alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2570.82 Definitions. For purposes of this section: ( a ) *502(l) civil penalty proceedings* means an adjudicatory proceeding relating to the assessment of a civil penalty provided in section 502(l) of ERISA;
( b ) *Notice of assessment* means any document, however designated, issued by the Secretary which contains a specified assessment, in monetary terms, of a civil penalty under ERISA section 502(l). A “notice of assessment” will contain a brief factual description of the violation for which the assessment is being made, the identity of the person being assessed, and the amount of the assessment and the basis for assessing that particular person that particular penalty amount;
( c ) *Person* includes an individual, partnership, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, exchange or other entity or organization;
( d ) *Petition* means a written request, made by a person, for a waiver or reduction of the civil penalty described herein; and
( e ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor and includes, pursuant to any delegation of authority by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security, Regional Directors for Employee Benefits Security, or Deputy Regional Directors for Employee Benefits Security.
[55 FR 25286, June 20, 1990, as amended at 68 FR 16400, Apr. 3, 2003]
,.

OFFICE OF THE ATT’ ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

bnoT0 aourt

tat* h*rlry 8 than Ol&d~ theamm0 than on. hunfl.)2,000)

aooorQ- ?odrnl centNm* rdonor .orrtaln and la ocmnoqoion toaobllorhllo en 1 roqalring oaoh oaor.fo pay tho 077 II0 or t0jar 

## 0r 8a0h ~0 

## 01000
lthout em far%hor lmoneo1

. 

## 380

(2Q,OOO)

robaot~non khan +~~hun&nQthIrt~-tra 

### thouua4 (1~2&00) woor 2 Fodoral 

### (Ionmu,tho aoair to tha lut 

### proo+dl4
owro Oourt la 

### honby l aho?lwd bo allow -ah Owlllwlonor t&a 

### M of not 

### mom than nity 

### aollara 0~8.00) per math to 

### bo pd1ortos %heBea4u!dBridge rnd of mob n8peatlro Uorriadonom‘ 

### Proalnot, 

### r0r t~t*lillg 

### l rpraaoo~ddorool~tlo~onhl~ antoaabllowhllr
on OfflOW baa

La 88 oaly.

*8RaTIoa

,2* 

### IIaobrashm8doar?.kl~ a ll l r p a a um

in Uha o r8tlon of 

### l WC 

### l utosobllo *l d h ooplU l a n x ? in 0 o f my o t h or o h a r gor _ t o t & eo o a nt ye %RGTX($I

3. Tha 

### tut that la thr aoaatior 8?- 

### footed by fhia Aot them 1s~ great ~04 that tIw 

### 00aat10r

pu+AolJmCo

ln aoeaylng %bbl



### xpuurr of **saah ooealadomrr**  booms. **ohi ,mO**  rrrooat of m#@ wrk ocrr’ ,&~m on laonawr kho -nooooaf~y of saoX .Oaairdoamn trrvoi.#a@ frea plaoo PO #Leo. ova* Ueif4 k&O 

## Oonotrttotion 8Ed titmut&Oo of 8Wh’ roda 

## ento an aurgoa8y and bn lmponklvo pub 

### 110 nooooslty that 

### tho 08n~tltatioaal nqo y& laj~ bllla tm bo mad on three srvohil d Rowe bo 8u8ponaml oaa the 8tiO~ i8 hero y ruspendT 

### d a , u n u t hf o Aok a & a il t ake l ifeot, 

### UC 4

bo f a f o r 00 

### .fmronaa* ltrpu8~0$ utll$ ir H)oImot&'
#### CINCINNATI BRUSH & MOP MFG CO et v WEBER

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No. 3513.

Decided December 9, 1929

Messrs. S. Bruce Pollard and Clifford E. Frey, Cincinnati, for Brush & Mop Mfg Co et.

Messrs. Burch, Peters, Geismer & De-Fossett, Cincinnati, for Weber.

ROSS, J.

Section 8129 GC, provides that every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration. Section 8130 GC, provides that value is any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. There was no evidence introduced by the defendant to meet the presumption of value or any evidence indicating that value, within the meaning of 8130 GC did not exist, but, on the contrary, the evidence showed a promise to perform the work by the payee of the note which promise could be and was the supporting consideration for the note.

There was some question raised as to the negotiability of the instrument, owing to the presence of the words “for unfinished work on bldg.”, appearing on the face of the note. Under 8108 GC, it is provided that: “ An unqualified order or promise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this chapter, though coupled with: x x x x 2. A statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.” The instrument was, therefore, negotiable, and clothed with all the presumptions accruing to a holder thereof. There being no evidencne introduced to show any infirmity in the inception of the note, or to meet these presumptions, the verdict was properly instructed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cushing, PJ„ and Hamilton, J., concur.
[No. 28311-5-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Steven Joseph Whitmire, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 01-1-01003-1, Don L. McCulloch, J., entered December 11, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### ROYAL INDEMNITY CO v BECKER et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22044.

Decided June 18, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, D,ay and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### § 2575.3 Subsequent adjustments to civil monetary penalties.

No later than January 15, starting in 2017, and each subsequent year, the Secretary shall adjust for inflation, as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, the civil monetary penalties described in § 2575.2 for violations occurring on or after November 2, 2015, and any future civil monetary penalties enforceable by the Secretary under title I of ERISA. The Secretary shall publish such annual adjustments in the Federal Register notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Future penalties or adjustments to the amount of the penalty that are enacted by statute or regulation (other than an adjustment for inflation under the Inflation Adjustment Act) will not be adjusted for inflation in the first year those penalty levels take effect. Annual inflation adjustments shall apply to penalties assessed after the date notice of the annual inflation adjustment is published in the Federal Register.

[82 FR 5383, Jan. 18, 2017]
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Crowley, 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:



/s/ ALFRED C. GIAMMARINOAlfred C. Giammarino Chief Financial Officer


March 5,
2009

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
§ 91.161 Special awareness training required for pilots flying under visual flight rules within a 60-nautical mile radius of the Washington, DC VOR/DME. ( a ) *Operations within a 60-nautical mile radius of the Washington, DC VOR/DME under visual flight rules (VFR).* Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a pilot in command or as second in command of an aircraft while flying within a 60-nautical mile radius of the DCA VOR/DME, under VFR, unless that pilot has completed Special Awareness Training and holds a certificate of training completion.
( b ) *Special Awareness Training.* The Special Awareness Training consists of information to educate pilots about the procedures for flying in the Washington, DC area and, more generally, in other types of special use airspace. This free training is available on the FAA's Web site. Upon completion of the training, each person will need to print out a copy of the certificate of training completion.
( c ) *Inspection of certificate of training completion.* Each person who holds a certificate for completing the Special Awareness Training must present it for inspection upon request from: ( 1 ) An authorized representative of the FAA;
( 2 ) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
( 3 ) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
( 4 ) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
( d ) *Emergency declared.* The failure to complete the Special Awareness Training course on flying in and around the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area is not a violation of this section if an emergency is declared by the pilot, as described under § 91.3(b), or there was a failure of two-way radio communications when operating under IFR as described under § 91.185.
( e ) *Exceptions.* The requirements of this section do not apply if the flight is being performed in an aircraft of an air ambulance operator certificated to conduct part 135 operations under this chapter, the U.S. Armed Forces, or a law enforcement agency.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-25250, 73 FR 46803, Aug. 12, 2008]
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 39 40 41 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/07 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
§ 1960.70 Reporting of serious accidents. Agencies must provide the Office of Federal Agency Programs with a summary report of each fatal and catastrophic accident investigation. The summaries shall address the date/time of accident, agency/establishment named and location, and consequences, description of operation and the accident, causal factors, applicable standards and their effectiveness, and agency corrective/preventive actions. Note to § 1960.70 :
The requirements of this section are in addition to the requirements for reporting fatalities and multiple hospitalization incidents to OSHA under 29 CFR 1904.39.
#### § 2520.104-25 Exemption from reporting and disclosure for day care centers.

Under the authority of section 104(a)(3) of the Act, day care centers are exempted from the reporting and disclosure provisions of part 1 of title I of the Act, except for providing plan documents to the Secretary upon request as required under section 104(a)(6) of the Act.

[40 FR 34533, Aug. 15, 1975, as amended at 67 FR 776, Jan. 7, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

|1. | Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.s Quarterly Report on   Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which this certification   is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.                                                                                                                   

|Charles S. Conoley                    | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|August 14, 2006                       |
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA
- 2015 - 2964 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM206AD

A320
- 53 - 1268, R02
--- 7/15/2014 A320
- 53 - 1268, R01
--- 7/23/13 A320
- 53 - 1268 --- 1/8/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### § 215.6 The Model Agreement.

The Model (or National) Agreement mentioned in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) of § 215.3 refers to the agreement executed on July 23, 1975 by representatives of the American Public Transit Association (now known as the American Public Transportation Association) and the Amalgamated Transit Union and Transport Workers Union of America and on July 31, 1975 by representatives of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The agreement is intended to serve as a ready-made employee protective arrangement for adoption by local parties in specific operating assistance project situations. The Department has determined that this agreement provides fair and equitable arrangements to protect the interests of employees in general purpose operating assistance project situations and meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5333(b).

[60 FR 62969, Dec. 7, 1995, as amended at 73 FR 47056, Aug. 13, 2008]
#### In the Matter of Christopher Renfroe, Petitioner, v Thomas Demakos, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 127]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to award the petitioner $81,094.05 as compensation for his representation, as lead counsel, of the defendant in the capital case entitled *People v James Gordon,*Queens County Indictment No. 273/96.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, without costs or disbursements, and the respondent is directed to award the petitioner $81,094.05 as compensation for his representation, as lead counsel, of the defendant in the capital case entitled *People v James Gordon,*Queens County Indictment No. 273/96.

The record indicates that the petitioner did not act merely as an advisor to the defendant, James Gordon, during his trial, but acted in all respects as his attorney. The petitioner, *inter alia,*selected jurors, prepared motions and an opening statement, conducted *Sandoval (see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) and *Molineux (see, People v Molineux,*168 NY 264) hearings, and cross-examined witnesses. Neither the petitioner’s designation as lead counsel *(see,*Judiciary Law § 35-b [2]) nor the hours he worked on this case is in dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner has demonstrated a clear legal right *(see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16) to compensation at the rate of $175 per hour, pursuant to an order of the Court of Appeals, dated November 21, 1996, which is applicable to the instant matter. He is also entitled to reimbursement of *555$5,625.30 for expenses, as found by the respondent, for an award in the total sum of $81,094.05. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12694]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3252]


State of Kansas

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 3, 
2000, I find that Crawford, Labette, and Neosho Counties in the State 
of Kansas constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe 
storms and tornadoes that occurred April 19-20, 2000. Applications for 
loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed 
until the close of business on July 2, 2000, and for loans for economic 
injury until the close of business on February 5, 2001 at the address 
listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 
102, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed 
until the specified date at the above location: Allen, Bourbon, 
Cherokee, Montgomery, Wilson, and Woodson Counties in Kansas; Barton, 
Jasper, and Vernon Counties in Missouri; and Craig and Nowata Counties 
in Oklahoma.
    The interest rates are:

For Physical Damage

Homeowners with credit available elsewhere: 7.625%
Homeowners without credit available elsewhere: 3.812%
Businesses with credit available elsewhere: 8.000%
Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available 
elsewhere: 4.000%

Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available 
elsewhere: 6.750%

For Economic Injury

Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available 
elsewhere: 4.000%
    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 325212. 
For economic injury the numbers are 9H2200 for Kansas, 9H2300 for 
Missouri, and 9H2400 for Oklahoma.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12694 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Ebola Virus Disease(EVD)

Algorithm for Evaluation of the Returned Traveler

Report asymptomatic patients 

with high- or low-risk exposures 

(see below) in the past 21 days to 

the health department

1. Isolate patient in single room with a private bathroom and with the door to hallway closed

2. Implement standard, contact, and droplet precautions (gown, facemask, eye protection, and gloves)

3. Notify the hospital Infection Control Program and other appropriate staff

4.Evaluate for any risk exposures for EVD

5. IMMEDIATELY report to the health department

HIGH-RISK EXPOSURE

Percutaneous (e.g., needle stick) 

or mucous membrane 

contact with blood or body 

fluids from an EVD patient 

OR

Direct skin contact with, 

or exposure to blood or body 

fluids of, an EVD patient 

OR

Processing blood or body 

fluids from an EVD patient 

without appropriate personal 

protective equipment 

(PPE) or biosafety precautions 

OR

Direct contact with a dead body 

(including during funeral rites) 

in an Ebola affected area** 

without appropriate PPE

LOW-RISK EXPOSURE

Household members of an EVD patient 

and others who had brief direct 

contact (e.g., shaking hands) with an 

EVD patient without appropriate PPE

OR

Healthcare personnel in facilities with 

confirmed or probable EVD patients 

who have been in the care area for a 

prolonged period of time while not 

wearing recommended PPE

NO KNOWN EXPOSURE

Residence in or travel to 

affected areas** without 

HIGH- or LOW-risk exposure

TESTING IS INDICATED

If patient requires in-hospital management:

Decisions regarding infection control precautions should be 

based on the patient’s clinical situation and in consultation 

with hospital infection control and the health department

If patient’s symptoms progress or change, re-assess need for 

testing with the health department 

If patient does not require in-hospital management

Alert the health department before discharge to arrange 

appropriate discharge instructions and to determine if the 

patient should self-monitor for illness

Self-monitoring includes taking their temperature twice a day 

for 21 days after their last exposure to an Ebola patient

YES

NO

** CDC Website to check current affected areas: www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola

EVD suspected EVD not suspected

Review Case with Health Department Including:

• Severity of illness

• Laboratory findings (e.g., platelet counts)

• Alternative diagnoses

The health department will arrange specimen transport and 

testing at a Public Health Laboratory and CDC

The health department, in consultation with CDC, will provide 

guidance to the hospital on all aspects of patient care and 

management

TESTING IS NOT INDICATED

CS251958-A

FEVER (subjective or ≥101.5°F or 38.6°C) or compatible EVD 

symptoms* in patient who has traveled to an Ebola-affected area** 

in the 21 days before illness onset 

* headache, weakness, muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain or hemorrhage
#### § 2201.12 Preservation of records.

OSHRC shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to FOIA requests, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the applicable General Records Schedule of the National Archives and Records Administration. OSHRC shall not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal or lawsuit under the FOIA.

[81 FR 95040, Dec. 27, 2016]
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 996

AN ACT

To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand passenger 

facility fee eligibility for certain noise compatibility projects.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 996 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXPANDED PASSENGER FACILITY FEE ELIGI2 BILITY FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY 

3 PROJECTS. 

4 Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(7) NOISE MITIGATION FOR CERTAIN

7 SCHOOLS.—

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the 

9 uses specified in paragraphs (1), (4), and (6), 

10 the Secretary may authorize a passenger facility 

11 fee imposed under paragraph (1) or (4) at a 

12 large hub airport that is the subject of an 

13 amended judgment and final order in con14 demnation filed on January 7, 1980, by the Su15 perior Court of the State of California for the 

16 county of Los Angeles, to be used for a project 

17 to carry out noise mitigation for a building, or 

18 for the replacement of a relocatable building 

19 with a permanent building, in the noise im20 pacted area surrounding the airport at which 

21 such building is used primarily for educational 

22 purposes, notwithstanding the air easement 

23 granted or any terms to the contrary in such 

24 judgment and final order, if—
3

•S 996 ES

1 ‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that the 

2 building is adversely affected by airport 

3 noise; 

4 ‘‘(ii) the building is owned or char5 tered by the school district that was the 

6 plaintiff in case number 986,442 or 

7 986,446, which was resolved by such judg8 ment and final order; 

9 ‘‘(iii) the project is for a school identi10 fied in 1 of the settlement agreements ef11 fective February 16, 2005, between the 

12 airport and each of the school districts; 

13 ‘‘(iv) in the case of a project to re14 place a relocatable building with a perma15 nent building, the eligible project costs are 

16 limited to the actual structural construc17 tion costs necessary to mitigate aircraft 

18 noise in instructional classrooms to an in19 terior noise level meeting current stand20 ards of the Federal Aviation Administra21 tion; and 

22 ‘‘(v) the project otherwise meets the 

23 requirements of this section for authoriza24 tion of a passenger facility fee. 
4

•S 996 ES

1 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.—In sub2 paragraph (A)(iv), the term ‘eligible project 

3 costs’ means the difference between the cost of 

4 standard school construction and the cost of 

5 construction necessary to mitigate classroom 

6 noise to the standards of the Federal Aviation 

7 Administration.’’. 

Passed the Senate February 28, 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 996

AN ACT

To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand 

compatibility projects.passenger facility fee eligibility for certain noise