alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2702.3 Making a request for information. ( a ) *Content of request.* All requests for information must: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Include the words “Freedom of Information Act Request” or “FOIA” on the face of the request;
( 3 ) Include, if concerning a case that has come before the Commission or a Commission Administrative Law Judge, the Commission case docket number or, in the alternative, the related MSHA citation or order number(s);
( 4 ) Reasonably describe the particular record(s) requested; and
( 5 ) Specify the preferred form or format in which the requester wishes to receive the response. The Commission shall accommodate requests as to form or format if the record is readily reproducible in the requested form or format. When requesters do not specify the preferred form or format of the response, the Commission shall respond in the form or format in which the record is most accessible to the Commission.
( b ) *Optional content considerations.* If the requester desires expedited processing or a waiver or reduction of fees, such requests must be in writing and should be included in the initial request for information filed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. See §§ 2702.4(b)(3) and 2702.10 for additional requirements.
( c ) *Personal records.* For individuals seeking access to their records, not including Commission files generated in adversary proceedings under the Mine Act, please see the Commission's Privacy Act rules at 29 CFR part 2705.
( d ) *Submitting a request.* Requests must be submitted via: ( 1 ) The Commission's FOIA Request form located on the Commission's website at *https://www.fmshrc.gov/foia/foia-request-form ;* or by
( 2 ) Email, mail, fax, or hand delivery to the Chief FOIA Officer at *FOIA@FMSHRC.gov ,* Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Attn: Chief FOIA Officer, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710, Fax: 202-434-9944.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARMON O’NEAL BEAVERS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-46, CA-97-815-R) Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Armon O’Neal Beavers, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Beavers , Nos. CR-92-46; CA-97-815-R (W.D. Va. July 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 458.77 Rights of parties.

Any party shall have the right to appear at such hearing in person, by counsel, or by other representative, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce into the record documentary or other relevant evidence, except that the participation of any party shall be limited to the extent prescribed by the Administrative Law Judge. Two (2) copies of documentary evidence shall be submitted and a copy furnished to each of the other parties. Stipulations of fact may be introduced in evidence with respect to any issue.
#### §§ 2706.104-2706.109 [Reserved]
S. Con. Res. 43 Agreed to August 3, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from

Friday, August 3, 2007, through Friday, August 31, 2007, on a

motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority

Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12

noon on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or such other time on that

day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee

in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, August 3, 2007, through Wednesday, August

8, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until

2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the time of any

reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker

of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after

consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the

Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of

the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such

place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion,

the public interest shall warrant it.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, James J. Bazata, certify that:

l.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	[Intentionally omitted]

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures  and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 11, 2003.

/S/ James J. Bazata
James J. Bazata
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.19


  


Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”)


Schedule of Non-Employee Directors’
Annual Compensation


  


As of January 1, 2015


  


	Meeting Fees (1)(2)(3)	 	 	 	 
	Per Company Board Meeting	 	$	300	 
	Per Company Committee Meeting	 	$	300	 
	Per EVB Board Meeting	 	$	500	 
	Per EVB Committee Meeting (4)	 	$	300	 



 


	Monthly Retainers	 	 	 	 
	Chairman of the Company’s Audit and Risk Oversight Committee	 	$	300	 
	Other members of the Company’s Audit and Risk Oversight Committee	 	$	200	 
	Chairman of the EVB Board	 	$	500	 



 


	Annual stock grant to non-employee directors:	500 unrestricted shares of the Company’s common stock.


 


		(1)	Each director of the Company’s Board of Directors
is also a member of the Board of Directors of EVB.



		(2)	For meetings of the Company’s Board of Directors
and EVB’s Board of Directors, directors are permitted one paid absence per year.



		(3)	For joint meetings of the Company’s Board of Directors
and EVB’s Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors may, in his sole discretion, determine
to pay each director of the Company a meeting fee of $150, rather than a meeting fee of $300. Each member of EVB’s Board
of Directors would still receive a meeting fee of $500.



		(4)	Each member of the Loan Committee of EVB receives $150
for each teleconference of the Loan Committee between regularly scheduled Loan Committee meetings.
Exhibit 32.2

                                Certification Of
                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned, Samir N. Masri, who is
the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln International Corporation
(the "company"), hereby certifies that the company's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2005, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
company.

                                   /s/ Samir N. Masri
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                   Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                   Date:  October 28, 2005
(80 South. 171)

#### HOLT v. CITY OF MOBILE.

(1 Div. 258.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

Criminal Law &wkey;260(ll) — Review—Trial Without Jury — Evidence..

Where there was some evidence given ore tenus before the court sitting without a jury-tending to show that defendant was in charge of place where officers found liquors stored, the building not being used exclusively as a dwelling, and the Court of Appeals is unable to say that the conviction is plainly contrary to the great weight of the evidence, it will be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Norvelle R. Leigh, Jr., Judge.

Prosecution by the City of Mobile against J. W. Holt. Defendant was convicted, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Brooks & McMillan, of Mobile, for appellant.

Robert H. Smith, of Mobile, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

The only question presented on the record is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to authorize the judgment of conviction. There was some evidence tending to show that the defendant was in charge of the place where the officers found liquor stored, and in a building that was not used exclusively for a dwelling, Jones v. Montgomery, ante, p. 357, 77 South. 969; Conner v. State, ante, p. 452, 78 South. 715; Holt v. State, ante, p. 399, 78 South. 315.

The testimony was given ore tenus before the court, sitting without a jury, and we are unable to say from the evidence in the record that the conclusion of the trial court is plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Union Mut. Aid Ass’n of Mobile v. Carroway, 201 Ala. 414, 78 South. 732; Smith v. Thomas, 201 Ala. 442, 78 South. 820; Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

Affirmed.
§ 4211.31 Allocation of unfunded vested benefits following the merger of plans. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, when two or more multiemployer plans merge, the merged plan shall adopt one of the statutory allocation methods, in accordance with subpart B of this part, or one of the allocation methods prescribed in §§ 4211.32 through 4211.35, and the method adopted shall apply to all employer withdrawals occurring after the initial plan year. Alternatively, a merged plan may adopt its own allocation method in accordance with subpart C of this part. If a merged plan fails to adopt an allocation method pursuant to this subpart or subpart B or C, it shall use the presumptive allocation method prescribed in § 4211.32. In addition, a merged plan may adopt any of the modifications prescribed in § 4211.36 or in subpart B of this part.
( b ) *Construction plans.* Except as provided in the next sentence, a merged plan that primarily covers employees in the building and construction industry shall use the presumptive allocation method prescribed in § 4211.32. However, the plan may, with respect to employers that are not construction industry employers within the meaning of section 4203(b)(1)(A) of ERISA, adopt, by amendment, one of the alternative methods prescribed in §§ 4211.33 through 4211.35 or any other allocation method. Any such amendment shall be adopted in accordance with subpart C of this part. A construction plan may, without the PBGC's approval, adopt by amendment any of the modifications set forth in § 4211.36 or any of the modifications to the statutory presumptive method set forth in subpart B of this part.
( c ) *Section 404(c) plans.* A merged plan that is a continuation of a plan described in section 404(c) of the Code shall use the rolling-5 allocation method prescribed in § 4211.34, unless the plan, by amendment, adopts an alternative method. The plan may adopt one of the statutory allocation methods or one of the allocation methods set forth in §§ 4211.32 through 4211.35 without PBGC approval; adoption of any other allocation method is subject to PBGC approval under subpart B of this plan. The plan may, without the PBGC's approval, adopt by amendment any of the modifications set forth in § 4211.36 or in subpart B of this part.
( d ) *Withdrawals before the end of the initial plan year.* For employer withdrawals after the effective date of a merger and prior to the end of the initial plan year, the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to a withdrawing employer shall be determined in accordance with § 4211.37.
[61 FR 34097, July 1, 1996, as amended at 86 FR 1275, Jan. 8, 2021; 88 FR 76664, Nov. 7, 2023]
#### Clements *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 765.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Instructions; Bill of Exceptions. — The appellate court cannot properly review the refusal of instructions, especially the affirmative charge for defendant, in the absence of a bill of exceptions containing the evidence in the case.

*454Appeal from Bessemer City Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. B. Gwin.

Cleve Clements was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Sanders & Roe, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

The transcript in this case contains no bill of exceptions. The charge shown against the defendant is for violation of the prohibition laws. The record appears in all things regular. The general affirmative charges on the different counts in the indictment that are set out in the record cannot be intelligently considered or reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions and the oral charge of the *court.*— Frazier *v. State,*14 Ala. App. 665, 71 South. 981; *Clay v. State,*14 Ala. App. 664, 71 South. 982.

No error appearing in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.
Order entered May 2 8 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01095
- CV
AERO COUNTRY EAST AS SOCIATION, INC. AND HEAVY VENTURES, LLC, Appellant s V. AERO COUNTRY PROPERT Y OWNERS' ASSOCIATIO N, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 04018
- 2013 

### O RDER
W e GRANT appellants’ May 22, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 5, 2015

.
/ s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### LIGGETT BROS. COAL CO. v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.

No. 3598.

Decided March 10, 1930

Alvin H. Rowe, Cincinnati, for Coal Co.

Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, Cincinnati, for Insurance Co.

ROSS, J.

By stipulation, the separate finding of fact made by the court constitutes the agreed facts in the case. It appears from the findings that while the policy containing the provisions asserted by the insurer and the insured, as above, was in full force and effect that one of the trucks of the insured was negligently caused to crash through an outside wall of the garage in which the trucks were kept. The garage was a separate building and rented as an entirety to the insured.

The owner landlord sued the insured for the damage, and the case was settled by the insured. The Insurance Company was notified of the suit and refused to defend.

The policy contained the following provisions:

> “no action shall lie against the defendant to recover for loss or expense under this policy arising or resulting from claims upon the insured for damages until the amount thereof shall have been fixed and rendered certain, either by final judgment against the assured after trial of the issue or by agreement between the parties with the written consent of the Company; nor in either event unless brought within two years thereafter.”

It is contended by the Insurance Company that the damaged wall was in charge of the insured. We hold this is correct, hence the property came within the exception from liability contained In the policy, and judgment was properly rendered for the Insurance Company.

> “It has been heretofore held by this court, in cases involving the liability of a landlord for injuries arising from a defective condition of the premises, that when a landlord is out of possession and control of the premises he is not liable for such injuries. Shindebeck v Moon, 32 Ohio St., 264, 30 Am. Rep., 584”. Prendergast v Ginsburg, et al, 119 Ohio St., at page 363.

It is apparent that such premises are not “in charge of” the lessor.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

CUSHING, P.J., and HAMILTON, J., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

y0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

143905 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143905 

 COA: 296508 

Macomb CC: 2009-002137-FC 

SALAM SHAKER ZORA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 401.13 Labor relations consultant.

*Labor relations consultant* means any person who, for compensation, advises or represents an employer, employer organization, or labor organization concerning employee organizing, concerted activities, or collective bargaining activities.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.6


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         WHEREAS, Kerr Group, Inc. (The "Company") and Geoffrey A. Whynot (the
"Employee") have entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of November 1,
1989 and amended as of November 17, 1995 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the Employment Agreement, the
Company and the Employee have agreed to amend the Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date written below, the Employment
Agreement is amended as follows:

1. The second sentence of Paragraph 2(b)(3) shall be deleted and replaced with:

                  Notwithstanding anything in this Paragraph 2(b)(3) to the
         contrary, the Salary to be paid to Employee upon termination of
         employment pursuant hereto shall not be reduced by any amounts paid to
         Employee on account of any compensation received by Employee from other
         employment. Furthermore, the Company shall not be obligated to provide
         any such fringe benefit after Employee shall receive such fringe
         benefit at least as favorable to Employee from another employer.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the 2nd
day of January, 1996.

                                        KERR GROUP, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Roger W. Norian
                                            ----------------------
                                                President

                                            /s/ Geoffrey A. Whynot
                                            ----------------------