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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### State Department

###### [Public Notice #3279] 

The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 28 and 29, at the Drake Hotel, Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b[c] [1] and [4], it has been determined the meeting will be closed to the public. Matters relative to classified national security information as well as privileged commercial information will be discussed. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a world threat overview and a round table discussion that calls for the discussion of classified and corporate proprietary/security information as well as private sector physical and procedural security policies and protective programs at sensitive U.S. Government and private sector locations overseas. 

For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20522-1003, phone: 202-663-0533.

Dated: May 8, 2000.

Peter E. Bergin, 

Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-12428 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-U
#### Mabel J. Brinkerhoff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frederick T. Brinkerhoff, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued May 28, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*628
      *Harold J. Adams*and *Percy R. Smith*for appellant.

*Arthur VD. Chamberlain*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1919.14 Initial tests of cargo gear and tests after alterations, renewals or repairs. ( a ) ( 1 ) Before being taken into use, hoisting machines, fixed gear aboard vessels accessory thereto, and loose gear and wire rope used in connection therewith shall be tested and examined and the safe working load thereof certified in the manner set forth in subpart E of this part.
( 2 ) Replacement or additional loose gear and wire rope obtained from time to time shall also be tested and examined in the manner set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. However, the replacement of a component part of an article of loose gear such as a sheave, pin, or bushing does not require a new test certificate as long as the new component at least equals in all particulars the part replaced.
( b ) In the case of untested gear which has been in use, an initial test in conformance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be carried out: *Provided, however,* That existing standing rigging and wire rope will not be required to be tested but shall be thoroughly examined to ascertain its fitness for continued use in conformance with the requirements of §§ 1919.24 and 1919.25.
( c ) In the case of important alterations or renewals of the machinery and gear and also after repairs due to failure of or damage to other than loose components, a test as required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be carried out.
( d ) If the operation in which cargo gear is engaged never utilizes more than a fraction of the safe working load rating, the owner may, at his option, have said gear certificated for, and limited in operation to, a lesser maximum safe working load: *Provided, however,* That the gear concerned is physically capable of operation at the original load rating and the load reduction is not for the purpose of avoiding correction of any deficiency.
( e ) In no case shall safe working loads be increased beyond the original design limitations unless such increase is based on engineering calculations by or acceptable to the accredited certification agency, and all necessary structural changes are carried out.
**Exhibit 3.2**

 

CERTIFICATE OFAMENDMENT

 

OF THE

 

CERTIFICATE OFINCORPORATION

 

OF

 

KENILWORTH SYSTEMSCORPORATION

 

Under Section 805of the Business Corporation Law

 

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIEDTHAT:

 

(1)   The name of the Corporation is:

 

KENILWORTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION

 

(2)   The Certificate of Incorporation wasfiled by the Department of State on the 25th day of April, 1968 under the original name ofSchool For Computer Studies, Inc.

 

(3)   To increase the number of shares whichthe Corporation shall have the authority to issue. The Corporation is currentlyauthorized to issue two (2) classes of stock; 500,000,000 shares of CommonStock par value $0.01 per share with 421,094,586 shares issued and outstandingand 78,905,416 authorized and unissued, and 2,000,000 shares of Series ofPreferred Stock authorized, with none issued and outstanding. The Common Sharesare not changed as a result of this Amendment.  As a result of thisamendment, the total number of Preferred Shares will be increase to 50,000,000$0.01 par value. The fourth Article (paragraph) of the Certificate ofIncorporation shall now read as follows:

 

“FOURTH: The Corporationis authorized to issue Classes of stock to be designated respectively “CommonStock” and “Preferred Stock”.  The total number of shares of stock whichthe Corporation shall have authority to issue is 1,050,000,000.  The totalnumber of shares of Common Stock which the Corporation shall have authority toissue is one billion (1,000,000,000), $.01 par value per share.

 

The total number of sharesof Preferred Stock which the Corporation shall have the authority to issue isfifty million (50,000,000), $.01 par value per share.  The shares ofPreferred Stock may be issued from time to time in one or more series. The Board of Directors of the Corporation is authorized to determine or alterany of all of the designations, powers, preferences and rights and thequalifications, limitations or restrictions thereof, in respect of the whollyunissued class of Preferred Stock or any wholly unissued series of PreferredStock, and to fix or alter the number of shares comprising of any series ofPreferred Stock (but not below the number of shares of any such series thenoutstanding).

 

(4)   The above amendment to the Certificate ofIncorporation was authorized by vote of the Board of Directors followed by avote of the holders of a majority of all outstanding shares entitled to votethereon at a meeting of the shareholders on January 7, 2009.

 

IN WITNESS THEREOF, thiscertificate has been subscribed by the undersigned who affirm(s) that thestatements made herein are true under the penalties of perjury.

 

1

----

 
| DATED: January 26,  2009                        |   |                |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
|                                                 |   |                |
| ****                                                 |   | ****                |
| Herbert Lindo, Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   | Kit Wong, Secretary |

 

***Remainder of page intentionally left blank***

 

2

----
#### Delano Taylor, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 294]

—In a claim to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated October 21, 1998, which dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The claimant brought suit pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b alleging that he was unjustly convicted and imprisoned, after six years incarceration based on a criminal conviction which was reversed on appeal. Upon retrial of the criminal action the appellant was acquitted. At the trial of his claim, the claimant testified that he was at work on the night of the crime and he presented alibi witnesses to support his story. The State proffered the prior identification testimony of the victim of the crime.

The credibility of the alibi witnesses and the veracity of their testimony was a matter for consideration by the trier of fact. The alibi witnesses testified that the claimant was present in a certain candy store on the day of the shooting which occurred at a butcher shop. However, their recollections of an otherwise unremarkable day 16 years earlier were based on the fact that the claimant always worked in the candy store on weekends, rather than on specific memories that he was there on that particular Saturday in December 1981. Notwithstanding the requirement under Court of Claims Act § 8-b that due consideration be given to the passage of time and its effect on the memories of witnesses, it cannot be said that the claimant satisfied his burden of proof. Therefore, the Court of Claims correctly determined that this evidence failed to meet the standard of clear and convincing proof of innocence required by the statute *(see, Alexandre v State of New York,*168 AD2d 472). Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 854 

To modify the project for navigation, Union River, Maine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To modify the project for navigation, Union River, Maine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNION RIVER, MAINE. 

4 The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, au5 thorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 

6 (29 Stat. 215, chapter 314), is modified by redesignating 

7 as an anchorage area that portion of the project consisting 

8 of a 6-foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line com9 mencing at a point N 315,975.13, E 1,004,424.86, thence 

10 running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 854 IS

1 about 132.34 feet to a point N 316,038.37, E 

2 1,004,308.61. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 2, 2016.

________________

No. 3D15-1518

Lower Tribunal No. 11-38239

________________

Ibeth Y. Prieto and George Prieto,

Appellants,

vs.

Federal National Mortgage Association,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo,

Judge.

Robert Flavell, for appellants.

Choice Legal Group, P.A., and Wm. David Newman, Jr. (Fort Lauderdale),

for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

LOGUE, J.
In this foreclosure case, the borrowers appeal the post-judgment order

denying their motion to vacate the foreclosure sale. The property was sold to the

lender while the borrowers’ timely motion for rehearing of the judgment was

pending. Based on the lender’s commendable confession of error, we agree that the

foreclosure sale must be set aside. See Wollman v. Levy, 489 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1986) (“Once a timely motion for rehearing is made, the operation of the

judgment is suspended until the motion is disposed of. [The borrowers] timely

moved for a rehearing; therefore, the sale of the property should not have been

carried out until the motion had been acted upon.”) (internal citations omitted);

Hoffman v. Bank United, N.A., 137 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[W]e agree

that the foreclosure sale of the property must be set aside because the sale was

conducted while [the borrower’s] timely motion for rehearing was pending.”).

Reversed and remanded.

2
#### § 1905.3 Petitions for amendments to this part.

Any person may at any time petition the Assistant Secretary in writing to revise, amend, or revoke any provisions of this part. The petition should set forth either the terms or the substance of the rule desired, with a concise statement of the reasons therefor and the effects thereof.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### §§ 1926.418-1926.430 [Reserved]
#### Lieberman Pottery, Inc., v. McElroy

*Powlen & Zwanetz,*for plaintiff.

*Samuel C. Nissenbaum,*for defendant.

July 14, 1958.

Alessandroni, P. J.,

— Plaintiff filed a complaint in equity wherein it is alleged that plaintiff is the lessee of certain real property, that plaintiff is in the pottery business, that defendant landlord *701failed to provide sufficient heat, that the lack of heat caused plaintiff to suffer losses of business and of products, that plaintiff refused to pay the rent when due in March, the plaintiff’s property was distrained for the rent due, that plaintiff suffered irreparable harm and plaintiff prays for a mandatory injunction ordering defendant Lichow to repair the heating system and enjoining the three defendants from making levy and distraint upon plaintiff’s goods.

Defendant McElroy filed preliminary objections averring that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law under The Landlord and Tenant Act of April 6, 1951, P. L. 69, 68 PS §250.101 et seq.

It must be conceded, as plaintiff inferentially does, that an adequate remedy at law exists under the provisions of The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, supra. Plaintiff has attempted to argue away the remedies at law and suggests that since the remedies are not mandatory, equity may retain jurisdiction. We do not pass on the issue as to whether the remedy is or is not mandatory, since it is unnecessary to this decision ; its argument that the remedy is not mandatory concedes the existence of the remedy and therefore denies the basic premise of the complaint, to wit, plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.

Plaintiff has several remedies: An action for damages for breach of quiet enjoyment; replevin within five days of the distraint: The Landlord and Tenant Act of April 6,1951, P. L. 69, sec. 306, 68 PS §250.306; and a proceeding to determine tenant’s set-off: Act of 1951, supra, 68 PS §250.307.

Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to support an allegation of irreparable harm; there is no suggestion of damage for which money could not be adequate compensation. As an additional basis for equity jurisdiction plaintiff alleges multiplicity of actions be*702cause of the threat of monthly distraints; however, since it is within plaintiff’s power to proceed at law to enforce his rights and remove the threat of the distraint, plaintiff has a remedy at law and equity has no jurisdiction.

*Order*

And now, to wit, July 14, 1958, defendant McElroy’s preliminary objections are sustained; the complaint is certified to the law side of the court.
#### § 1915.1006 Methyl chloromethyl ether.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BURK N. ASHFORD, AKA California 

Sun,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ALEX PADILLA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17417

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00714-CKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 14, 2017***

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Burk N. Ashford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

FEB 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17417 

violations arising from his California trademark renewal application. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 

1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ashford’s due process claim because 

Ashford failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a deprivation of a

constitutionally protected property interest. See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 

913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim).

To the extent that Ashford claimed he was entitled to trademark renewal 

under California law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. See Carnegie-Mellon 

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 1988) (where all federal claims are eliminated 

before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over remaining state law claims); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
3 15-17417 

Ashford’s request for judicial notice and motion for sanctions, filed on 

October 27, 2016, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: REGINAL C. GILBERT,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00125-CR

Appeal from the

142nd District Court

of Midland County, Texas 

(TC# CV58579)

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed on July 8, 2022. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 31.1, the Court 

sets the following brief schedule: Appellant’s brief shall be due in this Court on or before August 

7, 2022 and the State’s brief shall be due no later than thirty days after the Appellant’s brief is filed 

with this Court. A submission date will be determined at a later date and the parties will be 

provided with advanced notice of the setting. See Tex.R.App.P. 39.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
Fiscal 2010 Executive Bonus Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Costco Wholesale Corporation 
 Executive Bonus Plan

 For fiscal year 2010, executive officers (other than Jim Sinegal and Jeff Brotman) are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a
bonus award of up to approximately $100,000. The final bonus amount is determined by Jim Sinegal, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 
 Eligibility for up to 50% of the bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the Company’s internal budget. 
 The remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility: 
 For those whose responsibilities are operational, the goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit in their areas
of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities are primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross margin, shrink, and
inventory turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities combine operational and buying functions,
the goals relate to a combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 
 For those whose responsibilities are staff
functions, the goals relate to a combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibility. 
 To be eligible for the annual bonus, the individual must still be employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the  incorporation  of our report dated February 21, 2000, on
the financial  statements of Lexon,  Inc. (the  "Company") at December 31, 1999,
for the period from  inception  (December 16, 1997) to December 31, 1999 and for
the  years  ended  December  31,  1999  and  1998,  included  in  the  Company's
Registration Statement on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999, into
the Company's  Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (File numbers  333-30828 and
333-31386).


TULLIUS TAYLOR SARTAIN & SARTAIN LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
April 13, 2000
#### § 1607.9 No assumption of validity.

A. *Unacceptable substitutes for evidence of validity.* Under no circumstances will the general reputation of a test or other selection procedures, its author or its publisher, or casual reports of its validity be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity. Specifically ruled out are: assumptions of validity based on a procedure's name or descriptive labels; all forms of promotional literature; data bearing on the frequency of a procedure's usage; testimonial statements and credentials of sellers, users, or consultants; and other nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of selection practices or selection outcomes.

B. *Encouragement of professional supervision.* Professional supervision of selection activities is encouraged but is not a substitute for documented evidence of validity. The enforcement agencies will take into account the fact that a thorough job analysis was conducted and that careful development and use of a selection procedure in accordance with professional standards enhance the probability that the selection procedure is valid for the job.
Exhibit
32.1  Section 1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Mary
D. Cohron, President and Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:
            /s/Mary D. CohronMary
      D. CohronChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
            November
      14, 2008





This
certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed ‘filed” for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.