO    |  | Chairman & CFO     
|September 26, 2003 |  | September 26, 2003
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-loans.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-loans.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 1738.56 Eligible assistance purposes. Assistance under this part may be used to pay for any of the following expenses: ( a ) To fund the construction, improvement, or acquisition of all facilities required to provide service at the broadband lending speed to rural areas, including facilities required for providing other services over the same facilities.
( b ) To fund the cost of leasing facilities required to provide service at the broadband lending speed if such lease qualifies as a capital/finance lease under GAAP. Notwithstanding, assistance can only be used to fund the cost of the capital/finance lease for no more than the first three years of the lease period. If an IRU qualifies as a capital/finance lease, the entire cost of the lease will be amortized over the life of the lease and only the first 3 years of the amortized cost can be funded.
( c ) To fund an acquisition, provided that: ( 1 ) The acquisition is necessary for furnishing or improving service at the broadband lending speed;
( 2 ) The acquired service area, if any, meets the eligibility requirements set forth in § 1738.53;
( 3 ) The acquisition cost does not exceed 50 percent of the broadband assistance; and
( 4 ) For the acquisition of another entity, the purchase provides the Applicant with a controlling majority interest in the entity acquired.
( d ) To refinance an outstanding obligation of the Applicant on another telecommunications loan made under the RE Act or on a non-RUS loan if that loan would have been for an eligible purpose under the Rural Broadband Program provided that: ( 1 ) No more than 50 percent of the broadband assistance amount is used to refinance a non-RUS loan;
( 2 ) The Applicant is current with its payments on the RUS telecommunications loan(s) to be refinanced; and
( 3 ) The amortization period for that portion of the broadband loan that will be needed for refinancing will not exceed the remaining amortization period for the loan(s) to be refinanced. If multiple notes are being refinanced, an average remaining amortization period will be calculated based on the weighted dollar average of the notes being refinanced.
( e ) To fund development costs in an amount not to exceed 5 percent of the total Award amount excluding amounts requested to refinance outstanding telecommunications loans. Development costs may be reimbursed only if they are incurred prior to the date on which notification of a complete application is issued (see § 1738.203) and a loan contract is entered into with RUS. Entities that meet the requirements in § 1738.101(d) may request this funding be provided as a grant. Otherwise, the funding will be provided in the form of a loan.
Amendment 2004-1 to the Mercury General Corporation Profit Sharing Plan.



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 AMENDMENT 2004-1 
  
 MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION 
 PROFIT SHARING PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Mercury General Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the
Mercury General Corporation Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Plan, the Company is authorized to amend the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company deems it desirable to modify the Plan’s provisions to provide eligible employees the ability to participate in the Plan on the
first day of the first quarter following date of hire as and qualification as an eligible employee. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2004, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 Section 2.1 (b) is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective as of January 1. 2004, each Employee who becomes an Eligible Employee on or after
January 1, 2004, shall become eligible to make Compensation Deferrals to the Plan in accordance with Section 3.2 (and to receive allocations of Employer Matching contributions on such Compensation Deferrals in accordance with Section 3.3) as of the
first day of the calendar quarter next following the latest of (1) the date he commences employment as an Employee of the Company, (2) his attainment of age 21, or (3) the date on which he becomes and Eligible Employee.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment 2004-1 is hereby adopted this 23rd day of February 2004. 
  

			
	MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ George Joseph

		
	Its:	 	 Chief Executive Officer
Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
 (As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer
#### ROHMAN, Appellant, v. COHEN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Minnie Rohman against Max Cohen and others.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### Burgen *vs.*Tribble and Wife.

Trespass.

In actions against husband and wife, the admissions of the wife are not evidence : they do not bind th'e husband.

[Mr. Turner for Plaintiff: Mr. Caperton for Defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Madison County.

*November 3.*

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The first question in this case is, whether, in an action of trespass for a tort alleged to have heen committed by the wife alone, evidence that she acknowledged her guilt, is admissible ?

In the second volume of Starkie on Evidence, p. 46, it is sajd that, “even in an action by husband and wife, in right of the wife as executrix, her declaration will not lie evidence.” “ So an admission by the wife, of a trespass, cannot bind the husband.” It would seem, from these doctrines, that, though the cause of action springs from the right of the act of the wife, her declaration or acknowledgment, even though it would be competent evidence against her alone, is not admissible against her husband, or in a suit in which he is a party, or in which his rights, personal or marital, may be affected. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the circuit court decided correctly in refusing to admit, in this case, any declaration made by the wife, touching her agency iu the alleged trespass by herself alone.

The next, and only remaining question is, whether the circuit court erred in directing a non suit. And, on this point, we are of the opinion, that there was not such a total destitution of facts, from which the jury might have inferred, that it was the wife who instigated' the dogs to kill the plaintiff’s mare, as to have justified the court in withholding from the jury, the right to decide for itself, upon the circumstances which were proved.

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
#### §§ 1724.11-1724.19 [Reserved]
October 25, 1979.

M. P. No. 79-316.

#### State *v.*John J. Tarvis.

*Dennis J. Roberts II,*Attorney General, *Faith A. LaSalle,*Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent. *John J. Tarvis,*pro se, for defendant-petitioner,

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
§ 1724.70 Standard forms of contracts for borrowers. ( a ) *General.* The standard loan agreement between RUS and its borrowers provides that, in accordance with applicable RUS regulations in this chapter, the borrower shall use standard forms of contract promulgated by RUS for construction, procurement, engineering services, and architectural services financed by a loan made or guaranteed by RUS. (See section 5.16 of appendix A to subpart C of part 1718 of this chapter.) This subpart prescribes RUS procedures in promulgating electric program standard contract forms and identifies those forms that borrowers are required to use.
( b ) *Contract forms.* RUS promulgates standard contract forms, identified in the List of Required Contract Forms, § 1724.74(c), that borrowers are required to use in accordance with the provisions of this part. A borrower may deviate from the Required Contract Form provided the borrower certifies to RUS that the non-standard form incorporates the provisions of the Required Contract Form that are contained in the RUS Certification Form found at *https://www.rd.usda.gov/resources/directives/electric-sample-documents .* Further, a borrower may utilize a contract other than a Required Contract Form if it is allowed to do so by an indenture or any other agreement between the borrower and RUS. In addition, RUS promulgates standard contract forms identified in the List of Guidance Contract Forms contained in § 1724.74(c) that the borrowers may but are not required to use in the planning, design, and construction of their electric systems. Borrowers are not required to use these guidance contract forms in the absence of an agreement to do so.
[63 FR 58284, Oct. 30, 1998, as amended at 87 FR 73442, Nov. 30, 2022]
#### § 1902.50 OMB control number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the OMB and have been assigned OMB Control Number 0575-0158.

[70 FR 59228, Oct. 12, 2005]
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**I, G. Gary Yetman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Coleman Cable, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: August 15, 2005 **/s/ G. Gary Yetman**     **Chief Executive Officer and President**
34
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

November 25, 2015

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2015

151343

- 4

BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151343

- 4

COA: 317864, 317866

Kalamazoo CC: 2012

- 000600

- NF

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 da ys of the date of this order

addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the defendant

Michigan Assigned Claims Plan could not deny the plaintiff hospital’s application for

assignment of its claim for benefits as “an obviously inel igi ble claim,” MCL 500.3173a.

The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3452

_____________________________

CARL BLACKMON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

November 15, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Carl Blackmon, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### § 1735.91 Location of facilities.

Telephone facilities to be acquired must be located so that they can be efficiently operated by the borrower and provide adequate security for the RUS loan.

[54 FR 14626, Apr. 12, 1989, unless otherwise noted. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990.]
Exhibit 10.49


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE
AGREEMENT


UC Agreement Control No. 2006-04-0026


 


This fourth amendment (“Fourth
Amendment”) to the Exclusive License Agreement (“Agreement”), effective December 31, 2012 is made
by and between the Regents of the University of California, a California corporation (“The Regents”), and Putney
Drug Corp., a Delaware company (“Licensee”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


		A.	The Regents and Licensee are parties to the Agreement, dated as of July 11, 2005.



 


		B.	The Agreement was amended on November 8, 2005 (“First Amendment”), on January
3, 2007 (“Second Amendment”) and on August 29, 2007 (“Third Amendment”);



 


The parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Amend paragraph 1.4 to read as follows: “1.4 The ‘Field of Use’ means
human therapeutics for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis.”



 


		2.	Amend paragraph 4.3 to increase the annual maintenance fee from “$5,000” to “$10,000”.



 


		3.	Amend paragraph 4.2 by adding a new subparagraph 4.2c to read “seven hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($750,000) upon the first achievement of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) in annual sales while covered by a validly
issued U.S. patent.”



 


		4.	Amend paragraph 6.3c to replace “Within eight years of the Effective Date of this Agreement,
initiate Phase III clinical trials” with “Within 3 years from the successful completion of the ongoing clinical trial
of estriol for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis being conducted by Dr. Rhonda Voskuhl as principal investigator, initiate
a Phase III clinical Trial”.



 


		5.	Amend paragraph 6.3d to replace “fourteen (14) years” with “seventeen (17) years”.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement by their duly authorized representatives for good and valuable consideration.


 


	PUTNEY DRUG CORP.	 	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
	 	 	 	CALIFORNIA
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jeff Riley	 	By:	/s/ Emily Waldron Loughran
	 	(signature)	 	 	(signature)
	Name: 	Jeff Riley	 	Name: 	Emily Waldron Loughran
	Title:	CEO	 	Title:	Director of Licensing
	Date:	3/15/2013	 	Date:	3/25/2013
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE03967

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Company:

Subsidiary

Place of
Incorporation1)

Candela Iberica, S.A.

Spain2)

Candela France SARL

France3)

Candela KK

Japan4)

Candela Deutschland GmbH

Germany5)

Candela Italia

Italy6)

Candela Holdings, B.V.

Netherlands7)

Inolase (2002), Ltd.

Israel8)

Candela Corporation Australia PTY, Ltd.

Australia9)

Candela (U.K.) Limited

United Kingdom10)

Candela Skin Care Centers of Boston, Inc.

Massachusetts11)

Candela Skin Care Centers of Scottsdale, Inc.

Massachusetts


---



QuickLinks