alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Nicholas Swanson/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

Date: 07/10/2012 02:13 PM 

Subject: Pulp and Paper (subpart S) notes 

________________________________________

Cortney, 

Attached are some notes on the Pulp and Paper industry and our current status. Thank you. 

-------

Nicholas B. Swanson

OAQPS/ SPPD/ Natural Resources Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 T. W. Alexander Drive (E140-L)

Research Triangle, NC 27711

Office: (919) 541-4080
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is effective as of January 1, 2012 (the “Effective Date”)
by and between Guy Cook (“Employee”) and Bacterin International, Inc. (“Employer”). Employee and
Employer are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the
Parties entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) on January 1, 2006;


 


WHEREAS, the
term of the Agreement expired on December 31, 2011; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement, and make other amendments to the Agreement, as set forth in this Amendment.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1.The term of the Agreement shall be
extended from the date of this Amendment until December 31, 2012.


 


2.The Section entitled “Compensation;
Reimbursement” shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


 


A.Base Pay. Employer agrees
to pay Employee gross annual compensation of $500,000, less usual and customary withholdings, which shall be payable in arrears
in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices. Employee will also receive
bonus or other incentive compensation as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


 


B.Benefits. During Employee’s
employment, Employee shall be eligible to participate in Employer’s benefits programs, as summarized and as governed by any
plan documents concerning such benefits.


 


C.Reimbursement. Employer
will reimburse Employee for any and all necessary, customary and usual expenses incurred while traveling on behalf of Employer.


 


3.All other provisions of the Agreement
shall remain unchanged.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this First Amendment to Employment Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


 





	
        Bacterin International,
        Inc.

         
	 	 	Employee	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Darrel L. Holmes	 	 	/s/ Guy Cook	 
	Name:	Darrel L. Holmes	 	 	Guy Cook	 
	Title:	COO	 	 	Personally
Averill 

Pond

Brandywine Creek

Stanford Run

Hines Hill Road

closed to cars

271

* No direct access 

 to Brandywine Falls 

 area from Interstate

Twinsburg

Road

Stanford

R

oad

Brandywine Road

to 

Route 8

Inn at

Brandywine

Falls

*

Stanford Road

to Boston, 

Boston Mills Road, 

& Riverview Road

to Highland Road 

& Aurora Road 

(Route 82)

to Highland Road 

& Vaughn Road 

Towpath Trail

Bike & Hike Trail

Stanford Trail

0.8

0.3

steps

steps

Lock

33

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.4

Brandywine

Gorge Trail

Stanford House

Brandywine Falls

to 

Route 8

0

0

0.25 Kilometers

0.3 Miles

Brandywine Gorge Trail

Stanford Trail

Connector Trail

Other Trails

Parking

Picnic Area

Restrooms

Camping (primitive)

Contour intervals: 10 feet 

Trail locations approximate

Upper & Lower Boardwalks

FALLS

North

Updated 2/2012

0.2 Distance between arrows

(in miles)

Brandywine Falls Area

Brandywine Gorge Trail

Distance (Loop) ............ 1.4 miles 

Time .................................. 1 hour

Rating ....... moderate to difcult

Elevation 

Change ..... 160 feet (steep steps)

Stanford Trail

Distance ....................... 1.7 miles

Time ............................. 1.3 hours

Rating ...... moderate to difcult

Elevation

Change .... 190 feet (steep steps)

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cuyahoga Valley National Park
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1034

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the health insurance

tax deduction for self-employed individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1995

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the health insurance tax deduction for self-employed individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN HEALTH INSURANCE TAX DEDUC4 TION FOR SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

5 (a) INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION.—Para6 graph (1) of section 162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance costs

8 of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking ‘‘25

9 percent of’’ and inserting ‘‘100 percent (50 percent in the

10 case of taxable years beginning in 1997 or 1998 and 75
2

•HR 1034 IH

1 percent in the case of taxable years beginning in 1999 or

2 2000) of’’.

3 (b) TREATMENT OF SELF-EMPLOYED CONTRIBU4 TIONS TO CERTAIN GROUP HEALTH PLANS.—Paragraph

5 (2) of section 162(l) of such Code is amended by adding

6 at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:

7 ‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF GROUP HEALTH

8 PLANS.—For purposes of this subsection, an

9 amount paid into an exempted multiple em10 ployer health plan (as defined in section 701(9)

11 of the Employee Retirement Income Security

12 Act of 1974, as added by the ERISA Targeted

13 Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995) shall be

14 deemed to be an amount paid for insurance

15 which constitutes medical care.’’

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

18 December 31, 1996.

Æ
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERNAN ISMAEL DELGADO, 

Petitioner, No. 03-74442

v. Agency No.  A078-461-226 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney

General, ORDER

Respondent. 

Filed September 2, 2010

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

13801
#### § 1.822-3 Amortization of premium and accrual of discount.

Section 822(d)(2) makes provision for the appropriate amortization of premium and the appropriate accrual of discount, attributable to the taxable year, on bonds, notes, debentures or other evidences of indebtedness held by a mutual insurance company subject to the tax imposed by section 821. Such amortization and accrual is the same as that provided for life insurance companies by section 803(i), except that in determining the premium and discount of a mutual insurance company subject to the tax imposed by section 821 the basis provided in section 1012 shall be used in lieu of the acquisition value.

[T.D. 6681, 28 FR 11113, Oct. 17, 1963, as amended by T.D. 9849, 84 FR 9236, Mar. 14, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 223 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 223

   Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to considering 
               addiction to nicotine to be a disability.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

Ms. Greene of Utah (for herself and Mr. Hansen) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Economic 
                     and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to considering 
               addiction to nicotine to be a disability.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that addiction to nicotine should 
not be considered to be a disability for purposes of title I of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and sections 503 and 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
October 25, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver
131247 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices RICK PETERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 131247

v COA: 266177 WCAC: 03-000260 MAGNA CORPORATION and MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CASUAL TY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants. and

KOLEASECO and THE ACCIDENT FUND COMPANY, MAGNA CORP ORATION and TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, BCN TRANSPORTATION SE RVICES and TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, KOLEASECO and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, BCN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,SERTA RESTOKRAFT MATTRESS COMPANY and HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

AMENDMENT TO ORDER

On order of the Court, the order of September 27, 2006 is amended to correct a clerical error by correc ting the case title to read as set forth above to accurately reflect the identity of the appellants.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 25, 2006
Clerk
#### § 1.72-3 Excludable amounts not income.

In general, amounts received under contracts described in paragraph (a)(1) of § 1.72-2 are not to be included in the income of the recipient to the extent that such amounts are excludable from gross income as the result of the application of section 72 and the regulations thereunder.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Vega, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 642]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered March 6, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*681The defendant and his accomplice, the codefendant A1 Augugliaro, shot and killed Tommy Hill in Kissena Park in Queens. At the trial, several witnesses testified that the defendant and the codefendant were drug dealers and one witness testified that the defendant and the codefendant knew the victim and that he purchased drugs from them. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony about his drug-related activities was admissible to establish his motive to commit the crimes charged and to complete the narrative of the events leading up to the murder *(see People v Porter,*256 AD2d 363 [1998]; *People v Collins,*220 AD2d 610 [1995]). Additionally, the evidence of the drug-related activities was admissible to provide the jury with a thorough understanding of the defendant’s relationship with the prosecution witnesses, particularly why the defendant would speak freely to those witnesses about having committed the murder *(see People v Devino,*254 AD2d 9 [1998]; *People v Williams,*240 AD2d 213 [1997]; *People v Bernard,*224 AD2d 192 [1996]).

Further, as there were no facts in the record supporting a prima facie case *(see People v Smocum,*99 NY2d 418 [2003]; *People v Childress,*81 NY2d 263 [1993]), the court properly rejected the defendant’s *Batson*challenge *(see Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.7701-5 Domestic and foreign business entities. ( a ) *Domestic and foreign business entities.* A business entity (including an entity that is disregarded as separate from its owner under § 301.7701-2(c)) is domestic if it is created or organized as any type of entity (including, but not limited to, a corporation, unincorporated association, general partnership, limited partnership, and limited liability company) in the United States, or under the law of the United States or of any State. Accordingly, a business entity that is created or organized both in the United States and in a foreign jurisdiction is a domestic entity. A business entity (including an entity that is disregarded as separate from its owner under § 301.7701-2(c)) is foreign if it is not domestic. The determination of whether an entity is domestic or foreign is made independently from the determination of its corporate or non-corporate classification. See §§ 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3 for the rules governing the classification of entities.
( b ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the rules of this section: Example 1. (i) *Facts.* Y is an entity that is created or organized under the laws of Country A as a public limited company. It is also an entity that is organized as a limited liability company (LLC) under the laws of State B. Y is classified as a corporation for Federal tax purposes under the rules of §§ 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3. (ii) *Result.* Y is a domestic corporation because it is an entity that is classified as a corporation and it is organized as an entity under the laws of State B.
Example 2. (i) *Facts.* P is an entity with more than one owner organized under the laws of Country A as an unlimited company. It is also an entity that is organized as a general partnership under the laws of State B. P is classified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes under the rules of §§ 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3. (ii) *Result.* P is a domestic partnership because it is an entity that is classified as a partnership and it is organized as an entity under the laws of State B.
( c ) *Effective date* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the rules of this section apply as of August 12, 2004, to all business entities existing on or after that date.
( 2 ) *Transition rule.* For business entities created or organized under the laws of more than one jurisdiction as of August 12, 2004, the rules of this section apply as of May 1, 2006. These entities, however, may rely on the rules of this section as of August 12, 2004.
[T.D. 9246, 71 FR 4817, Jan. 30, 2006]
EXHIBIT
31.1



RULE
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION



I,
Ron Levy, certify that:



|1. | I
    have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The Crypto Company; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|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.



|Date:
    April 4, 2019 | /s/
    Ron Levy                                                                                               
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Ron
    Levy                                                                                                   
|                        | Chief
                                         Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and
        Secretary
|                        | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 39

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the number of consecutive years a person may serve in or be employed

by the Government of the United States or be employed to affect the

policies and programs of the Government of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota introduced the following joint resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States limiting the number of consecutive years a person

may serve in or be employed by the Government of

the United States or be employed to affect the policies

and programs of the Government of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
2

HJ 39 IH

1 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

2 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

3 States within 7 years after the date of its submission for

4 ratification:

5 ‘‘ARTICLE—

6 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person may serve as a Representa7 tive or Senator for more than twelve years unless there

8 is an abeyance of the service of no less than four consecu9 tive years.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person employed by the executive

11 branch of the Government may be stationed within the

12 District of Columbia metropolitan area for more than

13 twelve years unless there is an abeyance of the employ14 ment of no less than four consecutive years.

15 ‘‘SECTION 3. No person may be employed by the Con16 gress for more than twelve years unless there is an abey17 ance of the employment of no less than four consecutive

18 years.

19 ‘‘SECTION 4. No person may be employed for the pur20 pose of affecting the consideration or passage of legislation

21 by the Congress or the implementation of legislation by

22 the executive branch of the Government for more than

23 twelve years unless there is an abeyance of the employ24 ment of no less than four consecutive years.
3

HJ 39 IH

1 ‘‘SECTION 5. No person may serve any term or por2 tion thereof as a Representative or Senator, nor shall said

3 person be employed by the Congress or employed for the

4 purpose of affecting the consideration or passage of legis5 lation by the Congress or the implementation of legislation

6 by the executive branch of the Government for more than

7 twelve years cumulatively unless there is an abeyance of

8 the service or employment of no less than four consecutive

9 years.

10 ‘‘SECTION 6. For the purposes of this article, service

11 or employment which commenced before ratification of

12 this article may not be included in determining the num13 ber of years served or employed.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Whitehurst, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 267]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 17, 2004 *(People v*Whitehurst, 7 AD3d 738 [2004]), modifying a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 28, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, S. Miller and Luciano, *JJ.,*concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 82 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 82

To authorize the production of records by the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 25 (legislative day, March 3), 1993

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the production of records by the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

Whereas, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has conducted an investigation of 
        serious management problems at the National Archives and Record 
        Administration;
Whereas, as a result of its investigation, the Committee referred matters that 
        it had investigated to executive branch agencies for investigation and 
        appropriate action;
Whereas, the Department of Justice has requested access to records of the 
        Committee's investigation as part of the inquiry resulting from the 
        Committee's referral;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; 
        and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to 
provide to the Department of Justice records of testimony and exhibits 
received by the Committee in its investigation of management problems 
at the National Archives and Records Administration, except for 
materials for which a privilege should be asserted.

                                 <all>
```