alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4784 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4784

    To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2020

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

    Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2020'' and inserting ``April 30, 2022''.

SEC. 2. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``October 21, 2029'' 
        and inserting ``November 25, 2029''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``October 21, 
        2029'' and inserting ``November 25, 2029''.
    (b) Rate for Merchandise Processing Fees.--Section 503 of the 
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
112-41; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note) is amended by striking ``October 21, 
2029'' and inserting ``November 25, 2029''.
                                 <all>
```
COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

                  AMENDMENT NO. 12 OF THE 1989 PLAN RESTATEMENT


          Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  (the  "Company")  hereby  amends  the
Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan"),  as
amended and restated in its  entirety  effective  April 1, 1989,  and as further
amended by Amendment  Nos. 1 through 11, as permitted  under Section 11.1 of the
Plan, as follows:

          1.   Section  7.1,  entitled  "Time  of  Distributions",   is  amended
               effective March 28, 2005 by changing Section 7.1(d)(1) to read as
               follows:

          "(1) REQUIREMENT OF PARTICIPANT'S CONSENT. If the aggregate value of a
Participant's Account Balance exceeds $5,000, no distribution to the Participant
shall be made before the  Participant  attains Normal  Retirement Age unless the
Participant is given the notice  described in Section  7.1(d)(1)(A) and consents
in writing to earlier  payment.  Such notice and  consent  shall not be required
after the death of the  Participant.  If the aggregate  value of a Participant's
Account Balance exceeds $1,000, no distribution to the Participant shall be made
before the  Participant  attains Normal  Retirement  Age unless the  Participant
affirmatively   elects  whether  the  payment  will  be  made  directly  to  the
Participant or to an eligible retirement plan as a direct rollover."

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  this instrument of amendment has been executed by
a duly authorize officer of the Corporation this 17th day of March,  2005, to be
effective as of the dates recited herein.


                                       COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION

                                       By     /S/ TIMOTHY R. HARVEY
                                              -----------------------

                                       Title: Corporate Secretary
                                              ----------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Salvatore Scata, Joseph Bolognia, Theodore DiDonne, Dominick Zizzo, Sam Kimmel and Eugene Bruno, Appellants.

(Argued October 13, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*603
      *Jacob W. Friedman*and *Edward B. Wallace*for Salvatore Scata, appellant.

*Louis J. Castellano*for Joseph Bolognia, appellant.

*Benjamin C. Ribman*and *Milton H. Goldstricker*for Theodore DiDonne, appellant.

*Samuel S. Leibowitz*and *Osmond K. Fraenkel*for Dominick Zizzo and Eugene Bruno, appellants.

*Jack H. Delbick*and *Leo Healy*for Sam Kimmel, appellant.

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

As to each defendant, judgment of conviction affirmed. The error in the judge’s charge as to the effect of a promise by the Assistant District Attorney did not in our opinion affect the substantial right of the defendants. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Finch, JJ. Dissenting as to defendants Kimmel, Bruno and Zizzo; Lehman and Loughran, JJ.
Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room Wl2-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Extension of exemption 10234 

To Whom it May Concern 

Acadian Seaplanes LLC 

2640 Main Street PO Box 987, Rangeley, Maine 04970 

(207 )864-5307 www.AcadianSeaplanes.com 

Acadian SeaplanesLLC is seeking an extension of exemption 10234 from 14 CFR (FAR Section) Part: 120.225(b); 

120.117(b ). Our business has not changed and we would like to continue to cover our safety sensitive employees under 

one drug testing program, subject to our current conditions and limitations. The docket number for this exemption is 

FAA-2011-0268. 

I had sent an electronic request dated 1/16/2013 but have not heard back. 

Sincerely 

,k:J~ /)J;,t~/;v?vl~ Keith Deschambeault
#### Charles Sommers *vs.*Max Adelman.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

April Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

In an action for personal injuries, a verdict for the plaintiff based solely upon his testimony respecting his exercise of due care, which is not only improbable in itself but is directly contradicted by all four of the other witnesses of the accident, two of whom were called by the plaintiff, may properly be set aside by the trial court as an unreasonable conclusion of the jury.

Argued April 11th—

decided June 1st, 1917.

' Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the jury before *Simpson, J.;*verdict for the plaintiff for $150, which the trial court *597set aside as against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.

*No error.*

*Robert J. Woodruff,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Philip Pond,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The trial judge set aside the verdict rendered for the plaintiff, for the reason that he had failed to present evidence from which the jury reasonably could have reached the conclusion that he was free from contributory negligence.

The testimony given by the plaintiff, if accepted as true, furnished a reasonable basis for the finding that he was in the exercise of due care. That of the only other witnesses, who profess to have been present upon the scene of the accident, and observers of what transpired, while not fully in accord with each other, were alike inconsistent with the plaintiff’s story and with the exercise by him of reasonable care. These witnesses were four in number: two produced on behalf of the plaintiff and two on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff’s case, in so far as the element of care on his part is concerned, stands entirely upon his own testimony. That testimony, in so far as it touched the matter of vital importance, bears such marks of improbability, and is so opposed to that of the other witnesses, that the trial judge was justified in holding that it was so overwhelmingly disproved and discredited that the verdict of the jury, based upon an acceptance of it, could not have been arrived at reasonably.

There is no error.
#### MATHENY et v ZINK

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9747.

Decided March 11, 1929

E D Lewis, Cleveland, for Matheny.

Klein, Harris & Diehm, Cleveland, for Zink.

*268VICKERY, PJ.

We have the situation of a man appealing to equity to have a lien removed from premises because he claims he had a prior deed when on the very face of it, it shows at best that he got this deed and recorded it by a trick.

Now a well known maxim of equity is that “he who seeks equity must do equity” and another maxim just as overpowering and prevailing is that “a man must come into equity with clean hands.” He is seeking by a subterfuge to have his deed placed on record before the attachment, or while, by agreement amongst all the parties, the attachment was released with the distinct understanding that the case would be heard and the matter thrashed out and the rights of all the parties established..Not waiting, for that, he seeks by a subterfuge to circumvent the judgment of the court and thus deprive Mrs. Zink, the mother, of the security for the money which she loaned to her daughter, and for which she got judgment.

We think that on this record the lien of Mrs. Zink is a valid subsisting and bona fide lien upon this property, and it was before the plaintiff had acquired any deed to the property, and when he went into possession, if he did so, he knew all the circumstances and' he knew the claims, and he is not in a position that the law would favor. In other words, he is in a court of equity, and the equities do not seem to be in his favor.

For that reason a decree may be entered for the defendant refusing, to quiet title against this lien. Order see journal.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
#### STATE ex HUNTINGTON NAT BANK v PUTNAM, Mayor etc.

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21663.

Decided June 12, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Actions (10 M2b)

(360 B) Where notes of a municipality have been duly issued and sold in anticipation of the levy of special assessments for the issuance of bonds, pursuant to the authority conferred by 3914 GC, the remedy of mandamus is available to the holder of such notes, where the municipal authorities have refused to levy such special assessment or to issue and sell bonds for the purpose' of procuring funds to pay said notes ,and the interest thereon.

Marshall, ,-CJ,. Kinkade, Jones and Day, JJ, ‘concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously finds this case 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

MICHAEL DEMETRIUS BAILEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

D. D. COX, Lieutenant; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-55463

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00225-SJO-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Demetrius Bailey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due

process violations arising from a disciplinary proceeding and placement in

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
/Research 2 08-55463

segregated housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified

immunity grounds on Bailey’s claims against defendant Cox because the law was

not clearly established that the conditions to which Bailey was exposed in

segregated housing imposed an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081 (9th

Cir. 2003).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bailey’s claims

against the remaining defendants because Bailey failed to raise a triable issue as to

whether these defendants proximately caused the injury of which Bailey

complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person

deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of

which the plaintiff complains.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

(emphasis in original).

Bailey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
# SUMMARY:

 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

## Summary of Proposals

                        (1)                         *Collection title:*                         Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions Under the RUIA.                    

                        (2)                         *Form(s) submitted:*                         DC-1.                    

                        (3)                         *OMB Number:*                         3220-0012.                    

                        (4)                         *Expiration date of current OMB clearance:*                         3/31/2000.                    

                        (5)                         *Type of request:*                         Extension of a currently approved collection.                    

                        (6)                         *Respondents:*                         Business or other for-profit.                    

                        (7)                         *Estimated annual number of respondents:*                         550                    

                        (8)                         *Total annual responses:*                         2,200.                    

                        (9)                         *Total annual reporting hours:*                         917.                    

                        (10)                         *Collection description:*                         Railroad employers are required to make contributions to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance fund quarterly or annually equal to a percentage of the creditable compensation paid to each employee. The information furnished on the report accompanying the remittance is used to determine correctness of the amount paid.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Wendy Taylor (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1202 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
§ 93.71 General operating procedures. ( a ) Flight restrictions are in effect below 3,500 feet MSL in the airspace above Niagara Falls, New York, west of a line from latitude 43°06′33′′ N., longitude 79°03′30′′ W. (the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge) to latitude 43°04′47′′ N., longitude 79°02′44′′ W. (the Niagara River Inlet) to latitude 43°04′29′′ N., longitude 79°03′30′′ W. (the International Control Dam) to the United States/Canadian Border and thence along the border to the point of origin.
( b ) No flight is authorized below 3,500 feet MSL in the area described in paragraph (a) of this section, except for aircraft operations conducted directly to or from an airport/heliport within the area, aircraft operating on an ATC-approved IFR flight plan, aircraft operating the Scenic Falls Route pursuant to approval of Transport Canada, aircraft carrying law enforcement officials, or aircraft carrying properly accredited news representatives for which a flight plan has been filed with Buffalo NY (BUF) Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS).
( c ) Check with Transport Canada for flight restrictions in Canadian airspace. Commercial air tour operations approved by Transport Canada will be conducting a north/south orbit of the Niagara Falls area below 3,500 feet MSL over the Niagara River.
( d ) The minimum altitude for VFR flight over the Scenic Falls area is 3,500 feet MSL.
( e ) Comply with the following procedures when conducting flight over the area described in paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) Fly a clockwise pattern;
( 2 ) Do not proceed north of the Rainbow Bridge;
( 3 ) Prior to joining the pattern, broadcast flight intentions on frequency 122.05 Mhz, giving altitude and position, and monitor the frequency while in the pattern;
( 4 ) Use the Niagara Falls airport altimeter setting. Contact Niagara Falls Airport Traffic Control Tower to obtain the current altimeter setting, to facilitate the exchange of traffic advisories/restrictions, and to reduce the risk of midair collisions between aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Falls. If the Control Tower is closed, use the appropriate Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) Frequency;
( 5 ) Do not exceed 130 knots;
( 6 ) Anticipate heavy congestion of VFR traffic at or above 3,500 feet MSL; and
( 7 ) Use caution to avoid high-speed civil and military aircraft transiting the area to or from Niagara Falls Airport.
( f ) These procedures do not relieve pilots from the requirements of § 91.113 of this chapter to see and avoid other aircraft.
( g ) Flight following, to and from the area, is available through Buffalo Approach.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-13235, 68 FR 9795, Feb. 28, 2003]
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Thomas Kidd, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ R. Thomas Kidd  ______________________________________ R Thomas Kidd Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer August 18, 2006
#### STEPHENSON v. GAYLE.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. B. Smith.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Robert J. Wheeler, for appellee;

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11692]



[[Page 30182]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending April 14, 2000

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7231.
    Date Filed: April 11, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 2, 2000.
    Description: Application of Air-Serv, Inc. d/b/a AirServ 
(``AirServ'') pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 41102, Parts 201, 204 and 
Subpart B, applies for a certificate of public convenience and 
necessity to authorize it to engage in foreign charter air 
transportation of persons, property and mail.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7232.
    Date Filed: April 11, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 2, 2000.
    Description: Application of Air-Serv, Inc. d/b/a AirServ 
(``AirServ'') pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 41102, Parts 201, 204 and 
Subpart B, applies for a certificate of public convenience and 
necessity to engage in interstate charter air transportation of 
persons, property and mail.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7251.
    Date Filed: April 13, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 4, 2000.
    Description: Application of C.A.L. Cargo Air Lines Ltd. 
(``C.A.L.'') pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 41302, Part 211.20 and 
Subpart B, applies for an initial foreign air carrier permit to provide 
foreign air transportation of property and mail between Tel Aviv and 
New York (JFK)/Chicago (O'Hare) via Luxembourg and Gander, Newfoundland 
and to provide all cargo foreign air transportation under charter 
pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR Part 212.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-11692 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30775

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARK HOLPER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:08-CR-142-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Mark Holper has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Holper has filed a response. Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, and Holper’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-30775 Document: 00511085803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map.Salmon-Challis National Forest. Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District
 
 
2012:East | West
2014:East | West
2016:East | West
2017:East | West
 
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:SA 3/17/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000933811
 
February 12, 2018**