alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 600.172 Subsequent adjustments and continuing responsibilities. ( a ) The closeout of an award does not affect any of the following. ( 1 ) The right of DOE to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review.
( 2 ) The obligation of the recipient to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.
( 3 ) Audit requirements in § 600.126.
( 4 ) Property management requirements in §§ 600.131 through 600.137.
( 5 ) Records retention as required in § 600.153.
( b ) After closeout of an award, a relationship created under an award may be modified or ended in whole or in part with the consent of DOE and the recipient, provided the responsibilities of the recipient referred to in paragraph 600.173(a), including those for property management as applicable, are considered and provisions made for continuing responsibilities of the recipient, as appropriate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         165,147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,147
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 433,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          541,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,734
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   433,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (348,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (348,977)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (348,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (348,977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARAN L. ZOPATTI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RANCHO DORADO HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION and THE PRESCOTT

COMPANIES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56447

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01091-DMSWVG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 3, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District 

Judge.

** 

Karan Zopatti appeals two orders of the district court: one excluding the

testimony of her proffered experts and another granting summary judgment in

favor of defendants Rancho Dorado Homeowners Association and The Prescott

FILED

JUL 18 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Companies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court

reviews a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony for abuse of

discretion and a decision granting summary judgment de novo. See Primiano v.

Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). We have considered all of plaintiff’s

arguments in favor of reversal and find them unavailing.1 The district court did not

abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff’s experts and there is no genuine issue of

material fact that would preclude summary judgment on any of plaintiff’s

numerous claims for relief.

AFFIRMED.

1 Because the parties’ briefs and excerpts of record were filed under

seal, we decline to discuss them in detail.

2
§ 765.2 Scope and applicability. ( a ) This part establishes policies, criteria, and procedures governing reimbursement of certain costs of remedial action incurred by licensees at active uranium or thorium processing sites as a result of byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the United States.
( b ) Costs of remedial action at active uranium or thorium processing sites are borne by persons licensed under section 62 or 81 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2092, 2111), either by NRC or an Agreement State pursuant to a counterpart to section 62 or 81 of the Atomic Energy Act, under State law, subject to the exceptions and limitations specified in this part.
( c ) The Department shall, subject to the provisions specified in this part, reimburse a licensee, of an active uranium or thorium processing site for the portion of the costs of remedial action as are determined by the Department to be attributable to byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the United States and either incurred by the licensee not later than December 31, 2007, or incurred by the licensee in accordance with a plan for subsequent remedial action approved by the Department.
( d ) Costs of remedial action are reimbursable under Title X for decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action, provided that claims for reimbursement are supported by reasonable documentation as specified in subpart C of this part.
( e ) Except as authorized by § 765.32, the total amount of reimbursement paid to any licensee of an active uranium processing site shall not exceed $6.25 multiplied by the number of Federal-related dry short tons of byproduct material. This total amount shall be adjusted for inflation pursuant to section 765.12.
( f ) The total amount of reimbursement paid to all active uranium processing site licensees shall not exceed $350 million. This total amount shall be adjusted for inflation by applying the CPI-U, as provided by § 765.12.
( g ) The total amount of reimbursement paid to the licensee of the active thorium processing site shall not exceed $365 million, as adjusted for inflation by applying the CPI-U as provided by § 765.12.
( h ) Reimbursement of licensees for costs of remedial action will only be made for costs that are supported by reasonable documentation as required by § 765.20 and claimed for reimbursement by a licensee in accordance with the procedures established by subpart C of this part.
( i ) The $715 million aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated under section 1003(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2296a-2(a)) shall be adjusted for inflation by applying the CPI-U as provided by § 765.12, and shall be provided from the Fund.
[59 FR 26726, May 23, 1994, as amended at 68 FR 32957, June 3, 2003]
#### DE MAURIAC et al., Appellants, v. BYRNES, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by Guy M. De Mauriac and others against Ophelia *A.*Byrnes.

H. A. Schoenfield, of New York City, for appellants. H. Aaron, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 162 App. Div. 900, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1089.
#### § 766.105 Payment procedures.

DOE shall specify payment details and instructions in all Special Assessment invoices. Each domestic utility shall make payments to the Fund by wire transfer to the Department of Treasury.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 
 I, Emil
H. Soika, President and Chief Executive Officer of Criticare Systems, Inc.,
certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Criticare Systems,
Inc.;
 
 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 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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 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: May
12, 2005
 /s/
Emil H.
Soika
 Emil H.
Soika
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 
  2
#### § 52.107 Application for renewal.

The filing of an application for a renewed license must be in accordance with 10 CFR part 54.
PGI Part 226 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC

PROGRAMS

PGI 226.1 -INDIAN INCENTIVE PROGRAM

PGI 226.103 Procedures.

Parent topic: PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI 226.1 -INDIAN INCENTIVE PROGRAM

PGI 226.103 Procedures.

(1) Submit a request for funding of the Indian incentive to—

Director, the Office of Small Business Programs

201 12th Street South, Suite 406

Arlington, VA 22202-5411.

(2) Upon receipt of funding from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Industrial

Policy), Office of Small Business Programs, issue a contract modification to add the Indian incentive

funding for payment of the contractor’s request for adjustment as described in the clause at DFARS

252.226-7001, Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native

Hawaiian Small Business Concerns.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 424 

Congratulating the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (in this resolution referred to as ‘‘NATCA’’) on the celebration of its 30th anniversary and recognizing its members’ vital contributions to the United 

States and our National Airspace System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, and 

Mr. LOBIONDO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (in this resolution referred to as ‘‘NATCA’’) on 

the celebration of its 30th anniversary and recognizing 

its members’ vital contributions to the United States 

and our National Airspace System. 

Whereas NATCA was certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on June 19, 1987, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all air traffic control specialists 

located at terminal and center facilities of the Federal 

Aviation Administration; 

Whereas NATCA has become one of the most well-respected 

labor unions and today represents a workforce of nearly 

20,000 highly skilled air traffic controllers, engineers, 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 424 IH 

and other aviation safety professionals within the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Department of Defense, and 

Federal Contract Towers; 

Whereas NATCA preserves, promotes, and improves the 

rights and working conditions of air traffic controllers 

and other aviation safety professionals through all lawful 

means, including collective bargaining, legislative activities, and contributing to civic and charitable organizations; 

Whereas NATCA preserves, promotes, and improves the professionalism and competence of air traffic controllers and 

other aviation safety professionals; 

Whereas NATCA preserves, promotes, and improves the safety and efficiency of our National Airspace System within 

the United States, its territories, and possessions, as well 

as United States controlled oceanic airspace; and 

Whereas NATCA’s members are dedicated to maintaining the 

safest, most complex, and most efficient airspace in the 

world by guiding approximately 70,000 flights per day 

and ensuring that nearly 900 million passengers per year 

arrive safely at their destinations: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates and honors the National Air 

3 Traffic Controllers Association on the celebration of 

4 the 30th anniversary of its certification; and 

5 (2) commends the critical functions performed 

6 every day by the National Air Traffic Controllers 

7 Association’s members who keep the National AirVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR424.IH HR424

SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 424 IH 

1 space System safe and help preserve the United 

2 States as the global leader in aviation. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### NASSAU COTTAGE & REALTY CO., Appellant, v. ESTATES OF LONG BEACH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by the Nassau Cottage & Realty Company against the Estates of Long Beach.

No-opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 10.12(B)





Exhibit 10.12(b)




Schedule identifying

Non-Employee Directors of Park National Corporation

covered by

Split-Dollar Agreements, made and entered into effective as of December 28, 2007




The following directors of Park National Corporation (“Park”) are covered by Split-Dollar
Agreements (the “New Split-Dollar Agreements”) as identified below, which Split-Dollar Agreements
are identical to the form of Split-Dollar Agreement, made and entered into effective as of December
28, 2007, filed as Exhibit 10.2(a) to Park’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 2, 2008 (File
No. 1-13006):



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Subsidiary of Park which is a Party to	 	Date of New Split-
	Name of Director	 	New Split-Dollar Agreement	 	Dollar Agreement
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Maureen H. Buchwald

	 	The Park National Bank (as successor
by merger to The First-Knox National
Bank of Mount Vernon)
	 	December 28, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	James J. Cullers

	 	The Park National Bank (as successor
by merger to The First-Knox National
Bank of Mount Vernon)
	 	December 28, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	F. William Englefield IV

	 	The Park National Bank
	 	December 28, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	John J. O’Neill

	 	The Park National Bank
	 	December 28, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Rick R. Taylor

	 	The Park National Bank (as successor
by merger to The Richland Trust
Company)
	 	December 28, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Leon Zazworsky

	 	The Park National Bank
	 	December 28, 2007
#### § 62.5 Specific exemptions.

The Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant an exemption from the requirements of the regulations in this part that it determines is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 773 

To require the Department of Defense to utilize managed print services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2017 

Ms. MENG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Department of Defense to utilize managed 

print services. 

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 ‘‘Department of Defense 

5 Managed Print Services Utilization Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) On December 5, 2016, Craig Whitlock and 

9 Bob Woodward of the Washington Post published an 

10 article entitled ‘‘Pentagon Buries Evidence of $125 

11 Billion in Bureaucratic Waste’’ (‘‘Article’’). 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 773 IH

1 (2) In this article, Whitlock and Woodward 

2 made public the Defense Business Board report 

3 ‘‘Transforming DOD’s Core Business Processes for 

4 Revolutionary Change’’ (‘‘Report’’). 

5 (3) Recommendations on page 22 of the report 

6 state that a ‘‘move to managed print services’’ pre7 sents a ‘‘20–30% savings opportunity’’ which would 

8 save the American taxpayer millions of dollars annu9 ally. 

10 SEC. 3. MANAGED PRINT SERVICES. 

11 The Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent prac12 ticable, pursue managed print services within the Depart13 ment of Defense. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40798 Conference Calendar

LANEY J. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:94-CV-58

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Laney J. Harris appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to effect timely service of process. He contends that he has shown good cause for his failure to timely serve the defendant because there was allegedly no one in the clerk’s office during his many visits there. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasonsNo. 97-40798 -2- stated by the district court. See Harris v. West , No. 5:94cv58 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 1997). The district court’s judgment does not specify whether the dismissal of Harris’s civil rights action was with or without prejudice. The district court’s dismissal therefore operated as an adjudication on the merits. See Hilliard v. Board of Pardons & Paroles , 759 F.2d 1190, 1193 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is MODIFIED to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT MODIFIED.
### FILED U.S.COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 11/23/99 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

* Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 96-2306

_______________ D. C. Docket No. 95-55-CIV-T-21-E DWAYNE HAWKINS, MILLARD G. RIPLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

______________________________ (November 23, 1999) Before BIRCH, Circuit Judge, FAY, Se nior Circuit Judge, and COHILL * , Senior District Judge.1 The certified question, as rephrased, is identical to our original question but for the insertion of the word “corporate.” 2 PER CURIAM: The facts in this case are set out in our prior opinion in which we certified a controlling issue of law to the S upreme Court of Florida. See Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co. , 135 F.3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1998). The S upreme Court of Florida rephrased 1 our original certified question as follows: Does section 320.643(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provide the exclusive basis for objection by a motor vehicle manufacturer to a proposed transfer of all the equity in terest in a corporate motor vehicle dealership? On October 14, 1999, The Supreme Court of Florida in Case Number 92,503, Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co. responded as follows: . . . we answer the re phrased certified question in the negative and hold that the entire transaction must be analyzed and multiple statutory provisions considered depending on the structure of the entire transaction which, as here, may involve both a transf er of all the equity interest in a corporate motor vehicle dealersh ip and a change in executive management control of that dealership. (footnote omitted). Based upon the holding of the Supreme C ourt of Florida on the determinative issue of Florida law in this case, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
#### COHEN v. GANZ.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Judgment (§ 167*)—Default—Vacation—Cost—Carelessness of Attorney’s Clerk—Conditions.

Where a default judgment was rendered against defendant because of the carelessness of a clerk in the office of defendant’s attorney, the default would be set aside on condition that defendant pay $10 costs and file an undertaking to secure the amount of the judgment rendered.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 326, 330, 333, 334; Dec. Dig. § 167.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Jacob Cohen, an infant, by David Cohen, his guardian ad litem, against Meyer Ganz. From a Municipal Court order denying defendant’s motion to open his default, he appeals. Reversed on condition.

Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.

Lyman A. Spalding, of New York City (Thomas J. Skelly, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Goldstein & Goldstein, of New York City (Abraham Cupton, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep'r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The default seems to have been the result of the carelessness of a clerk in the office of defendant’s attorney. The ap*89plication to open the default should, we think, have been granted upon terms.

Order affirmed, with costs, unless the defendant within five days will pay $10 costs and furnish an undertaking to secure the amount of the judgment rendered, in which event the order is reversed, default opened, judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.