alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4041.22 Administration of plan during pendency of termination process. ( a ) *In general.* A plan administrator may distribute plan assets in connection with the termination of the plan only in accordance with the provisions of this part. From the first day the plan administrator issues a notice of intent to terminate to the last day of the PBGC's review period under § 4041.26(a), the plan administrator must continue to carry out the normal operations of the plan. During that time period, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the plan administrator may not— ( 1 ) Purchase irrevocable commitments to provide any plan benefits; or
( 2 ) Pay benefits attributable to employer contributions, other than death benefits, in any form other than an annuity.
( b ) *Exception.* The plan administrator may pay benefits attributable to employer contributions either through the purchase of irrevocable commitments or in a form other than an annuity if— ( 1 ) The participant has separated from active employment or is otherwise permitted under the Code to receive the distribution;
( 2 ) The distribution is consistent with prior plan practice; and
( 3 ) The distribution is not reasonably expected to jeopardize the plan's sufficiency for plan benefits.
§ 37.99 If the Director concludes that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means, what actions must he or she take? If the Director concludes that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means, he or she must either: ( a ) Issue a Final Determination;
( b ) Refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted; or
( c ) Take such other action as may be provided by law.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 16
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 16
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 16
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 16
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 16
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 16
#### LIGHT REALTY, INC. v JONES

Case No. CL-86-3528

County Court, Manatee County

January 6, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Teresa D. Jones, Syprett, Meshad, Resnick and Lieb, for plaintiff.

Stanley R. Swartz, Gulfcoast Legal Services, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GEORGE K. BROWN, JR., County Judge.

*ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS*

THIS MATTER having come on for hearing before this Court on December 16, 1986, on Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, and the Court having heard argument of counsel for both parties, having reviewed the pleadings and attachments thereto, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is found from the evidence presented and, thereafter, concluded as a matter of law:

*871. That the Plaintiff in an action to evict a tenant from real property must allege that it is the owner of that property or that it has the authority to bring such an action on behalf of the owner. That such authority to sue in behalf of the owner must be attached to or be part of the Complaint.

2. That the Plaintiff, LIGHT REALTY INC., has failed to comply with either of these two requirements and cannot rely solely on its status as property manager or leasing agent to pursue this action. The Plaintiff therefore, is without standing to sue Defendant, VERNICE JONES, in this action for eviction.

3. That the three-day Notice to pay rent or vacate, upon which the eviction complaint is predicated, must ask for the exact amount of rent due. *Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co.,*128 So. 827 (Fla. 1930).

4. The three-day Notice served by the Plaintiff is defective in that it alleges an amount of rent due for October 1986 that is incorrect.

5. That this action is dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff.

DONE AND ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 1987, at Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida.
[S. F. No. 2946.

Department One.

January 8, 1902.]

#### EVA MANTEL, Respondent, v. ADAM MANTEL, Appellant.

Appeal—Non-afpealable Order—Befusal to Set Aside Judgment-Absence of Findings—Dismissal.—An order refusing to set aside the judgment on the ground that no findings or conclusions of law were filed, and that they were not waived, is not appealable, and an appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

Id.—Beview upon Appeal from Judgment.—The alleged ground on which the defendant sought to have the judgment vacated, having existed before the judgment was entered, would have been reviewable upon an appeal from the judgment.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County refusing to set aside a judgment. S. P. Hall, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Asa V. Mendenhall, for Respondent.

Max Grimm, for Appellant.

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss the appeal. Judgment was entered herein in favor of the plaintiff, February 18, 1901. August 9, 1901, the defendant moved the court for an order setting aside the judgment, on the ground that no findings or conclusions of law had been made or filed in the cause, the same not having been waived. An order denying this motion was made and entered by the court, August 14, 1901. From this order the present appeal has been taken. The facts presented herein are within the rule declared in *Reay*v. *Butler,*69 Cal. 572; *Goyhinech*v. *Goyhinech, 80*Cal. 409; *Estate of Gregory,*122 Cal. 483; and upon the authority of those cases the motion must be granted.

An examination of the cases cited by the appellant in opposition to the motion will show that in nearly all of them the appeal was from an order vacating and setting aside the judgment, whereby the effect of the judgment was destroyed by an order subsequent thereto, and in which the action of the court could be reviewed only upon an appeal from this order, inasmuch as, after the order had been made, there was no *316judgment from which an appeal could he taken. In one or two of the eases the facts upon which it was sought to vacate the judgment were extraneous to the trial of the cause, and could not have been reviewed upon an appeal from the judgment. In none of these cases so cited is the effect of the above authorities impaired, or the correctness of the rule there laid down questioned. In the present case, however, the grounds upon which the defendant sought to have the judgment vacated existed before the judgment was entered, and would have been available upon an appeal from the judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Federal Government Spending and Employment /
              - 13.5 Federal Government Spending and Employment—Federal Expenditures on Other Services

## Table 13.5: Federal Government Spending and Employment—Federal Expenditures on Other Services

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 14, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Richard E. Weise, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Room 6206, MSC 9619, Bethesda, MD 20892-9619, 
301-443-7281.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 14, 2000.
    Time: 2:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Richard D. Weise, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Room 6206, MSC 9619, Bethesda, MD 20892-9619, 
301-443-7281.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 6, 2000.
    Time: 2 P.M. to 4 P.M.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd, Bethesda, MD 20892, (telephone conference call).
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: May 16, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12901 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 35.23 Assurances required.

A recipient or applicant for Federal financial assistance from DOL shall sign a written assurance, in a form specified by DOL, that the program or activity will be operated in compliance with the Act and this part. In subsequent applications to DOL, an applicant may incorporate this assurance by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Miller, Appellant.

Argued May 25, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*Charles E. Callahan*and *Judson B. Glen*for appellant.

*Daniel J. O’Mara, District Attorney (,Stephen K. Pollard*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
(75 South. 628)

(3 Div. 263.)

#### STEELE v. STATE.

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

Criminal Law &wkey;5l09&wkey;ApPEAL — Affirmance on Record in Absence oe Bill oe Exceptions.

Where there is no bill of exceptions, and no-error is apparent from the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. §§ 2807, 3204.]

Appeal from- Circuit Court, Lowndes County ; A. E. Gamble, Judge.

Jack Steele was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.1

Affirmed.

R. L. Goldsmith, of Hayneville, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

*81SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was indicted on a charge of murder in the first degree and convicted of murder in the second degree. From the judgment of conviction he appeals.

There is no bill of exceptions, and we find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed
EPA HF Workshop

Flow of Gas and Water in Hydraulically Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs March 28 -29, 2011 / Arlington, Virginia Zhong He – Technical Advisor

### Outline ● Controlling factors for fluid flow ● Permeability of Marcellus shale ● Hydraulic fracturing ● Pressure sinks and pressure distribution ● Fate of frac water ● Concluding remarks

2

### Controlling Factors for Fluid Flow
• Hydraulic conduit and pressure gradient

3 A Pressure gradient, , psi/ft Permeability – a measure of flow capacity 

### Darcy’s Law q

### Permeability of Marcellus Shale

4

kv<< kh kv = + 0.01 x kh Marcellus Limestone Shale Shale

Limestone Marcellus Shale Depth, ft 5,500 ~ 8,500 Matrix Porosity (%) 2 ~ 12 Matrix Permeability ( nanodarcy ) 100 ~ 450 Pore Size (nanometer) 10s ~ 100s Shale typically serves as a cap rock to prevent escape of fluids 5,500 ~ 8,500 ft

### Hydraulic Fracturing

5 Limestone Shale Shale

Limestone Depth  Stress  Stress Profiles


### Fracture height growth is confined by stress barriers and formation leak- off etc. 5,500 ~ 8,500 ft Leak- off

### Microseismic Data from Marcellus Shale Treatments

6

Fracturing of the Marcellus cannot impact groundwater

### Hydraulic Fracturing

7

Created Fracture Length Propped Fracture Length > 500 ft 250 ft 

### During treatment After treatment



### Areal View

Some of induced fractures may become isolated after treatment

### Pressure Sinks During Production

8

Gas flow fractures wellbore

### Pressure Distributions

9 Low High 

### During Production During Shut-in

Pressure is always lower in stimulated zone than the surrounding formations

### Minimum Gas Flow from Outside Stimulated Area

10 Effective Drainage Area: 2800ft by 700 ft ≈ 45 acre

Less than 20% pressure depletion
After 50 years production Gas Rate Matching

BHP Matching Matching BU pressure Matching Gas Rate

### Fate of Frac Water ● Where does frac water go ? 1. Flowed back from fractures during production 20 – 40 % 2. Imbibed into the matrix pore space o Sw increases 10~50% o Minimal K

rw o Much more viscous than gas o Practically immobile (stays in reservoir forever) 3. Trapped in disconnected fractures

### Flow of Frac Water ● Mainly occurs within propped fractures ● Multiple phase flow ● Water rate quickly declines and become stabilized

### Fate of Frac Water ● Where does frac water go ? 1. Flowed back from fractures during production 20 – 40 % 2. Imbibed into the matrix pore space o Sw increases 10~50% o Minimal K

rw o Much more viscous than gas o Practically immobile (stays in reservoir forever) 3. Trapped in disconnected fractures P w P g

SPE 89866

### Concluding Remarks ● Pressure gradients drive the flow of gas and water o Gas must move into fractures, then to wellbore o Water mainly flows within fractures into wellbore ● Physical principles preclude migration of gas and water away from the stimulated zone ● A portion of frac water is produced up the wellbore back to surface o Wellbore isolated from surrounding rock by steel casing strings and cement ● Majority of frac water is held by shale formation and becomes immobile
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit 10.22(b)
                          AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE
                     LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., SUPPLEMENTAL
                           EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 11.1(a) of the Litton Industries, Inc.,
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Supplemental Plan"), the Board of
Directors of Litton Industries, Inc. (the "Board") has the authority to amend
the Supplemental Plan;

WHEREAS, the Board has passed a resolution that the proper officers of Litton
Industries, Inc. ("Litton") be authorized to amend the Supplemental Plan to
provide that a benefit statement under the Supplemental Plan shall only be
provided upon the request of a participant or beneficiary as the case may be;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supplemental Plan is hereby amended as follows:

Section 12.3 of the Supplemental shall be deleted in its entirety and the
following new Section 12.3 inserted therefor:

"Section 12.3 Benefit Statements. Upon the request of a Participant or a
Beneficiary, as the case may be, the Company shall provide a statement of
benefits under the Supplemental Plan to such Participant (or Beneficiary) that
includes the information necessary to calculate the accrued Retirement
Benefits, Disability Benefit, or Death Benefit, as applicable, with respect to
such Participants or Beneficiary."

This Amendment Number One to the Supplemental Plan shall be effective as of
August 1, 1995.

                                       By: /s/ TIMOTHY G. PAULSON
                                           ----------------------  
                                               Timothy G. Paulson 

                                   Attest: /s/ JEANETTE M. THOMAS
                                           ---------------------- 
                                               Jeanette M. Thomas
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1

a21, Inc
One Embarcadero Center,
Suite 500 San Francisco,
California 94111
(415) 284-2121

CERTICATION 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 a21, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Haim Ariav,
President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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.





/s/ Haim Ariav
-------------
Haim Ariav, President
(Principal Executive Officer)





<PAGE>
#### Moran *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 748.)

1. Appeal and Error; Review; Charges. — Where the transcript contains no bill of exceptions, the appellate court is without information which will authorize it to review the written charges requested by defendant, and refused.

2. Same; Presumption. — Where there is nothing in the record to show when a motion in arrest of judgment was made, or what disposition the court made of such motion, the presumption will be indulged that the court ruled correctly, since error must be affirmatively shown.

3. Same; Record; Motion in Arrest. — A motion in arrest of judgment reaches only errors apparent on the face of the record, but the record should show some order or judgment on the motion in order to have it reviewed.

4. Same; Review. — While Acts 1915, p. 598, automatically gives an appellant an exception to the court’s adverse ruling upon a written motion, it also requires the ruling to be made a part of the record.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. William- E. Fort.

Tom Moran was convicted of crime and he appeals.

Affirmed. -

John P. Abbott, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

EVANS, J.

(1) The transcript in this appeal contains no bill of exceptions, and, following the repeated holdings of this court, we cannot, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, review the written requests to charge refused to *appellant.*— Mitchell's *Case,*14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; *Clay’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 664, 71 South. 982; *Clark’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; *Dorough’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208.

*380
      (2) The motion 'for arrest of judgment is rightly set out in the record proper; but nothing appears from the record to show what, if any, action was taken by the court with reference to said motion; nor does it appear from said record when the motion was filed or made.

(3) It is not the office of a bill of exceptions to present for review the ruling of the trial court on a motion in arrest of judgment. This motion reaches only errors appearing on the face of the record. The record should show, however, some order or judgment upon the *motion.*— Taylor’s *Case,*112 Ala. 69, 20 South. 848; *Hampton’s Case,*133 Ala. 180, 32 South. 230.

(4) A recent statute (Acts 1915, p. 598) gives an appellant automatically an exception to the adverse ruling of the court upon a written motion, assuming the motion to have been in.writing, but the statute also requires the ruling of the court to be made a part of the record. Error is not presumed; it should be affirmatively shown. No ruling or order of court appears, and non constat the motion may have been filed after *sentence.*— Sanders’ *Case,*129 Ala. 69, 29 South. 841.

An inspection of the record reveals no reversible error, and the judgment below must be affirmed.

Affirmed.