alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.871-4 Proof of residence of aliens. ( a ) *Rules of evidence.* The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
( b ) *Nonresidence presumed.* An alien by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
( c ) *Presumption rebutted* — ( 1 ) *Departing alien.* In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof— ( i ) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
( ii ) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
( iii ) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
( 2 ) *Other aliens.* In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof— ( i ) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
( ii ) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
( iii ) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
( d ) *Certificate.* If, in the application of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
Re:HPV2CASRN68479-98-1 68479-98-1 68479-98-1 Albemarle data for review Albemarle data for review Albemarle data for review (Docket reference Docket reference Docket reference 

2007-0531-0677 ) 2007-0531-0677)5attachments attachments 

Chuantung Lin Chuantung Lin to: Paul Campanella 09/06/2012 03:18 PM

Cc: John Schaeffer, Kathy Calvo, Marcus Aguilar, Tracy Williamson, 

Myrta Christian

Hi Paul,

The subject line indicated there were 5attachments attachments attachments , but only three were attached only three were attached only three were attached in this email. Do I miss 

any attachment?

Regarding these three test results from the testing of Vapor Pressure (V.P.), Log Kow, and Water 

Solubility endpoints, all the tested results and the test methods used in each endpoint testing are reviewed 

and they are adequate and acceptable to EPA to fulfill the test requirements for these three endpoints.

Please let me know If you have any question regarding this matter. Thanks!

Daniel

______________________________________________

Dr. Daniel Chuantung Lin 

Industrial Chemistry Branch

Office of Chemicals Safety and Pollution Prevention

US EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (7406M)

Washington, DC 20460

[Deliveries to: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, 

EPA East, Room#:5133E, Washington, DC 20460]

202-564-8584 (direct)

202-564-8740 (branch)

202-564-8679 (fax)

Paul Campanella Daniel, Please review the attached data submis... 09/06/2012 12:35:40 PM

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: Chuantung Lin/DC/USEPA/US

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marcus Aguilar/DC/USEPA/US, Kathy 

Calvo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/06/2012 12:35 PM

Subject: HPV2 CASRN 68479-98-1 Albemarle data for review ( Docket reference 2007-0531-0677) 5 

attachments

Daniel, Please review the attached data submission and give us your opinion regarding the adequacy of 

the data for the test rule. Thanks

Albemarle A5 Water Solubility.pdfAlbemarle A3 Vapor Pressure .pdfAlbemarle A4 Octanol water.pdf

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch
Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 82 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 82

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 523.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 1995

  Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 523.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 523) to amend the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry 
out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-
effective manner, and for other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In the last sentence of paragraph (1) of section 1 of 
        the bill (adding a new paragraph (6) to section 202(a) of the 
        Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act) insert a period 
        after the words ``submits such report''.
            (2) In paragraph (2)(B) of section 1 of the bill (amending 
        section 205(a)(4)(i) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
        Control Act) strike ``section 202(a) (4) and (5)'' and insert 
        ``sections 202(a) (4) and (5)''.
            (3) At the end of paragraph (4) of section 1 of the bill 
        (amending section 202(b)(4) of the Colorado River Basin 
        Salinity Control Act) strike the period before the closing 
        quotation marks.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF OWL ROCK CAPITAL CORPORATION

 

|                        |                |
|------------------------|----------------|
| Name                   | Jurisdiction   |
| OR LENDING LLC         | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC FINANCING II LLC  | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC FINANCING III LLC | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC FINANCING IV LLC  | DELAWARE       |
| OWL ROCK CLO I, LLC    | DELAWARE       |
| OWL ROCK CLO I, LTD    | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OWL ROCK CLO II, LLC   | DELAWARE       |
| OWL ROCK CLO II, LTD   | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OWL ROCK CLO III, LTD  | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OWL ROCK CLO IV, LTD   | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OWL ROCK CLO V, LTD    | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OWL ROCK CLO VI, LTD   | CAYMAN ISLANDS |
| OR AH I LLC            | DELAWARE       |
| OR DH I LLC            | DELAWARE       |
| OR GH I LLC            | DELAWARE       |
| OR MH I LLC            | DELAWARE       |
| OR HH I LLC            | DELAWARE       |
| OR HEH I LLC           | DELAWARE       |
| OR PCF I LLC           | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC BC 2 LLC          | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC BC 3 LLC          | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC BC 4 LLC          | DELAWARE       |
| ORCC BC 5 LLC          | DELAWARE       |
| OR ATLANTA MH LLC      | DELAWARE       |
| OR GARDEN STATE MH LLC | DELAWARE       |
| OR JEMICO MH LLC       | DELAWARE       |
| OR LONG ISLAND MH LLC  | DELAWARE       |
| OR MIDWEST MH LLC      | DELAWARE       |
| OR TORONTO MH LLC      | DELAWARE       |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18881]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to 
the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      License No.              Name/address            Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000692F................  A. R. Savage & Son,      May 27, 2009.
                          Inc., 701 Harbour Post
                          Drive, Tampa, FL 33602.
020815N................  F.E.P.A. Enterprises,    July 3, 2009.
                          Inc., dba FEPA
                          Logistics (USA), 17010
                          Buffalo Peak Court,
                          Humble, TX 77346.
004186N................  Hanmi Shipping, Inc.,    July 10, 2009.
                          2694 Coyle Ave., Elk
                          Grove Village, IL
                          60007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. E9-18881 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NO. 12-13-00221-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAY HARTSELL, 

APPELLANT

V.

DONALD RAY PARRISH,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 392ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal in which they state that they 

have settled their dispute. After reviewing the motion, the court is of the opinion that it should 

be granted. Accordingly, Appellant and Appellee’s joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The costs of this appeal are taxed to the party 

incurring them.

Opinion delivered September 24, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

NO. 12-13-00221-CV

JAY HARTSELL,

Appellant

V.

DONALD RAY PARRISH,

Appellee

Appeal from the 392nd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012B-1006A)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the joint motion of the Appellant and 

the Appellee to dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted

and the appeal be dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance. 

The costs of the appeal are taxed to the party incurring them.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM D. DUNNE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

D. SMITH; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16342

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that a prison

FILED

OCT 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16342

policy restricting access to newspapers and magazines in the Special Housing Unit

violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.

2001). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunne failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the policy is not reasonably

related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 901 (“[A] regulation that

impinges upon a prisoner’s constitutional rights is valid if the regulation is

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)). Nor did Dunne raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether he was actually denied access to the law library and reading material.

 See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009)

(discussing the requirements of a Bivens action, including the deprivation of a

federal right).

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 22, 2020 

# Order

Clerk July 22, 2020

153828 (8 5 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 153828

v COA: 324018

Wayne CC: 14

- 000152

- FC

THEODORE PAUL WAFER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED

. The brief wil l be accepted as timely filed

if submitted on or before August 17, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JOANNE TAYLOR-COTTEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 16-cv-2036 (KBJ)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.., )

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 27, 2017, the defendants in this matter filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s amended complaint. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19.) The Local Civil 

Rules of this Court provide that “[w]ithin 14 days of the date of service or at such other 

time as the court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of 

points and authorities in opposition to the motion [or] the Court may treat the motion as 

conceded.” LCvR 7(b). To date, plaintiff’s counsel has neither filed an opposition to 

the motion nor requested more time to do so. Therefore, the Court will GRANT the 

defendants’ motion as conceded and will DISMISS this action without prejudice.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: May 9, 2018 Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
EX-10.5.D



 





Exhibit 10.5d




Amendment No. 4 to the

Selective Insurance Group, Inc.

2005 Omnibus Stock Plan



The Selective Insurance Group, Inc. 2005 Omnibus Stock Plan, as amended, is amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	Section 2(n) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“Director Compensation” shall mean the annual compensation payable to a
Non-Employee Director for his or her service as a member of the Board, including,
but not limited to, annual director fees, committee fees and committee chairperson
fees.
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 4(c) is deleted in its entirety.
	 
	 	3.	 	The first sentence of Section 5 shall be deleted and replaced with the
following:
	 
	 	 	 	The persons who shall be eligible to receive Awards pursuant to the Plan shall be
such employees of the Company or any of its Affiliates (including officers of the
Company or any of its Affiliates, whether or not they are directors of the Company
or any of its Affiliates) and non-employee directors of the Company or any of its
Affiliates, in each case as the Committee shall select from time to time.
	 
	 	4.	 	Except as set forth in this Amendment No. 4, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect.
November 1, 1999


North American Vaccine, Inc.
10150 Old Columbia Road
Columbia, Maryland  21046
Attention:  Dr. Randal Chase
            Chief Executive Officer and President


      Re:   $30,000,000 Senior Credit Facility


Dear Dr. Chase:

Bank of America,  N.A.  ("Bank of America")  is pleased to offer North  American
Vaccine,  Inc., a Canadian  corporation (the  "Borrower"),  a $30 million Senior
Secured Credit  Facility (the  "Facility").  Bank of America is pleased to offer
its  commitment  to lend up to $30  million,  upon and  subject to the terms and
conditions of this letter and the letter loan agreement dated  November 1, 1999
(the "Loan Agreement")  delivered by Bank of America and acknowledged and agreed
to by Borrower and Guarantor.

This letter is delivered to you in connection  with the Loan  Agreement.  Unless
otherwise  defined herein,  capitalized  terms shall have the meanings set forth
therein.  The  execution  and  delivery  of this  letter is a  condition  to the
effectiveness of the Loan Agreement. In connection with, and in consideration of
the agreements set forth in the Loan Agreement, the Borrower agrees with Bank of
America as follows:

      STRUCTURING FEE. At  Closing, the Borrower will pay a  structuring  fee of
      $25,000 to Bank of America for its own account.

By  acceptance  of this  letter,  the  Borrower  agrees  to pay  all  reasonable
out-of-pocket  fees  and  expenses  (including  reasonable  attorneys'  fees and
expenses and the allocated cost of internal  counsel)  incurred  before or after
the date hereof by us in connection  with the Facility;  provided that the legal
fees and expenses of internal  counsel at Bank of America in connection with the
Closing  of the  Facility  shall be covered by the  structuring  fee  referenced
above. The structuring fee payable above shall be fully-earned upon becoming due
and payable,  shall be non-refundable  for any reason whatsoever and shall be in
addition to any other fee, cost or expense payable pursuant to the Facility.






<PAGE>


North American Vaccine, Inc.
November 1, 1999
Page 2


The terms of this  letter  are  confidential  and,  except for  disclosure  on a
confidential  basis  to  your  accountants,  attorneys  and  other  professional
advisors  retained by you in connection  with the Facility or as may be required
by law,  may not be  disclosed in whole or in part to any other person or entity
without our prior written consent.









         [The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank].






<PAGE>


North American Vaccine, Inc.
November 1, 1999
Page 3




Very truly yours,


BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


By:     /s/ Lawrence J. Gordon
        ----------------------------------
Name:   Lawrence J. Gordon
Title:  Vice President


Accepted and Agreed to
as of November 1, 1999:



NORTH AMERICAN VACCINE, INC., as Borrower


By:    /s/ Randal Chase
       -----------------------------------
Name:  Randal Chase, Ph.D.
       -------------------
Title: Chief Executive Officer & President
       -----------------------------------


[*]

---------------

*  Confidential treatment requested.
#### The Hartford Steam Service Company *v.*John L. Sullivan, Tax Commissioner

King, C. J., Murphy, Alcorn, Comley and House, Js.

Argued June 3

decided June 16, 1964

*William W. Fisher,*with whom, on the brief, was *Colin C. Tait,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Walter T. Faulkner,*assistant attorney general, with whom were *F. Michael Ahern,*assistant attor*688ney general, and, on the brief, *Harold M. Mulvey,*attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Murphy, J.

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the assessment by the defendant of a 4 percent tax on the gross earnings of the plaintiff for the calendar year 1961. The plaintiff asserted that it was not liable for the tax on its gross earnings but instead should have been assessed a tax on its net income as a company carrying on business in this state. From the judgment dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff has taken this appeal.

The plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hartford Gas Company, started in business in May, 1961. It furnishes steam for heat and chilled water for cooling to a group of buildings in the central business district of Hartford. In 1961, the plaintiff received $89,100, or 75.45 percent of its gross earnings, from steam service and $28,900, or 24.55 percent of its gross earnings, from furnishing chilled water.

General Statutes § 12-264 imposes an annual tax upon the gross earnings from operations in this state of municipal utilities and of certain companies in the utility field, including those whose principal business is the manufacture, sale or distribution of gas, electricity or steam to be used for light, heat or power. These companies are specifically exempted from payment of the corporate business tax on net income imposed by § 12-214. The plaintiff is a company whose principal business in 1961 was within the category of those subject to the tax on gross earnings under the provisions of § 12-264.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 14th

day of October, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

BRENDA BREWER, DEANNA MEADOR, PENNY ADAMS

AND SABRA CURRY, Appellants

NO. 12-14-00155-CV; Trial Court No. 3-41083

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC., Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the 

Appellants, BRENDA BREWER, DEANNA MEADOR, PENNY ADAMS AND SABRA 

CURRY, for which execution may issue, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 28th day of December, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk