alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.60 Turbine drip oils. ( a ) *Definition.* Products that are lubricants for use in drip lubrication systems for water well line shaft bearings, water turbine bearings for irrigation pumps, and other turbine bearing applications.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 87 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than October 18, 2011, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased turbine drip oils. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased turbine drip oils.
[75 FR 63701, Oct. 18, 2010]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2531 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers questions 

regarding religious, political, or social beliefs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Mr. ROSKAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers questions regarding religious, political, or social 

beliefs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Taxpayers 

5 from Intrusive IRS Requests Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELI7 GIOUS, POLITICAL, OR SOCIAL BELIEFS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Internal Revenue Service 

9 shall not ask any taxpayer any question regarding reli10 gious, political, or social beliefs. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2531 IH

1 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXCEP2 TIONS.—It is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are 

4 provided by later enacted provisions of law should 

5 identify the specific questions which are authorized, 

6 the class of taxpayers to which such questions are 

7 authorized to be asked, and the circumstances under 

8 which such questions are authorized to be asked, 

9 and 

10 (2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 

11 Service determines that asking any class of tax12 payers a question prohibited under subsection (a) 

13 would aid in the efficient administration of the tax 

14 laws, such Commissioner should submit a report to 

15 Congress which— 

16 (A) includes such question in the verbatim 

17 form in which it is to be asked, 

18 (B) describes the class of taxpayers to 

19 whom the question is to be asked, and 

20 (C) describes the circumstances that would 

21 be required to exist before the question would 

22 be asked. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Summary of 2005 Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
  
 SUMMARY OF 2005 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
  
 Pursuant to the determination of the Compensation Committee and effective beginning April 1, 2005, each non-employee
director will receive (i) a quarterly retainer of $5,000, (ii) a fee of $1,000 for each Board meeting that the non-employee director attends and (iii) reimbursement for all expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings. In addition,
directors who serve on the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive a fee of $500 for each such committee meeting attended. The Chairperson of the Audit Committee will receive a quarterly
retainer of $1,750, the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee will receive a quarterly retainer of $750 and the Chairperson of Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive a quarterly retainer of $500. In addition, the Lead
Director will receive $500 per meeting. 
  
 In addition to the
foregoing cash compensation, each non-employee director will receive, upon initial election to the Board of Directors, (i) an option for the purchase of 11,250 of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on
the date of grant and (ii) a grant of 1,563 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock at no cost to the non-employee director. Each of these grants vest in three, equal annual installments commencing on the first anniversary of the day of
grant. In addition, each non-employee director will receive (i) a quarterly grant of 417 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock at no cost to the non-employee director and (ii) a fully vested option for the purchase of 3,000 shares of
the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the date of grant. The quarterly restricted stock grants vest in three, equal annual installments commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant.
#### § 29.56 Permissive inspection.

Permissive inspection consists of inspection, including sampling and weighing, and certificating tobacco upon the request of an interested party. Upon such request, the Director may authorize and require an inspector, as a part of his duties, to supervise the preparation of tobacco to be inspected under the Act, including the sorting, handling, conditioning, or packing of such tobacco. Special tests and services may be performed for interested persons to the extent that available facilities will permit, subject to the payment of fees as provided in § 29.123.

[13 FR 9474, Dec. 31, 1948; 19 FR 57, Jan. 6, 1954, as amended at 64 FR 67470, Dec. 2, 1999; 65 FR 36782, June 12, 2000]
AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 



        Pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”), dated January 1, 2008, by and between OSHKOSH CORPORATION, a
Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”), and CHARLES L. SZEWS (the
“Executive”), Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of
February 1, 2009, to read in its entirety as follows: 



        (a)       Base
Salary. Subject to adjustment in accordance with this subsection           (a), the
Executive shall receive a base salary at the annual rate of not less           than
$665,000. The Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the
          Company (the “Committee”) shall review the Executive’s base
          salary annually to determine whether such salary should be increased.
          Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the period from February 1, 2009 to
September           30, 2009, the Executive shall receive a base salary at an annual rate
that           represents a 10% reduction from the annual rate in effect on January 31,
2009,           and as of the close of business on September 30, 2009, the annual rate in
effect           on January 31, 2009 will be reinstated. (In this Agreement, the term
“Base           Salary” shall mean the amount established and adjusted from
time to time           pursuant to this subsection (a).)  




	OSHKOSH CORPORATION	EXECUTIVE
	

By:  /s/ Robert G. Bohn	/s/ Charles L. Szews
	        Name:  Robert G. Bohn	Charles L. Szews
	        Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	

Attest:_______________________________
	         Name:____________________________
	         Title:_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Israel V. Lao, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated August 9, 1965, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of (1) holding a new hearing, (2) assigning counsel to represent appellant on such hearing and (3) making a determination *de novo*on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Ho questions of fact were considered by this court. It was error for the Special Term to deny appellant’s request that counsel be assigned to represent him and to dismiss the writ without granting the request *(People ex rel. King*v. *Fay,*25 A D 2d 778; *People ex rel. Slade*v. *Follette,*26 A D 2d 823). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALWINDER KAUR DHILLON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70669 

Agency No. A079-268-243 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 24, 2021**

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Balwinder Kaur Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen 

proceedings.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70669 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of 

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

We previously denied Dhillon’s petition for review of the agency’s 

determination that she was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Dhillon v. Holder, 561 F. App’x 

633 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did not abuse 

its discretion by denying her untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA observed, 

Dhillon did not introduce new evidence that reflects materially changed 

circumstances in India or that would likely have changed the outcome of her case. 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see Young Sun Shin v. 

Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Petitioners] who seek to remand 

or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if 

proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the 

case.” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.79.2

                          SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

      THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into by and between Arizona
Public Service Company ("APS") and James M. Levine ("Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

      WHEREAS, APS and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated
October 11, 2002 as amended by that certain Amendment to Agreement effective as
of October 11, 2002 (collectively, the "Agreement");

      WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the provisions of the Agreement
relating to incentive pay and the issuance of equity incentives to Employee;

      NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2005, the Agreement is amended
as follows:

      1. Section 4(a) is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section
4(a) is inserted in lieu thereof:

            (a) Incentive Pay. Employee will be allowed to participate in any
annual officer incentive plan and to receive incentive payments thereunder based
on Employee's position and the attainment of specified objectives (e.g.,
earnings, business unit, and individual objectives), all in accordance with the
terms of any such plan.

      2. Section 4(b) is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section
4(b) is inserted in lieu thereof:

            (b) Equity Incentives. Employer agrees to request the Human
Resources Committee (the "Committee") to grant Employee equity incentive awards
under the 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "2002 Plan") in the same form as,
and in an amount equivalent to 65% - 85% of, each of the annual base grants
awarded to a member of the Office of the President (the "President") under the
2002 Plan. Any special awards granted to the President shall not be deemed
subject to this provision.

      3. Section 4(c) is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section
4(c) is inserted in lieu thereof:

            (c) In addition to (b) above, Employer agrees to request the
Committee to grant Employee 2000 performance shares each year under the 2002
Plan, all in accordance with the terms of the 2002 Plan and as otherwise agreed
upon by the parties.

<PAGE>

      4. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the terms and conditions in the
Agreement remain in full force and effect.

                                           Arizona Public Service Company

Date: 3-11-05                         By: /s/ Jack Davis
      ------------------                  ---------------------------------
                                          Jack Davis
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: 3-11-05                             /s/ James M. Levine
      ------------------                  ---------------------------------
                                          James M. Levine
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
 ACTION: Biennial publication of allotment percentages for States under the Title IV-B subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program (CFDA No. 93.645).
 SUMMARY: As required by section 423(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 623(c)), the Department is publishing the allotment percentage for each State under the Title IV-B Subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program. Under section 423(a), the allotment percentages are one of the factors used in the computation of the Federal grants awarded under the Program.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         The allotment percentages shall be effective for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Bell, Grants Fiscal Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Administration, Administration for Children and Families, telephone (202)      401-4611.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The allotment percentage for each State is determined on the basis of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 423 of the Act. These figures are available on the ACF homepage on the internet: 
                    *http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/​programs/​cb/​.*
                     The allotment percentage for each State is as follows: State
Allotment percentageAlabama
54.53Alaska
41.42Arizona
53.58Arkansas
56.07California
40.94Colorado
41.93Connecticut
23.23Delaware
45.05District of Columbia
30.00Florida
46.18Georgia
52.77Hawaii
42.88Idaho
55.71Illinois
42.35Indiana
53.34Iowa
49.11Kansas
46.71( print page 71711)Kentucky
56.42Louisiana
43.37Maine
50.80Maryland
34.70Massachusetts
31.61Michigan
52.76Minnesota
42.33Mississippi
58.75Missouri
50.92Montana
52.74Nebraska
46.55Nevada
46.27New Hampshire
41.36New Jersey
30.84New Mexico
55.07New York
35.54North Carolina
52.17North Dakota
45.79Ohio
51.40Oklahoma
51.22Oregon
50.56Pennsylvania
45.58Rhode Island
43.83South Carolina
55.71South Dakota
48.10Tennessee
52.92Texas
47.53Utah
56.27Vermont
47.13Virginia
39.82Washington
41.42West Virginia
57.52Wisconsin
49.00Wyoming
34.07American Samoa
70.00Guam
70.00N. Mariana Islands
70.00Puerto Rico
70.00Virgin Islands
70.00
 Dated: November 16, 2010. Bryan Samuels, Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.


[FR Doc. 2010-29662 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

37) ll-A-30 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM Sheet 37of 106 
P.2 

/ 

fATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor 

* RESOURCES BOARD 

2020 L STREET 

P.O. BOX 2815 

SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 

September 15, 1993 

The Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D'C, 20460 

Dear Ms. Browner: 

On September 14, 1993, the California Air Resources Board mailed a 

letter from James D. Boyd, requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency grant a waiver to California for its regulations regarding on-board 

diagnostic system requirements for 1994 and later passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty vehicles. That letter, at page 14 in reference to 

the enclosures, inadvertently stated that an executive order, formally 

adopting the 1993 amendments, had to date not been signed. In fact, 

Executive Order G-851 was signed on August 16, 1993 and was included as part 

of the enclosures to that letter under tab (5). 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me 

at (916) 322-3283. 

Sincerely, 

0^ 

Michael L. Terris 

Senior Staff Counsel 

cc: Leila Cook 

fi t% 

Q 

fl 10 

\K A 'A 
P.3 

V-. 

it: 

-~yt>s / 

's. 

•'• /
#### § 295.1 General statement.

This part is issued in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR 1.1-1.23, and appendix A, implementing the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The Secretary's regulations, as implemented by the regulations in this part, govern the availability of records of FNS to the public.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**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 SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, 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 the Company.





/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
                Financial OfficerOctober
                16, 2008
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

#### § 283.1 Meaning of words.

As used in this part, words in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural, and vice versa, as the case may require.
exv10w1






EXHIBIT 10.1




	 	 	 
	

	 	1919 North Lynn Street


Arlington, VA 22209

	 
	 	 
	 

	 	TELEPHONE : 571-303-3000


	 

	 	FAX: 571-303-4000


	 

	 	www.executiveboard.com






April 28, 2009




Mr. Richard
Lindahl
 



Dear Rich:



I am pleased to confirm our agreement with respect to separation benefits during your first year of
employment.



In particular, we have agreed that, if your employment is terminated without “Cause” on or before
May 17, 2010, and provided that you execute a separation agreement and release in a form acceptable
to CEB, CEB will provide you with: (A) twelve months of base salary, payable in equal installments
over the twelve months following your termination, and commencing no later than the later of the
December 31 next- following the termination or 2-1/2 months after the termination; (B) a pro rata
target bonus for the year in which the termination occurs, payable in a lump sum within thirty days
of termination; and (C) continuation for twelve months of the same or equivalent health benefit
coverage as you were receiving immediately prior to termination at active employee rates, subject
to reduction or elimination to the extent you receive substantially equivalent coverage from any
successor employer. Payments under this letter agreement are in lieu of any severance or other
payments you may have been entitled to receive under any other agreement, plan or policy (including
but not limited to the Change in Control Severance Agreement between you and CEB), and any payments
under any such agreement, plan or policy shall offset dollar-for-dollar the amounts payable
hereunder.



For purposes of this letter agreement, “Cause” shall mean your commission of a material act of
fraud, theft or dishonesty against CEB; conviction for any felony; or willful non-performance of
material duties which is not cured within sixty (60) days after receipt of written notice to you.




Except to the extent expressly set forth herein, this letter agreement shall not alter your status
as an at-will employee who may be terminated (and who may resign) at any time with or without cause
and with or without notice.




Sincerely,





/s/ Mr. Thomas L. Monahan III

Chief Executive Officer




Agreed to and accepted:




	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Richard Lindahl
	 	April 28, 2009
	 	 
	 

Richard Lindahl

	 	 

Date
#### George C. Schmitz, appellee, v. Walgreen Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,018.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Markheim *So*Allie, for appellant; • Harry Markheim and A. R. Miller, of counsel. Packard, Barnes, McCaughey & Schumacher, for appellee; George Packard and Russell J. McCaughey, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 3300.49 Application for renewal of approval.

If an organization wishes to have an approval renewed at the end of a 5-year period, it shall submit a request for renewal to the Administrator 90 days before expiration of the existing approval. The request for renewal shall contain the same type of information as required in the original application, that is, the information called for in § 3300.43 of subpart E.
#### § 2903.6 Project types.

OEPNU intends to award continuation grants to successful Biodiesel Fuel Education Program applicants. A continuation grant is a grant instrument by which the Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a predetermined project period with a statement of intention to provide additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and continued government support would be in the best interest of the Federal government and the public. If these three elements are met, OEPNU plans to provide additional support to the funded project(s).
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 1:20cv117-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JASON TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv117-RH-GRJ

MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 4. No objections have been filed. The case is plainly 

subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted. The clerk must enter judgment 

stating, “This case is dismissed without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 29, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00117-RH-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 1