alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ON COMPLAINT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BANKING AND INSURANCE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. IRVING MORESH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 28, 1938

Decided January 13, 1939.

*80For the State of New Jersey, appellant, *David T. Wilentz,*attorney-general *(Louis J. Cohen,*assistant attorney-general, of counsel).

For the respondent, *William Boorstein (Julius Lichtenstein,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Judge Oliphant.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 6.
#### Brian Chrostowski et al., Appellants, v Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously Order unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs. (See *Niemczyk v Pawlak,*76 AD2d 84.) (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—Statute of Limitations.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 3 0 1 7 6 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. M I C H A E L D A B O V A L B E S S E , J R

. , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f L o u i s i a n a U S D C N o
. 6 : 0 8

- C R

- 1 5 3

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , P R A D O , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t M i c h a e l D a b o v a l B e s s e , J r
. , h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. B e s s e h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 20 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-30176 Document: 00511085707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
### Sedimentation in Plum Creek subwatershed no. 4, Shelby County, north-central Kentucky

By: Peter W. Anttila

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1798G

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.155 Verification. ( a ) *Verification activities.* Verification activities must include, as appropriate to the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility's food safety system: ( 1 ) Validation in accordance with § 117.160.
( 2 ) Verification that monitoring is being conducted as required by § 117.140 (and in accordance with § 117.145).
( 3 ) Verification that appropriate decisions about corrective actions are being made as required by § 117.140 (and in accordance with § 117.150).
( 4 ) Verification of implementation and effectiveness in accordance with § 117.165; and
( 5 ) Reanalysis in accordance with § 117.170.
( b ) *Documentation.* All verification activities conducted in accordance with this section must be documented in records.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.142 What requirements apply to seeds or beans used to grow sprouts? In addition to the requirements of this part, all of the following requirements apply to seeds or beans used to grow sprouts. ( a ) You must take measures reasonably necessary to prevent the introduction of known or reasonably foreseeable hazards into or onto seeds or beans that you will use for sprouting.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if you know or have reason to believe that a lot of seeds or beans may be contaminated with a pathogen (either because it has been associated with foodborne illness; or based on microbial test results, including a positive finding of a pathogen in tests required under § 112.144(b)), you must: ( 1 ) Discontinue use of all seeds or beans from that lot for sprout production and ensure that sprouts grown from that lot of seeds or beans do not enter commerce; and
( 2 ) Report the information (association with illness and/or findings of microbial testing) to the seed grower, distributor, supplier, or other entity from whom you received the seeds or beans.
( c ) If your reason to believe that a lot of seeds or beans may be contaminated was based only on microbial test results: ( 1 ) You are not required to take the steps set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section if you treat your lot of seeds or beans with a process that is reasonably certain to achieve destruction or elimination in the seeds or beans of the most resistant microorganisms of public health significance that are likely to occur in the seeds or beans; or
( 2 ) You are not required to take the steps set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section if you later reasonably determine, through appropriate followup actions, that the lot of seeds or beans is not the source of contamination (*e.g.,* the lot of seeds or beans is not the source of a pathogen found in spent sprout irrigation water or sprouts).
( d ) You must visually examine seeds and beans, and packaging used to ship seeds or beans, for signs of potential contamination with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards.
( e ) You must either: ( 1 ) Treat seeds or beans that will be used to grow sprouts using a scientifically valid method to reduce microorganisms of public health significance; or
( 2 ) Rely on prior treatment of seeds or beans conducted by a grower, distributor, or supplier of the seeds or beans (whether to fulfill this requirement completely or for the purpose of considering such prior treatment when applying appropriate additional treatment of the seeds or beans at the covered farm immediately before sprouting), provided that you obtain documentation (such as a Certificate of Conformance) from the grower, distributor, or supplier that: ( i ) The prior treatment was conducted using a scientifically valid method to reduce microorganisms of public health significance; and
( ii ) The treated seeds or beans were handled and packaged following the treatment in a manner that minimizes the potential for contamination.
H. Res. 764 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 6, 2018. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Gomez (to rank immediately after Mr. Raskin), 

Mr. Welch, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Plaskett, 

and Mr. Sarbanes. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.435 Onsite audit. ( a ) An onsite audit of a supplier must be performed by a qualified auditor.
( b ) If the raw material or other ingredient at the supplier is subject to one or more FDA food safety regulations, an onsite audit must consider such regulations and include a review of the supplier's written plan (*e.g.,* Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan or other food safety plan), if any, and its implementation, for the hazard being controlled (or, when applicable, an onsite audit may consider relevant laws and regulations of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or has determined to be equivalent to that of the United States).
( c ) ( 1 ) The following may be substituted for an onsite audit, provided that the inspection was conducted within 1 year of the date that the onsite audit would have been required to be conducted: ( i ) The written results of an appropriate inspection of the supplier for compliance with applicable FDA food safety regulations by FDA, by representatives of other Federal Agencies (such as the United States Department of Agriculture), or by representatives of State, local, tribal, or territorial agencies; or
( ii ) For a foreign supplier, the written results of an inspection by FDA or the food safety authority of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or has determined to be equivalent to that of the United States.
( 2 ) For inspections conducted by the food safety authority of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or determined to be equivalent, the food that is the subject of the onsite audit must be within the scope of the official recognition or equivalence determination, and the foreign supplier must be in, and under the regulatory oversight of, such country.
( d ) If the onsite audit is solely conducted to meet the requirements of this subpart by an audit agent of a certification body that is accredited in accordance with regulations in part 1, subpart M of this chapter, the audit is not subject to the requirements in those regulations.
[80 FR 56145, Sept. 17, 2015]
#### § 3254.10 What does this part do?

This part adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) policies and procedures for nonprocurement debarment and suspension. It thereby gives regulatory effect for the NEA to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from Banyan Strategic
Land Fund II Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          72,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,046,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,067,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          528,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,539,033
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,067,283
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,019
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,554,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,500,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,500,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,500,687)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .. " :J"Jt~~~i~~t~Ji;i OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 10 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, Docket No. FAA-2012-0781 

vs. Case No. 2011 SO 700298 

BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Respondent, BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., hereby gives notice that W. Campbell 

McLean,riV, Esq., of the law firm of Gray Robinson, P .A. will be appearing as counsel of record 

in reference to the above-styled cause of action. Copies of all future pleadings and papers filed 

in this action should be served upon him at the address listed below. 

W. CAMi>BEL1MCLEAN, ESQUIRE 

Florida Bar No. 0141402 

campbell.mclean@gray-robinson.com 

Gray Robinson, P .A. 

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2700 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Telephone 813-273-5000 

Facsimile 813-273-5145 

Attorneys for Respondent 

RECEIVED 

DEC- 3 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 

v1a facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail to the following this on this 2£_ ~ <fay of 

November, 2012: 

Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

\372607\20- # 3588204 vi 

2
Exhibit
10.2





WALTER INDUSTRIES, INC.


4211 West Boy Scout Blvd.


Tampa, FL 33607


GREG HYLAND


Chairman, President and


Chief Executive
Officer


August 1, 2006


Mr. Bill Ohrt


4211 W. Boy Scout Blvd.


Suite 1000


Tampa, FL 33607


Dear Bill,


This is to confirm our agreement
regarding your retirement. You have agreed to defer your retirement from Walter
Industries until March 31, 2007. We appreciate your decision and your
willingness to assist us with the transition.


Effective August 15,
2006, you will assume the role of Executive Vice President reporting to me. In
this role you will continue to assist in preparing Mueller Water Products for
the spin-off and the synergy integration program, help with Walter Industries
tax work, provide input into acquisition activities, provide assistance to Joe
Troy in his transition to his new role as Chief Financial Officer and work with
me on other projects as assigned.


You will continue to
report to me until the spin-off of Mueller Water Products and then you will
report to the Vice Chairman of Walter Industries. Your compensation during this
time will be as follows:  annualized base
salary of $355,129, target bonus of 100% or $355,129, and auto allowance of
$18,000.  Your benefit related plans will
continue during this period of time.


You have already met the
eligibility requirements for participating in the Walter Industries, Inc. Group
Medical Plan for Retired Employees per your employment agreement dated December
28, 2000. You will have ninety days from your retirement date to exercise any
of your vested stock options.


Thank you for agreeing to
assist in making this change as smooth as possible.


	
  Best regards,

  	
   

  	
  Acknowledged:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Greg Hyland

  	
   

  	
  /s/ William Ohrt 8/7/06

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Greg Hyland

  	
   

  	
  Bill Ohrt
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1342 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat obligations financing 

professional sports stadiums as private activity bonds if such obligations 

meet the private business use test. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2017 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat obligations financing professional sports stadiums as private 

activity bonds if such obligations meet the private business use test. 

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 ‘‘Eliminating Federal 

5 Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1342 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING FEDERAL TAX SUBSIDIZATION OF 

2 PROFESSIONAL SPORTS STADIUMS. 

3 (a) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FINANC4 ING PROFESSIONAL SPORTS STADIUMS AS PRIVATE AC5 TIVITY BONDS.—Section 141(b) of the Internal Revenue 

6 Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(10) SPECIAL RULE FOR PROFESSIONAL

9 SPORTS STADIUMS.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

11 issue any proceeds of which are to be used to 

12 provide a professional sports stadium, such 

13 issue shall be treated as meeting the private se14 curity or payment test of paragraph (2). 

15 ‘‘(B) PROFESSIONAL SPORTS STADIUM.— 

16 For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘pro17 fessional sports stadium’ means any facility 

18 (and appurtenant real property) which, during 

19 at least 5 days during any calendar year, is 

20 used as a stadium or arena for professional 

21 sports exhibitions, games, or training.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date 

24 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IOWA STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Andrew Varley, Paul Franzenburg, and Christine Hansen, Defendants-Appellants, and the Office of Consumer Advocate, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84-2413-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 1985.

Decided June 26, 1986.

*365Gary D. Stewart, Des Moines, Iowa, for intervenor defendant-appellant.

Patrick J. Nugent of Iowa State Commerce Com’n, Des Moines, Iowa, for defendants-appellants.

Robert F. Holz, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and REGAN, Senior District Judge.*

*

 John K. Regan, Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

REGAN, Senior District Judge.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Central Division is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in *Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission,*— U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986) *reversing*737 F.2d 388 (4th Cir.1984).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                           3,679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,973
<PP&E>                                          86,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,639
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,769
<SALES>                                         11,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,021
<CGS>                                            7,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1



                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, Stephen L. Brown,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of Franklin  Capital
Corporation (the "COMPANY") certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending September
30,  2002 as  filed  with the  U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"REPORT") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  November 14, 2002                   /s/ Stephen L. Brown
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Stephen L. Brown
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer