alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 381.9 Unknown copyright owners.

If PBS and its stations, NPR and its stations, or other public broadcasting entity is not aware of the identity of, or unable to locate, a copyright owner who is entitled to receive a royalty payment under this part, they shall retain the required fee in a segregated trust account for a period of three years from the date of the required payment. No claim to such royalty fees shall be valid after the expiration of the three-year period. Public broadcasting entities may establish a joint trust fund for the purposes of this section. Public broadcasting entities shall make available to the Copyright Royalty Judges, upon request, information concerning fees deposited in trust funds.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. JOHN B. MOSSEL. THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES F. MILFORD.

[56 C. Cls. 502; 262 U.S. 65.]

Judgments were rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgments were *affirmed,*pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with *United States*v. *Luskey,*262 U. S. 62, Mr. Justice McKenna delivering the judgment of the court April 23,1923.
#### August Trenkmann, Appellant, *v.*Minnie L. Schneider, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Edward S. Clinch, for appellant.

Theodore Sutro, for respondent.

*809Hascall, J.

It is evident, from a reading of the case, that error was committed in the charge to the jury in statements of facts, not home out by testimony; and also that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Assuming that the plaintiff gave defendant the right to take live steam, clearly it does not appear that he conferred the' option to take from and tap the main pipe for the purpose of -heating defendant’s office. If such permission were given, it could not be presumed that it was coupled with the right, for convenience sake, or otherwise, to exhaust this live steam, after use, into a drip sewer, which would be, clearly, a reckless waste of heat and power, as the testimony shows.

It was proper for the jury to have left to its consideration, by the court, whether defendant were not liable for wasteful use, and the charge that the jury need not consider the value of the steam nor of any of the.expert testimony, was error. It having already been established by the appellate court, that the covenants of the lease, existing between the parties, were not in issue,-it was not proper to submit to the jury the proposition *“■*consider the case from the standpoint of , landlord and tenant as to what any two men under - similar circumstances would do.” This introduced speculation into the consideration of the jury, and, it may not be said, that it did not produce its verdict, as against the evidence. 20 Misc. Rep. 226; 15 Wend. 647,.

The questions for the jury to determine were whether the tapping of the pipe was with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent; arid, if it were not, then how much was plaintiff entitled to recover for steam used?

The jury may naturally have been induced, by the statement of the court, to speculate upon all the contingencies. of relationship between landlord and tenant “ in similar circumstances,” and not been guided at all by the evidence. .

Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs.

Eitzsimohs, Oh. J'., and McCarthy, J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered,, with costs.
§ 17.133 Procedures. ( a ) *Scope.* This section sets forth reconsideration procedures regarding claims for benefits administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This section applies only to legacy claims.
( b ) *Process.* An individual who disagrees with the initial decision denying the claim in whole or in part may obtain reconsideration under this section by submitting a reconsideration request in writing to the Director of the healthcare facility of jurisdiction within one year of the date of the initial decision. The reconsideration decision will be made by the immediate supervisor of the initial VA decision-maker. The request must state why it is concluded that the decision is in error and must include any new and relevant information not previously considered. Any request for reconsideration that does not identify the reason for the dispute will be returned to the sender without further consideration. The request for reconsideration may include a request for a meeting with the immediate supervisor of the initial VA decision-maker, the claimant, and the claimant's representative (if the claimant wishes to have a representative present). Such a meeting shall only be for the purpose of discussing the issues and shall not include formal procedures (e.g., presentation, cross-examination of witnesses, etc.). The meeting will be taped and transcribed by VA if requested by the claimant and a copy of the transcription shall be provided to the claimant. After reviewing the matter, the immediate supervisor of the initial VA decision-maker shall issue a written decision that affirms, reverses, or modifies the initial decision.
Note to § 17.133 :
The final decision of the immediate supervisor of the initial VA decision-maker will inform the claimant of further appellate rights for an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0600) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 511, 38 U.S.C. 7105)
[64 FR 44660, Aug. 17, 1999, as amended at 87 FR 43748, July 22, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Membership of the Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Missile Defense Agency. The 
publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
    The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive 
Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding 
performance ratings and performance scores to the Director, MDA.

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Rawdon, MDA SES Program Manager, 
Missile Defense Agency, Arlington, Virginia, (703) 693-1575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following executives are appointed to the MDA PRB:

RDML Joseph A. Horn, USN
Mr. David Altwegg
Ms. Nancy Morgan
Mr. Richard Matlock
Ms. Mary Lacey.
    Executives listed will serve a one-year term, effective September 
2, 2009.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-22796 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
July 1, 2015

Mr. Michael O’Conner

9121 Aspen Ave, NE

Albuquerque, NM 87112

Dear Mr. O’Conner:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 26, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2483), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Amend. #2 to Employment Agreement with CEO



 Exhibit 10.30 
  
 MEDSTONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT #2 
 Chief Executive Officer 
  
 This Medstone International, Inc. Employment Agreement Amendment #2 (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective November 6, 2003, by and between Medstone International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(“Medstone”), and David V. Radlinski (“Employee”), as the second amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated August 13, 1998, between Medstone and Employee. 
  
 Whereas, the original term of the Employment Agreement was to be for five (5)
full years from the effective date of the Employment Agreement, and 
  
 Whereas, by prior amendment effective July 24, 2003, the term of the Employment Agreement was extended to expire on December 31, 2003, and 
  
 Whereas the parties to the Employment Agreement desire to further extend the term thereof to expire on June 30, 2004, 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED between Medstone and the Employee that:

  
 (i)  the term of the Employment
Agreement is hereby extended to expire on June 30, 2004; 
  
 (ii)  for purposes of Sections 9 (c) and (e) of the Employment Agreement, any qualifying event which would give Employee the right to severance and/or consulting payments, which event occurs during the
extended term of the Employment Agreement, will be deemed to have occurred in the fifth (5th) year of the term of the Employment Agreement; 
  
 (iii)  a merger in which Medstone is the surviving corporation but in which the shareholders of Medstone just prior to the
merger are no longer shareholders in Medstone after the merger, shall be an event which gives Employee the right to severance and/or consulting payments under Sections 9 (c) and (e) of the Employment Agreement; 
  
 (iv)  the entering into by Employee of an
employment agreement with a buying or a surviving entity shall not be an event which precludes employee from receiving the benefits to which he is otherwise entitled under Sections 9 (c) and (e) of the Employment Agreement as long as the intent and
purpose of such employment agreement is to fulfill the buying party’s obligation to retain employee as a consultant or employee under Section 9 (e) of the Employment Agreement; and 
  
 (v)  all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect as
stated in the Employment Agreement, except that such terms and conditions shall be interpreted to effectuate the intents and purposes of this Amendment. 
  

	 Medstone International, Inc.,
 A Delaware corporation
	 	 	 	 Employee

					
	By:	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 	
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 Mark Selawski
 CFO & Corporate Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 David V. Radlinski
§ 224.2 Dismissal for unsuitability. ( a ) *Review by Copyright Claims Attorney.* During the compliance review under § 224.1, the Copyright Claims Attorney shall review the claim or counterclaim for unsuitability on grounds set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(3). If the Copyright Claims Attorney concludes that the claim should be dismissed for unsuitability, the Copyright Claims Attorney shall recommend to the Board that the Board dismiss the claim and shall set forth the basis for that conclusion.
( b ) *Dismissal by the Board for unsuitability.* ( 1 ) If, upon recommendation by a Copyright Claims Attorney as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section or at any other time in the proceeding upon the request of a party or on its own initiative, the Board determines that a claim or counterclaim should be dismissed for unsuitability under 17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(3), the Board shall issue an order stating its intention to dismiss the claim without prejudice.
( 2 ) Within 30 days following issuance of an order under paragraph (b) of this section, the claimant or counterclaimant may request that the Board reconsider its determination of unsuitability. If the proceeding is active, the respondent or counterclaim respondent may file a response within 30 days following filing of the claimant's request. A request or response made under this paragraph shall not exceed 7 pages and shall meet the requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter.
( 3 ) Following the expiration of the time for the respondent or counterclaim respondent to submit a response, the Board shall render its final decision whether to dismiss the claim for unsuitability.
( c ) *Request by a party to dismiss a claim or counterclaim for unsuitability.* At any time, any party who believes that a claim or counterclaim is unsuitable for determination by the Board may file a request providing the basis for such belief. An opposing party may file a response within 14 days setting forth the basis for such opposition to the request. A request or response made under this paragraph shall meet the requirements set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter.
[87 FR 17007, Mar. 25, 2022, as amended at 87 FR 30081, May 17, 2022; 87 FR 77521, Dec. 19, 2022]
Retention Bonus Agreement dated as of June 27, 2003



 EXHIBIT 10.21 
  
 New York Community Bancorp, Inc. 
 615
Merrick Avenue 
 Westbury, New York 11590 
  

June 27, 2003 
  
 R. Patrick Quinn 
 The Roslyn Savings Bank 
 One Jericho Plaza 
 Jericho, New York 11753-8905 
  
 Dear Patrick: 
  
 I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certain
additional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and New York Community Bank (the “Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between the Holding Company and Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 
  
 At such time as you become an employee of the Holding Company and the Bank
under your new employment agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement, you will receive a retention bonus of $600,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employment
after the Effective Time other than by reason of an “Event of Termination” (as defined in your new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-day
period, you will immediately return to the Holding Company a portion of the retention bonus equal to the product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period and
the denominator of which is 365. 







 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the Merger
Agreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 
  
 Please
acknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 
  

	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Joseph R. Ficalora


	 Joseph R. Ficalora
 President and Chief Executive Officer



  

	 Acknowledged and Agreed:

	
	 /s/ R. Patrick Quinn


	 R. Patrick Quinn


  

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                           5,838
<SECURITIES>                                        61
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                       365
<INVENTORY>                                     14,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,384
<PP&E>                                          15,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,780
<BONDS>                                          4,997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,769
<OTHER-SE>                                         791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,952
<SALES>                                         16,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,524
<CGS>                                           12,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (125)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    454
<INCOME-TAX>                                       189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                266
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (238)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        28
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### § 381.3 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2089 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2089

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana 
                 Armed Services Veterans Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2007

Mr. Jefferson (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Baker, Mr. Boustany, Mr. 
 Jindal, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Melancon) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana 
                 Armed Services Veterans Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOUISIANA ARMED SERVICES VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Louisiana 
Armed Services Veterans Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

219) IV-C-186 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 219 of 232 
P.2 

Mr. Robert H. Elliott 

15688 Northville Forest Drive 

Plymouth, MI 48170 

Dear Mr. Elliott: 

This is in response to your November 4, 1991 letter to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding onboard refueling 

vapor recovery systems. In your letter, you expressed concern 

regarding resolution by EPA of the onboard safety issue and the use 

of "phase II" service station vapor recovery systems, given the 

November 15th deadline set by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

We appreciate your interest in this rulemaking. 

EPA is proceeding with the rulemaking process for onboard 

controls as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. As 

part of this process, Congress directed the EPA to consult with the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard system safety. 

This consultation is well underway. The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of the DOT, released 

a study of onboard system safety in July 1991. We are reviewing 

this study and have placed a copy in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. We also held a public hearing on September 26th and 

27th in order to solicit comments from the public on this issue. 

Written comments were accepted through October 27th. Approximately 

30 written comments were received. Many of the points raised in 

the newspaper articles attached to your letter were raised in the 

comments. We are in the process of making the final determination 

on how to proceed with the rule based on DOT's conclusions 

regarding safety risks of onboard systems and on the record 

developed during the comment period. Of course we are interested 

in receiving any additional information you may have on vapor 

recovery systems. 

|!J!p in 

T\ JAN I R 1992 

; i 
P.3 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. Your letter 

will be included in the public docket. Please feel free to contact 

Dan Barba of my staff at (313) 668-4515 if you require any 

additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles L. Gray, Jr. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11