alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2701.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to implement the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. The rules in this part are intended to open, to the extent practicable, the meetings of the Commission to public observation while preserving the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities and respect the interests of persons in confidential consideration of sensitive matters.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies to all meetings of the Commission. A “meeting of the Commission” means a joint deliberation in person or by conference telephone call of at least a majority of either the members of the Commission or of a panel of three or more Commissioners that determines or results in the joint conduct or disposition of official Commission business, but does not include ( 1 ) deliberations regarding a decision to open or close a meeting, to withhold information about a meeting, and the circumstances of meetings, such as their time, place, and subject matter, and
( 2 ) the individual deliberations of Commission members of matters considered upon circulated documents or other notation procedure.
#### § 4022.1 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe rules governing the calculation and payment of benefits payable in terminated single-employer plans under section 4022 of ERISA. Subpart A, which applies to each plan providing benefits guaranteed under title IV of ERISA, contains definitions applicable to all subparts, and describes benefits that are guaranteed by the PBGC subject to the limitations set forth in subpart B. Subpart C is reserved for rules relating to the calculation and payment of unfunded nonguaranteed benefits under section 4022(c) of ERISA. Subpart D prescribes procedures that minimize the overpayment of benefits by plan administrators after initiating distress terminations of single-employer plans that are not expected to be sufficient for guaranteed benefits. Subpart E sets forth the method of recoupment of benefit payments in excess of the amounts permitted under sections 4022, 4022B, and 4044 of ERISA from participants and beneficiaries in PBGC-trusteed plans, and provides for reimbursement of benefit underpayments. (The provisions of this part have not been amended to take account of changes made in section 4022 of ERISA by sections 766 and 777 of the Retirement Protection Act of 1994.)

[61 FR 34028, July 1, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 67728, Dec. 30, 1997]
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v BUSHAW

Case No. 87-013063 MM A02

County Court, Palm Beach County

August 18, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Spencer Levine, Assistant State Attorney, for plaintiff.

Donald Stephens, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT S. SCHWARTZ, County Judge.

THIS MATTER WAS BEFORE THE COURT pursuant to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court having heard the argument of the parties and having examined authority presented by counsel, hereby denies the motion.

The Defendant is charged with resisting arrest without violence in *12violation of section 843.02. According to the affidavit of probable cause, the defendant repeatedly physically interposed himself between the complaining officer and a third party, who was in the process of being arrested, thereby interfering with that arrest.

The Defense urges that Chapter 843.02 is unconstitutionally broad and is thereby susceptible of being interpreted to prohibit protected speech. In support of this position, the Defense cites United States Supreme Court case of *City of Houston v. Hill,*55 L.W. 4823 (U.S.S.Ct. 1987). In that case the Supreme Court invalidated a Houston city ordinance which has some similarities to 843.02. However, the Houston ordinance is significantly different than the Florida statute in that it makes it unlawful to, inter alia, “interrupt” a policeman in the performance of his duties. The Court clearly based its decision upon this provision of the ordinance. In fact, the issue to be decided in the Houston case, as formulated by the Court, was:

> “. . . whether a municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer ... is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.”

The statute complained of in the case at bar does not contain the offending verbiage and the Houston case is therefore distinguishable. It is settled law that enactments of the legislature are presumed to be constitutional.

The actions of the Defendant which form the subject matter of the criminal allegations, in the case at bar, do not involve protected speech. In a proper case, the Court might grant a dismissal where the act of a Defendant was purely verbal in nature. But in its ruling today, this Court does not have to decide that issue in the above case.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 16th day of August 1987 at West Palm Beach, Florida.
-----------------------------------



### Comments on EPA's proposed 

### Carbon Pollution Standard, Henry Hamburger henryjh@comcast.net May 24, 2012 Good evening. I'm Henry Hamburger, memberofthe Union of Concerned Scientists, emeritus professor ofcomputer science, at George Mason University, and formerly a tenured mathematical social scientist atthe University ofCalifornia, Irvine, where Iworked in a field ofcrucial relevance to the issue now before EPA, the study ofthe 

### multi-person Prisoner's Dilemma game, originated by three people independently in 1973, according to "Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories." One gota Nobel prize in economics, anotherthe William Jamesaward in psychology, and thethird one is me. Iwill state the lessons learned from this field and relate them to the need for regulation, specifically with regard to carbon pollution. Game theory is about interacting decisions. Prisoner's Dilemma was originally a game with just two people: For example, two strangers sit in separate rooms without the ability to communicate. Each gets an initial stake of$10

- to keep, or maybe not. Each is offered an additional $1 0. Ifone ofthem takes it, that costs the other one$15. And vice versa. So each has two options: Take itor leave it. No matterwhat you think the other person will choose, you do best by taking the offered extra amount. But if both ofyou take say yes, you're both worse off (20 minus 15) than if eachjusttook the initial stake (10). So individual rational choice defeatsthe common good. Here are 

### 10lessons teamedfrom the game called 

### Multi-Person Prisoners' Dilemma:
1. Many real-life situations havethis decision structure. 2. Most notably situations involving pollution. 3. Results may involve money, health, and other good things. 4. The numbers matter, the amount of money, the degree of lost health. 5. Communication matters. 6. Voluntary uncritical cooperation is for suckers. 7. With increasing numbers of players, cooperation gets harder and harderto achieve. 8. Governmentscan restructure a situation to induce better outcomes. 9. A nation sets up the gamethat businesses play. 10. Nations are also players- in a global game, wherethe rules are treaties. Here are 

### 3 real, known, solutions to realproblems structuredlike Prisoner's Dilemma:
1. Congestion charging in urban centers. 2. Enforced nonproliferation of nuclearweapons. 3. 

### Governmentregulation ofcarbon. (so you're notonly legal, you're 

### right!) Yes, EPA is 

### rightto have a 

### Carbon Pollution Standardbut you can 

### do more! 5 

### things wonyme. 1. 

### Frackinq is carbon pollution that's huge, upstream and apparently ignored here. 2. 

### Sequestration is a long-term risk, huge, downstream and apparently ignored here 3. 

### Old utilities: Where is the pressureto replace them? 4. 

### Non-utilities andsmallutilities: Exemption promotes subdividing and decentralizing. 5. "Averaging" -We need 

### accountabilitybefore year 11.
TO: Distribution Transformers Negotiation Committee

FROM: Navigant on behalf of DOE DATE: Monday, 07 November 2011 RE: Updates to the Analytical Methodology since meetings of 12-14 October

Navigant has made several changes to the engineering analyses in response to manufacturersupplied design details.

Liquid-Immersed (Design Lines 1-5): (no changes)

Medium-Voltage Dry-Type (Design Lines 11 and 12 only):

• New design option combination (M4 Al Al step-lap miter)

• Adjusted material prices for M6 and worse (see table below)

• Revised labor estimates

• Modified estimates of losses to reflect those of substation-style units

Low-Voltage Dry-Type (Design Lines 6-8):

• New design option combination (M6 Al Al full miter) for design line 8

• Adjusted material prices for M6 and worse (see table below)

• Revised labor estimates

• Limited core construction type to Stacked core to improve comparisons(amorphous excepted)

• Deleted step-lapping as a design option for design line 6

• Created per-pound cost adders for both full mitering and step-lapping

• Reduced induction upper bound limit in design line 7

Dry-Type Material Price Changes Material for Dry-type Original Current M36 core steel (26 gauge) $ 0.66 $ 0.60 M19 core steel (26 gauge) $ 0.91 $ 0.83 M12 core steel $ 1.03 $ 0.95 M6 core steel $ 1.46 $ 1.33 M5 core steel $ 1.51 $ 1.38 M4 core steel $ 1.59 $ 1.45
#### PAULINE SCHMITT v BARBARA SCHMITT

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 8765.

Decided November 12, 1928

Messrs. Gordon & Gordon, Cleveland, for Pauline Schmitt.

Messrs. Kees, Marvin & Goldrie, Cleveland, for Barbara Schmitt.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where husband and wife separated, it not being clear which one abandoned the other, and thereafter the husband opened savings bank accounts in his own name and that of each of two nephews, but it did not appear that the. nephews exercised any control over the accounts until the death of the husband, when each withdrew the money apparently without the request of decedent’s daughter and gave the ■Whole amount to her. taking receipts therefor, it was held that the transactions were conducted in such manner that the money in the accounts belonged to decedent’s estate, that his widow, as administratrix, was entitled thereto, the intent of a gift inter vivos or present joint control being negatived by acts of the parties.

Opinion by

VICKERY, J.

SULLIVAN, P. J. & LEVINE, J., concur.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 31, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: 

1. Anthony & Suzanne Steele, Bentonville, Arkansas; to retain voting shares of BOR Bancshares, Inc., Rogers, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank of Rogers, Rogers, Arkansas. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 2000. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-12411 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles S. Conoley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 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 result of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
                included in such Report.




/s/Charles
      S. Conoley


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


November
      14, 2008
[No. 28315-8-II.

Division Two.

October 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Marcus Dale Roldan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 01-1-00319-4, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered January 3, 2002. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 88 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Food and Drug Administration’s 

(FDA) new policy restricting women’s access to medications containing 

estriol does not serve the public interest. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. BUNNING) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Food and Drug 

Administration’s (FDA) new policy restricting women’s 

access to medications containing estriol does not serve 

the public interest. 

Whereas menopause is often a challenging transition for millions of women that requires specialized medications and 

medical treatments; 

Whereas physicians prescribe a variety of pharmaceutical 

treatment options to treat women experiencing the symptoms of menopause; 

Whereas individual women respond differently to different 

treatment options; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 88 IS 

Whereas women’s physicians determine on a case-by-case 

basis which treatment option is optimal for each woman; 

Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen and 

other bioidentical hormone treatments for patients for a 

variety of reasons; 

Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen 

treatments that contain estriol to treat menopausal and 

perimenopausal women; 

Whereas estriol is one of three estrogens produced by the 

human body; 

Whereas estriol has been prescribed and used for decades in 

the United States; 

Whereas Congress has long recognized active pharmaceutical 

ingredients meeting standards set by the United States 

Pharmacopeia as permissible options for physician prescribing and pharmacy compounding; 

Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will no longer permit compounding pharmacists to prepare medications containing estriol pursuant to a doctor’s prescription; 

Whereas insurers are now denying women reimbursement for 

compounded medications containing estriol as a result of 

the FDA’s announcement; and 

Whereas the FDA has acknowledged that it is unaware of 

any adverse events associated with use of compounded 

medications containing estriol: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•SCON 88 IS 

1 (1) physicians are in the best position to deter2 mine which medications are most appropriate for 

3 their patients; 

4 (2) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

5 should respect the physician-patient relationship; 

6 and 

7 (3) the FDA should reverse its policy that aims 

8 to eliminate patients’ access to compounded medica9 tions containing estriol that their physicians pre10 scribe for them, unless the FDA holds a public com11 ment period on the issue and can document evidence 

12 of adverse events and other safety issues to justify 

13 such policy. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT10.103**

 

**STRAIGHTNOTE**

** **

 

| $200,000 |   | South El Monte,  California |   | August 29, 2003 |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------|

 

For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises topay Mark DiSalvo or order, at South El Monte, California the sum of TWO HUNDREDTHOUSAND DOLLARS, with interest from August 29, 2003, on unpaid principal atthe rate of twenty (20) per cent per annum; principal is payable monthly,commencing on October 15, 2003, with monthly principal payments of $5,000. Theremaining principal balance of this note is due and payable on December 15,2005.  Interest shall be calculated onthe basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a 365-day year,actual day month and payable monthly. Principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the UnitedStates.  If action were instituted onthis note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney’sfees.  This note is secured by thetrademarks on the product brand OraStat®.

 

 
| AUGUST 29, 2003 |   | RONALD G. LEE                            |   |
|-----------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|            | Date   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee      |   |
|            |   |
|            |   |
| AUGUST 29, 2003 |   | MICHAEL L. AGRESTI                       |   |
|            | Date   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti |   |
|            |   |
|                 |        |                                          |        |  |

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                   Exhibit 11

                  COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,      
                                                               -----------------------------------

                                                             1995                       1994                     1993
EARNINGS
--------
<S>                                                      <C>                       <C>                       <C>
Earnings (Loss) Before
Cumulative Effect of Change
in Accounting Principle                                     $ 5,634,516              $ 4,374,374               $ (2,817,527)

Cumulative Effect of Change in
Accounting Principle                                                ---                      ---                  1,500,000 
                                                            -----------              -----------               ------------
Net Earnings (Loss)                                         $ 5,634,516              $ 4,374,374               $ (1,317,527)
                                                            ===========              ===========               ============

SHARES
------
Weighted Average Number of
Common Shares Outstanding                                     4,724,489                4,710,966                  4,701,966
(See Note)

Additional Shares Assuming
Conversion of Stock Options                                      39,002                   47,122                        ---
                                                            -----------              -----------               ------------ 
Weighted Average Common Shares
Outstanding and Equivalents                                   4,763,491                4,757,867                  4,701,966
                                                            ===========              ===========               ============


PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
---------------------------------
Earnings (Loss) Before
Cumulative Effect of Change
in Accounting Principle                                     $      1.18              $       .92               $       (.60)

Cumulative Effect of Change
in Accounting Principle                                             ---                      ---                        .32
                                                            -----------              -----------               ------------ 
Net Earnings (Loss)                                         $      1.18              $       .92               $       (.28)
                                                            ===========              ===========               ============
</TABLE>

     Note:   All activity during the year has been adjusted for the number
             of days in the year that the shares were outstanding.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of The Liberty Corporation of our report dated February 6, 2001, except for the
last paragraph of Note 7, as to which the date is February 27, 2001, included in
the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of The Liberty Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of The Liberty
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-22591) pertaining to The Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation
Retirement and Savings Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-30151) pertaining to The Performance Incentive Compensation Program of our
report dated February 6, 2001, except for the last paragraph of Note 7, as to
which the date is February 27, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of The Liberty Corporation incorporated by reference in
the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
March 26, 2001



                                       41