alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.135 Taxes on inventory real property. Where Rural Development owned property is subject to taxation, taxes and assessment installments will be prorated between Rural Development and the purchaser as of the date the title is conveyed in accordance with the conditions of Forms RD 1955-45 or RD 1955-46. The purchaser will be responsible for paying all taxes and assessment installments accruing after the title is conveyed. The County Supervisor or District Director will advise the taxing authority of the sale, the purchaser's name, and the description of the property sold. Only the prorata share of assessment installments for property improvements (water, sewer, curb and gutter, etc.) accrued as of the date property is sold will be paid by Rural Development for inventory property. At the closing, payment of taxes and assessment installments due to be paid by Rural Development will be paid from cash proceeds Rural Development is to receive as a result of the sale or by voucher and will be accomplished by one of the following: ( a ) For purchasers receiving Rural Development credit and required to escrow, Rural Development's share of accrued taxes and assessment installments will be deposited in the purchaser's escrow account.
( b ) For purchasers not required to escrow, accrued taxes and assessment installments may be: ( i ) Paid to the local taxing authority if they will accept payment at that time; or
( ii ) Paid to the purchaser. If appropriate, for program purchasers, the funds can be deposited in a supervised bank account until the taxes can be paid.
( c ) Except for SFH, deducted from the sale price (which may result in a promissory note less than the sale price), if acceptable to the purchaser.
[56 FR 6953, Feb. 21, 1991]
EXHIBIT
3.4




AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED


AGREEMENT
OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF


ENTERPRISE
GP HOLDINGS L.P.




This
Amendment No. 3 (this “Amendment
No.3”) to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership
of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. dated effective as of August 29, 2005 (the “Partnership
Agreement”) is hereby adopted by EPE Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (the “General
Partner”), as general partner of the Partnership.  Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein are used as defined in the Partnership
Agreement.




WHEREAS, acting pursuant to
the power and authority granted to it under Section 13.1(d) of the
Partnership Agreement, the General Partner has determined that the following
amendment to the Partnership Agreement does not require the approval of any
Limited Partner.





NOW THEREFORE, the General
Partner does hereby amend the Partnership Agreement as follows:




Section 1. 
Sections 7.7(i) is hereby amended to read in full as follows:




(i) No amendment,
modification or repeal of this Section 7.7 or any provision hereof shall in any
manner terminate, reduce or impair the right of any past, present or future
Indemnitee to receive indemnification (including expense advancement as provided
by Section 7.7(b)) from the Partnership, nor the obligations of the Partnership
to indemnify, or advance the expenses of, any such Indemnitee under and in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 7.7 as in effect immediately
prior to such amendment, modification or repeal with respect to claims arising
from or relating to matters occurring, in whole or in part, prior to such
amendment, modification or repeal, regardless of when such claims may arise or
be asserted, and provided such Person became an Indemnitee hereunder prior to
such amendment, modification or repeal.





Section 2. 
Except as hereby amended, the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.




Section 3.  This
Amendment No. 3 shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the
laws of the State of Delaware, all rights and remedies being governed by such
laws without regard to principles of conflicts of laws.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment No. 3 has been executed as of November 6, 2008.














GENERAL
      PARTNER:EPE
      HOLDINGS, LLCBy: 
      /s/ Ralph S.
      CunninghamRalph
      S. CunninghamPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### Harper *vs.*The Lexington and Ohio Rail Road Company.

In a proceeding to ascertain the damages to the-owner,upon the appropriation of land for the Lex ington and Ohio-Rail Road, the sheriff’s return must show,that all the requisitions of the act incorporating the company (§15,) have been complied with.

The sheriffmay make a return after the case has been reversed,and remanded fornew proceedings — on which, if it is-sufficient, the court may give judgment.

It is not indispensable that the notice to the owner of the land, should be by personal service.

A return of the writ “ executed” implies a legal notice to the owner of the land.

[Mr. Haggm for Appellant: Messrs. Moreliead and Brown for Appellee.]

From the Woodford County Court,

*May*9.

Judge Underwood

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The proceedings in this case cannot be sustained. The sheriff should make a return upon the warrant in virtue of which he held the inquisition, shewing that the fifteenth section of the act of incorporation had been complied with in respect to all the duties imposed on him. Thus, he should in substance state, that he had, in obedience to the warrant, summoned and empanelled a jury in the manner required by law ; that lie had administered to each of the jury an oath or affirmation (as maybe the case,) justly and impartially to value and assess, according to law, the damages which the owner of the land would sustain by the use and occupation of the land, as required by the company, and that the jury so empannelled and sworn, had made out, signed and sealed their inquisition, which he returns with the warrant to the clerk of —— county. There is no evidence here, that the jury were ever sworn. That is indispensable. There is no return upon the warrant as to the manner of its execution by the sheriff.

Upon the return of the case, we see no reason why the sheriff should riot lie permitted to make a return ; and if it will be such as to sustain the proceedings, the court may give judgment accordingly.

We do not perceive the necessity for giving the owner of the land personal notice of the time and place of the meeting of the jury, as contended for by the counsel for Harper. The law has not required such notice, and, therefore, we are not disposed to regard it as indispensable, although there is much propriety in giving it. There may be cases where it could not be given *228except by advertisement against persons unknown. In this case, however, we suppose from an endorsement on the warrant of “executed,” and all the subsequent proceedings, that Harper" had notice. 1 he jury are to make their assessment upon their own view, and hence there is not the same necessity for notice as if they had to decide on evidence furnished by the parties.

The finding of the jury is sufficiently explicit for all legal purposes.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 12, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00181

- CV

IN RE BRUINGTON ENGINEERING LTD ., Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schlumberger

Services Inc., and Schlumberger Limited

,

Appellant

From the 4 9th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7,767 and 8,310

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Mart inez

, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

The Relators ’ Emergency Mot ion to Reinstate Stay is here by DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on April 12, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1707 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1707

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 302 East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois, as the ``James R. 
                  Burgess Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES R. BURGESS JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 302 East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James R. Burgess Jr. 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 ``James R. 
Burgess Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Abraham Rotwein, an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement to the Bar granted. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
#### Walter C. Kretzer, Jr., Respondent, v Dorothea J. Kretzer et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and directing distribution of escrow funds, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 is denied; and the parties are directed to proceed by formal pleadings and plaintiff is directed to serve a complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order hereon with notice of entry. The escrow agreement is not an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213. Therefore a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint under CPLR 3213 does not lie. This determination is without prejudice to any motion for summary judgment after formal pleadings have been served. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Bloom, Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.
# THE AWORNEY GENERAJ~ OFTEXAS

January 29, 1975 The Honorable Craig A. Washington Chairman Opinion No. H- 509 House Committee onPrairie View A&M University Box 2910, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78767 Re: Authority ofa college towithhold professor’s pay checks pending the completion ofcerta~in obligations. Dear Mr. Washington:

You have requested our opinion concerning the authority ofa college towithhold pay checks ofaprofessor pending payment ofa parking permit fee and submission of semester grades.

As exemplified by constitutional and **statutory** provisions prohibiting the garnishment ofwages, Texas Constitution, article 16, section 28; article 4099, V.T.C.S., it is the public policy ofthis state to insure the payment of salaries and wages. Attorney General Opinions O-6671 (1946) and O-7390 (1946) held that deductions from salaries and wages may be made only pursuant to a reasonable contract provision, **a statute,**  or a constitutional provision. See also Attorney General -- Opinion O-6679 (1945).

Article 16, section 10ofthe Texas Constitution allows the Legislature to make deductions from the salaries ofpublic officers for neglect ofduty. However, this authority rests only with the Legislature and does not extend to departments ofthe state. Attorney General Opinion O-7390 (1946). That opinion dealt with the authority of the Prison Board or the general manager ofthe Prison System to “assess and collect,,any fees
. . . from prison employees because such person may have been responsible for allowing a convict to escape. ” Itstates:

p. 2294The Honorable Craig A. Washington, page 2 (H-509)

There are no statutes authorizing the Board ofPrison Commissioners or the General Manager, ofthe Prison System **to** impose fines or pecuniary assessments upon employees ofthe Prison System who may neglect the performance oftheir duties assigned them bylaw
. . . . Inour opinion, the stated practice ofthe Board is in the nature ofapenalty, and is beyond the authority ofthe Board. While Attorney General Opinion O-7390 concerned fines rather than salary deductions, article 16, section 10was cited, and no distinction was seen between the two forms of penalties.

**We** have found no **statutory** or constitutional authority for the withhoLding of salaries by a state college administrator and it is therefore our opinion that he lacks the authority to do so. SUMMARY A state college does nothave authority to withhold faculty salary payments on the grounds ofneglect ofduty such as tardiness in the sub- : mission of semester grades.

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee lg

.
p. 2295
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 Cascade Technologies Corp.
(the "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and  Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 135, 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 operation of the
Company.



Dated: July 17, 2006

                        /s/ Bruce Hollingshead
                 	----------------------
                 	Name:  Bruce Hollingshead
                 	Title: President (Principal Executive Officer)

                        /s/ Christine Thomas
                	--------------------
                	Christine Thomas
                	Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### § 1530.114 Implementation.

Current program participants may qualify under this rule upon concluding a documentation agreement with the Licensing Authority, but must conclude a documentation agreement within 24 months of the effective date of this rule. Participant license balances, as of the effective date of this rule, shall continue under this rule.
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.866 Security. ( a ) *Loans from RDLF intermediaries to ultimate recipients.* Security requirements for loans from intermediaries to ultimate recipients will be negotiated between the intermediaries and ultimate recipients. Rural Development concurrence in the intermediary's security proposal is required only when security for the loan from the intermediary to the ultimate recipient will also serve as security for the Rural Development.
( b ) *Additional security.* The Rural Development may require additional security at any time during the term of a loan to an intermediary if, after review and monitoring, an assessment indicates the need for such security.
( c ) *Appraisals.* Real property serving as security for all loans to intermediaries and for loans to ultimate recipients serving as security for loans to intermediaries will be appraised by a qualified appraiser. For all other types of property, a valuation shall be made using any recognized, standard technique for the type of property involved (including standard reference manuals), and this valuation shall be described in the loan file.
<PAGE>   1
                  [Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson CPAs letterhead]

                                                                    Exhibit 23
                                                                     1996 10-K


                       Independent Accountants' Consent
                       --------------------------------


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 33-45385), the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-13321), and
the Registration Statements  on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81178, 33-81180, 33-81182 and
333-01937) of F&M Bancorporation, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of F&M Bancorporation, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which
report is included in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of F&M
Bancorporation, Inc.



                                        /s/ WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON CPAs
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Certified Public Accountants



Appleton, Wisconsin
March 24, 1997
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Haas.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Haas*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 302.]

*303(No. 97-2640

Submitted May 26, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*Robert J. Gehring*and *Maria C. Palermo,*for relator.

*Mark A. Vander Loan,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. In *Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bunce*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 112, 689 N.E.2d 566, we said that in imposing a sanction, we will take into account the duty violated, the mental state of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct, and the existence of mitigating factors. The duty violated here is to refrain from compensating a third party to promote the use of a lawyer’s services. While *304many persons refer counsel to others, when such a referral is the result of monetary influence, it lacks the reliability of a disinterested recommendation. Cf. Greenbaum, Lawyer’s Guide to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility (1996), at 189.

On previous occasions we have imposed an indefinite suspension when attorneys have paid non-lawyers for referrals. *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. White*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 491, 684 N.E.2d 29; *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rinderknecht*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 30, 679 N.E.2d 669. Each of those cases, however, involved additional violations of the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent’s conduct in this case did not involve other disciplinary infractions and respondent, who has had an otherwise exemplary record, appeared remorseful. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent and would stay a one-year suspension.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Cases

Case No. 3:19md2885

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice seeking 

leave to appear as counsel for parties in matters pending before this Court associated 

with the above-referenced litigation, filed by the attorneys listed on Exhibit A. The

motions demonstrate that these attorneys are members of good standing of the bar

associations of their respective states, as stated on the certificates of good standing 

dated within 30 days of filing the motions; they have successfully completed the 

computer-based tutorials for the local rules of this Court and CM/ECF; and they 

have also paid the required admission fee. Having fully reviewed the matters, the 

Court finds the requirements of the Court’s local rules satisfied. See N.D. Fla. Loc. 

R. 11.1. Therefore, the motions identified on Exhibit A are GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED on this 14th day of March 2023.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3699 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A

ECF No. Counsel Firm

3692 Walter J. Nalducci Catruzzula & Nalducci

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3699 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 22

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

     All of the following subsidiaries of the Small Business Issuer are New York
corporations and wholly-owned, except as indicated otherwise:

                           Access Network Corp.
                           Dan's Papers Inc.*
                           Manhattan Publishing Corp.
                           Media Venture Group, Inc.
                           Parkchester Publishing Co. Inc.
                           Tribco Incorporated
                           Nassau Community Newspaper Group, Inc.
                           Capitol Hill Publishing, Inc.
                           Brooklyn Newspaper Publishing, Inc.
                           West Side Newspaper Corp.
                           South Shore Publishers, Inc.


------------------
*        = 80%-owned.

<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

of Ceridian Corporation:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-56822,333-56828, 333-56818, 333-56820, 333-64944, 333-82466 and 333-122959) on Form S-8 of CeridianCorporation of our reports dated March 16,2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CeridianCorporation as of December 31, 2005and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows andstockholders’ equity and comprehensive income for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2005, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-Kof Ceridian Corporation.

 

Our report dated March 16, 2006, onmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting asof December 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that Ceridian Corporation didnot maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of theobjectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph thatdescribes that material weakness.

 
|                   | /s/ KPMG LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------------|--------|
|                   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| March 16, 2006    |

 

----