alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1806.22 Areas of responsibility. ( a ) *Federal Insurance Administration* (*FIA*). ( 1 ) Identify and publish information with respect to all areas in the country which are subject to floods and mudslides and designate those areas on Flood Hazard Boundary maps.
( 2 ) Notify affected communities of their designations and encourage them to adopt and enforce land use and other control measures and to adopt ordinances or laws which will regulate and control construction in areas designated as having special flood or mudslide hazards.
( 3 ) Make flood insurance available at reasonable rates in sufficient amounts, within the statutory limits, to adequately protect owners against loss to their buildings and contents when those buildings are located in or will be located in designated special flood and mudslide prone areas in communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.
( b ) *The Agency.* The State Director, after being notified by the National Office or FIA of designated flood or mudslide hazard areas and receiving flood hazard boundary maps identifying the hazard areas, FIA insurance rate charts, or other information concerning the program, will inform the appropriate County Supervisors and provide them the maps, rate charts, and other relevant information concerning the program in areas they serve. Permanent records indicating the date a community was notified as containing identified flood hazard areas, communities participating in the program, and communities eligible to participate but not participating in the program will be maintained in the State Office. County Supervisors will notify, in writing, those borrowers whose insurable buildings are located in designated flood or mudslide hazard areas of the availability of national flood insurance and encourage them to obtain flood insurance to protect their and the Government's financial interest.
( c ) *Community.* Communities are required to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program within 1 year after notification of its formal identification as a community containing one or more special flood and mudslide prone areas, or by July 1, 1975, whichever is later, or be denied Federal financial assistance or Federally-related financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in such areas. Communities wishing to qualify for the program may submit a completed application to: Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
( d ) *Lender.* The lender must determine whether real property is located in an area identified as having special flood or mudslide hazards and cannot discharge the responsibility merely by obtaining a self-certification from the applicant that the property is not located in an area having special flood hazards.
[39 FR 17093, May 13, 1974, as amended at 80 FR 9865, Feb. 24, 2015]
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Youm Huh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Youm Huh                         
|Youm Huh                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President
#### Joyce Fisher, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel C. Fisher, Deceased, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 59313.)

Appeal from a judgment in favor of claimant, entered November 13,1979, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. It appears undisputed that the accident happened on April 2, 1974 at about 11:30 a.m. on Route 22 at or near the intersection with Massachusetts Route 102. At the time of the accident, it was raining “moderately” and the road was wet, but from the photographs taken shortly after the accident there appears to be no accumulation of water. The decedent was driving a tractor trailer and proceeding in a northerly direction on Route 22 down a hill approximately two miles long, which, as shown in the photographs, levels off just prior to the intersection with Route 102. There is a *953curve to the left, with the road banking to the left. There had been a series of accidents at this location and in 1973 the State resurfaced the road with macadam to a point at or near the bottom of the descending hill. There was evidence that passihg from the macadam to the concrete pavement caused a drop in friction and that the State engineers were aware of the situation as well as the general conditions existing prior to and after macadamizing the road. There was ample evidence of notice to the State of the unusual road condition. The testimony showed that there was erected at the top of the hill a sign advising that it was two miles long and that there were, in the course of the descent, various signs as to curves and other conditions. There were not, however, any signs as to the necessity for reduction of speed at or near the scene of the accident or “road slippery when wet”, which condition was well known to the State officials. As to proximate cause, the court found that the cumulative evidence supported a finding of such cause. The State raises no issue as to contributory negligence on this appeal. The claimant is entitled to the most favorable version of the evidence and in a death action the claimant is not held to as high a degree of proof as where a party can describe the occurrence. (See *Wragge v Lizza Asphalt Constr. Co.,*17 NY2d 313,320; *Noseworthy v City of New York,*298 NY 76, 80.) The judgment should be affirmed for the following reasons: (1) The State had ample notice of a hazardous condition and while some changes were made to the highway it was, under the circumstances, factual as to whether the said repairs were sufficient. The evidence sustains the court’s findings. (2) The State having such notice, there was a failure to place adequate warning signs that the road was slippery when wet and for a reduction of the speed limit. As noted above, this court’s affirmance is limited to such findings. The contention of the appellant State that the verdict is excessive is not sustainable on the record. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
May 9, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: May 4, 2011, Meeting with Evangelical Environmental Network

Attendees :

EPA: Ellen Kurlansky, OAR/OPAR

Evangelical Environmental Network: Rev. Mitchell Hescox, Evangelical Environmental Network Jennifer Haglof, National Association of Evangelicals Galen Carey, National Association of Evangelicals

Discussion :

The subject of the meeting was the mercury cont rol in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rulemaking. They wanted to understand how we de veloped our cost and benefits numbers.

On Monday, May 9, 2011, Ellen Kurlansky had a qui ck follow up meeting with Rev. Hescox and Rev Jim Ball, also of the Evangelical Envir onmental Network. They wanted to discuss the relationship between mercury de position and health effects.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 12142 Non

- Argument Calenda r

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18

- cr - 00145

- LMM

- CMS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus YADIRA GOMEZ

- GONZALEZ, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (November 21, 2019) B efore MARCUS , MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges
. PER CURIAM : The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert ,

Case: 19-12142 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 1 of 22 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily)
.

Case: 19-12142 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Sally Rand, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,635.

Opinion filed November 19, 1934.

Samuel Berke, for plaintiff in error; Mayer Goldberg, of counsel. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and John T. Gallagher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Mendez, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 9, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to thé Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 460.50 (subd 5). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: JESUS GARCIA. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00155

- CR

Appeal from

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2013DCV1647)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15 TH DAY OF DECEMB E R

, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Ruths Hospitality Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 26, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Company.

Date: November 1, 2010

By

/S/ ROBERT M. VINCENTRobert M. VincentExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofRuths Hospitality Group, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Panama City DIVISION

MARIA GARCIA ARGUELLO

COSBY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:20cv69-TKW/MJF

MHM HEALTH

PROFESSIONALS, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a), the parties, by and through 

their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action 

with prejudice, with each party bearing her or its own attorneys' fees and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Adam Ellis /s/Richard C. McCrea, Jr.

Adam Ellis; FBN 35628 Richard C. McCrea, Jr.

MARIE A. MATTOX, P. A. Florida Bar No. 351539

203 North Gadsden Street Email: mccrear@gtlaw.com

Tallahassee, FL 32301 Catherine H. Molloy

Telephone: (850) 383-4800 Email: molloyk@gtlaw.com

Facsimile: (850) 383-4801 Florida Bar No. 33500

adam@mattoxlaw.com Email: molloyk@gtlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cayla M. Page

Florida Bar No. 1003487

Email: pagec@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

101 E. Kennedy Boulevard

Case 5:20-cv-00069-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2
Suite 1900

Tampa, Florida 33602

(813) 318-5700 – Telephone

(813) 318-5900 – Facsimile

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 5:20-cv-00069-TKW-MJF Document 18 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2
#### MINER, Respondent, v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Elizabeth Miner against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
149 So.2d 764

#### NOLEN MOTOR COMPANY v. Jimmy STEPHENSON.

No. 46565.

Feb. 8, 1963.

Writ refused. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is not final as to the applicant.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-00615, 33-23667, 33-33097, 33-39700,
33-48334, 33-65480, 33-65482, 33-65484 and 33-93276) of our report, which
includes an explanatory paragraph concerning changes in methods of accounting
for impaired loans and mortgage servicing rights in 1995, dated February
22, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of PALFED,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years
ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                       COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
 

       

<S>                             <C>                  <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS               12-MOS         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995          DEC-31-1996    
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1995          JAN-01-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1995          DEC-31-1996    
<CASH>                          $3,266,388           $2,986,123    
<SECURITIES>                             0                    0            
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,335,645            2,258,936     
<ALLOWANCES>                             0                    0              
<INVENTORY>                        166,955              229,298        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 4,836,459            5,607,982      
<PP&E>                          10,073,215           17,585,571     
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,194,164            3,237,684     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  16,878,182           23,689,421    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,100,626            4,304,909      
<BONDS>                                  0                    0              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0                    0              
<PREFERRED>                              0                    0             
<COMMON>                           113,948              118,143        
<OTHER-SE>                               0                    0            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    16,878,182           23,689,421    
<SALES>                          7,867,393           12,357,165      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 7,867,393           12,357,165      
<CGS>                            2,645,730            3,735,669        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    5,059,530            6,941,284     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  26,995                6,311          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0                    0              
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  51,967               84,517         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2,872,325            5,452,006      
<INCOME-TAX>                     1,100,000            2,067,500       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1,772,325            3,384,506      
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                    0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                    0              
<CHANGES>                                0                    0            
<NET-INCOME>                     1,772,325            3,384,506       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .16                  .29            
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .15                  .28            
        

</TABLE>
#### REEVES, Respondent, v. FOURTEENTH STREET STORE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Emma A. Reeves against the Fourteenth Street Store.

No opinion. We think the evidence in this case did not justify the order setting aside the verdict. Order setting aside verdict reversed, and verdict reinstated, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 4, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Sang Park                                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Sang Park Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Second District.

#### Sybilla Florschuetz, appellee, v. City of Mendota, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,811.

Opinion filed November 15, 1934.

Rehearing denied February 5, 1935.

R. C. Madden and Butters & Butters, for appellant. H. L. Rieholson, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Huffman

delivered the opinion of the court.
EXHIBIT 1
3M United States  About 3M  History

3M History 

Here, our history inspires your future. 

More than a century ago, 3M started as a small-scale mining venture in Northern 

Minnesota, then named Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. Now a global 

powerhouse, our products improve the daily lives of people around the world. 

But our success and longevity were not apparent from the start. We tried. We failed. 

We tried something new. Repeat cycle. Innovation and perseverance drove our 

founders, and it continues to drive 3Mers today. 

From Humble Beginnings to Fortune 500 

When 3M began in 1902, our ve founders had a simple goal: to mine for corundum, a

mineral ideal for making sandpaper and grinding wheels. Turns out, what they thought 

was corundum was really another low-grade mineral called anorthosite.

Discovering the poor-quality mineral could have caused an early end to our edgling

company, but our founders persisted. Why? Because something more important was 

born that rst year: the spirit of innovation and collaboration that forms the foundation

of 3M today. So instead of calling it quits, we turned to dierent materials, applied

PRODUCTS FOR 

BUSINESS

 PRODUCTS FOR 

CONSUMERS

 ABOUT US 
1902 – Humble Beginnings 



Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was founded by Dr. J. 

Danley Budd, Henry. S. Bryan, William A. McGonagle, John Dwan and 

Hermon W. Cable in Two Harbors, MN. 

1902 – Humble Beginnings 



Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was founded by Dr. J. 

Danley Budd, Henry. S. Bryan, William A. McGonagle, John Dwan and 

Hermon W. Cable in Two Harbors, MN. 

them to other products, gained the trust of important investors and built up sales little 

by little.

Scientic, technical and marketing innovations produced success upon success over

the years, eventually making 3M a constant name on the Fortune 500 list. Today, more 

than 60,000 3M products are used in homes, businesses, schools, hospitals and other 

industries. One third of our sales come from products invented within the past ve

years, thanks to innovations from the thousands of researchers and scientists we 

employ around the world.

With corporate operations in 70 countries and sales in 200, we are committed to 

creating the technology and products that advance every company, enhance every 

home and improve every life.

Click the dots to see how 3M has evolved from 

mining for rocks to rocking innovation in science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics. 

VIEW FULL 3M TIMELINE 