alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 457.11 Agency, employee, labor organization, dues, Department, activity, employing office.

*Agency, employee, labor organization,* and *dues,* when used in connection with the CSRA, have the meanings set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7103. *Employee, labor organization,* and *dues,* when used in connection with the FSA, have the meanings set forth in 22 U.S.C. 4102; *Department,* when used in connection with the FSA, means the Department of State, except that with reference to the exercise of functions under the FSA with respect to another agency authorized to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system, such term means that other agency. *Covered employee, employee, employing office,* and *agency,* when used in connection with the CAA, have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. 1301 and 1351(a)(2). *Activity* means any facility, organizational entity, or geographical subdivision or combination thereof of any agency or employing office.

[62 FR 6093, Feb. 10, 1997]
§ 2570.162 Service: Copies of documents and pleadings. For 502(c)(8) penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.3 of this title. ( a ) *General.* Copies of all documents shall be served on all parties of record. All documents should clearly designate the docket number, if any, and short title of all matters. All documents to be filed shall be delivered or mailed to the Chief Docket Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001-8002, or to the OALJ Regional Office to which the proceeding may have been transferred for hearing. Each document filed shall be clear and legible.
( b ) *By parties.* All motions, petitions, pleadings, briefs, or other documents shall be filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges with a copy, including any attachments, to all other parties of record. When a party is represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney. Service of any document upon any party may be made by personal delivery or by mailing a copy to the last known address. The Department shall be served by delivery to the Associate Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Division, ERISA section 502(c)(8) Proceeding, P.O. Box 1914, Washington, DC 20013. The person serving the document shall certify to the manner and date of service.
( c ) *By the Office of Administrative Law Judges.* Service of orders, decisions and all other documents shall be made by regular mail to the last known address.
( d ) *Form of pleadings.* ( 1 ) Every pleading shall contain information indicating the name of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) as the agency under which the proceeding is instituted, the title of the proceeding, the docket number (if any) assigned by the Office of Administrative Law Judges and a designation of the type of pleading or paper (e.g., notice, motion to dismiss, *etc.*). The pleading or paper shall be signed and shall contain the address and telephone number of the party or person representing the party. Although there are no formal specifications for documents, they should be typewritten when possible on standard size 81 ⁄ 2 × 11-inch paper.
( 2 ) Illegible documents, whether handwritten, typewritten, photocopied, or otherwise, will not be accepted. Papers may be reproduced by any duplicating process provided all copies are clear and legible.
#### § 452.44 Dual unionism.

While the Act does not prohibit a person from maintaining membership or holding office in more than one labor organization, it would be considered reasonable for a union to bar from candidacy for office persons who hold membership in a rival labor organization.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$10,000                                                              May 2, 2002

For value received, the undersigned, Coinless Systems, Inc. ("the Promisor"),
promises to pay upon demand to the order of Dennis W. and/or Janice Sorenson
("the Payee") located at 1124 Sable Mist Court, Las Vegas, NV 89144 (or at such
other place as the Payee may designate in writing) the sum of $10,000.00 with
interest from May 2, 2002 on the unpaid principal at a rate of 8.5% interest per
annum.

All payments on this Note shall be applied first in payment of accrued interest
and any remainder in payment of principal.

The Promisor reserves the right to prepay this Note (in whole or in part) prior
to the due date with no prepayment penalty.

If any payment obligation under this Note is not paid when demanded, the
Promisor promises to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney
fees, whether or not a lawsuit is commenced as part of the collection process.

If any of the following events of default occur, this Note shall become due
immediately, without demand or notice:

1)       the failure of the Promisor to pay the principal and any accrued
         interest in full upon demand;

2)       the filing of bankruptcy proceedings involving the Promisor as a
         Debtor;

3)       the application for appointment of a receiver for the Promisor;

4)       the making of a general assignment for the benefit of the Promisor's
         creditors;

5)       the insolvency of the Promisor; or

6)       the misrepresentation by the Promisor to the Payee for the purpose of
         obtaining or extending credit; or

7)       the sale or merger of Corporation.


<PAGE>

If any or more of the provisions of this Note are determined to be
unenforceable, in whole or in part, for any reason, the remaining provisions
shall remain fully operative.

All payments of principal and interest on this Note shall be paid in the legal
currency of the United States. Promisor waives presentment of payment, protest,
and notice of protest and nonpayment on this Note.

No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of the Payee
under this Note, or assignment by Payee of this Note shall affect the liability
of the Promisor. All rights of the Payee under this Note are cumulative and may
be exercised concurrently or consecutively at the Payee's option.

Payee may, at their option, convert this note into Common Stock of CSI, as per
Resolution of the Board of Directors, dated February 4, 2000.

This Note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.


Signed this 2nd day of May 2002 in Las Vegas, Nevada.



PROMISOR
Coinless Systems, Inc.



By: /s/ Darryl D. Dorsett
    -------------------------------
    Darryl D. Dorsett
    Chief Financial Officer
#### § 4000.11 What are these issuance rules about?

Where a particular regulation calls for their application, the rules in this subpart B of part 4000 tell you what methods you may use to issue a notice or otherwise provide information to any person other than us (e.g., a participant or beneficiary). They do *not* cover payments to third parties. In some cases, the PBGC regulations tell you to comply with requirements that are found somewhere other than in the PBGC's own regulations (e.g., requirements under the Internal Revenue Code). If so, you must comply with any applicable issuance rules under those other requirements. (Subpart A tells you what filing methods you may use for filings with us. Subpart C tells you how we determine your filing or issuance date. Subpart D tells you how to compute various periods of time. Subpart E tells you how to maintain required records in electronic form.)
§ 2584.8477(e)-4 Revocation and termination of allocation. ( a ) Any allocation made pursuant to this part must be revocable at will by the allocating fiduciary, subject only to notice which is reasonable under the circumstances.
( b ) Any revocation by the allocating fiduciary or termination of an allocation by the fiduciary to whom duties have been allocated must set forth in writing the duties and responsibilities as to which the revocation or termination is effective, either in the body of the document or by reference to another document existing at the time of the revocation or termination.
( c ) Any revocation of an allocation must— ( 1 ) In the case of an allocation which was made by the Board, be authorized by the concurring vote of a majority of the total membership of the Board and be signed by the Chairman of the Board, or
( 2 ) In the case of an allocation which was made by the Executive Director, be signed by the Executive Director.
( d ) Any termination of an allocation, to be effective, must— ( 1 ) In the case of an allocation which was made by the Board, be signed by the terminating fiduciary and acknowledged in writing by the Chairman of the Board, or
( 2 ) In the case of an allocation which was made by the Executive Director, be signed by the terminating fiduciary and acknowledged in writing by the Executive Director.
( e ) Any revocation or termination of an allocation must be communicated by the Executive Director in an appropriate written form to the participants and beneficiaries of the Thrift Savings Fund in a manner which identifies the person(s) assuming the responsibilities which were the subject of the revocation or termination.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****New Hampshire�s forestresources.**
 
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.163/29:
Item Number:0084-N-29 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000965598
 
March 29, 2018
(74 South. 1007)

#### MITCHELL v. McMAHON.

(1 Div. 250.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 1917.)

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Bemey, Judge.

John B. Mitchell, of Mobile, pro se. W. O. McMahon, of Mobile, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
§ 5.26 “* * * contribution irrevocably made * * * to a trustee or to a third person”. ( a ) *Requirements.* The following requirements apply to any fringe benefit contributions made to a trustee or to a third person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program: ( 1 ) Such contributions must be made irrevocably;
( 2 ) The trustee or third person may not be affiliated with the contractor or subcontractor;
( 3 ) A trustee must adhere to any fiduciary responsibilities applicable under law; and
( 4 ) The trust or fund must not permit the contractor or subcontractor to recapture any of the contributions paid in or any way divert the funds to its own use or benefit.
( b ) *Excess payments.* Notwithstanding the above, a contractor or subcontractor may recover sums which it had paid to a trustee or third person in excess of the contributions actually called for by the plan, such as excess payments made in error or in order to cover the estimated cost of contributions at a time when the exact amount of the necessary contributions is not yet known. For example, a benefit plan may provide for definite insurance benefits for employees in the event of contingencies such as death, sickness, or accident, with the cost of such definite benefits borne by the contractor or subcontractor. In such a case, if the insurance company returns the amount that the contractor or subcontractor paid in excess of the amount required to provide the benefits, this will not be deemed a recapture or diversion by the employer of contributions made pursuant to the plan. (*See* Report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S. Rep. No. 963, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5.)
[88 FR 57744, Aug. 23, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Francis E. de Paolo, Appellant, against The Department of Health of the City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted July 13, 1937;

decided September 28, 1937.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for motion.

No one opposed:

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-10-00613- CR

Juliu s Wilson Jr., Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 635 79, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O PI N I O N Appellant J ulius Wil son J r. has filed a pro s e n o t i ce of appea l from his conviction for the offe nse of murder. The district court has cer tified that this is a plea- barg ain case , the defe ndant has no right of appea l, and the defe ndant has waived the right of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)( 2), (d) . Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed Filed: Oc tober 14, 2010 Do Not Publish
(77 South. 1004)

#### ROBERTSON v. STATE.

(1 Div. 251.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 22, 1917.)

Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 95-11069 -1-

Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11069 Conference Calendar

DONNA TOERPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FRANK D. TROTTER; H. JENNINGS, Sheriff; DALLAS COUNTY; DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T; CITY OF CEDAR HILL; JOHN DOE 1-10; JANE DOE 1-10; CITY OF CEDAR HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-2356-G

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Donna Toerper appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Toerper contends that the district court erred in finding that the allegations of her complaint were duplicative of a complaint she filed earlier in 1995, which was dismissed by this court on appeal for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s findings, andNo. 95-11069 -2- the district court’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. Toerper v.
Trotter , No. 3:95-CV-2356-G (N.D. Tex. October 26, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
§ 1952.23 Connecticut. ( a ) The Connecticut State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on November 3, 1978.
( b ) In accordance with 29 CFR 1956.10(g), a State is required to have a sufficient number of adequately trained and competent personnel to discharge its responsibilities under the plan. The Connecticut Public Employee Only State plan provides for three (3) safety compliance officers and one (1) health compliance officer as set forth in the Connecticut Fiscal Year 1986 grant. This staffing level meets the “fully effective” benchmarks established for Connecticut for both safety and health.
( c ) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/connecticut.html .*
§ 42.4 Structure of the National Committee. ( a ) The National Committee shall consist of the Under Secretary of Labor, the Solicitor of Labor, and the Assistant Secretaries for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA).
( b ) The Committee shall be headed by the Under Secretary, who shall assign to one of his/her Special Assistants the responsibility of directing the necessary staff work required by the Committee.
( c ) The National Committee shall meet on a quarterly basis to review the Department's responsibilities affecting migrant farmworkers, and at any other time as determined by the Under Secretary to be necessary to carry out the National Committee's responsibilities.
( d ) There shall be a National Committee staff level working group consisting of senior staff representatives from the Branch of Farm Labor Law Enforcement, the Wage and Hour Division, the U.S. Employment Service (the National MSFW Monitor Advocate), the Employment and Training Administration, the Office of Field Coordination and the Directorate of Federal Compliance and State Programs in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Office of the Solicitor.
( e ) The Special Assistant to the Under Secretary shall be the director of the staff level working group.
( f ) The staff level working group shall meet monthly or more frequently as requested by the director.
( g ) The director, or another member of the National Committee, shall attend the annual public meeting of each of the Regional Farm Labor Coordinating Committees.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 5 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. J. RES. 5

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United 
                          States posthumously.

Whereas Casimir Pulaski was a Polish military officer who fought on the side of 
        the American colonists against the British in the American Revolutionary 
        War;
Whereas Benjamin Franklin recommended that General George Washington accept 
        Casimir Pulaski as a volunteer in the American Cavalry and said that 
        Pulaski was ``renowned throughout Europe for the courage and bravery he 
        displayed in defense of his country's freedom'';
Whereas after arriving in America, Casimir Pulaski wrote to General Washington, 
        ``I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live 
        or die for it.'';
Whereas the first military engagement of Casimir Pulaski with the British was on 
        September 11, 1777, at the Battle of Brandywine, and his courageous 
        charge in this engagement averted a disastrous defeat of the American 
        Cavalry and saved the life of George Washington;
Whereas on September 15, 1777, George Washington elevated Casimir Pulaski to the 
        rank of Brigadier General of the American Cavalry;
Whereas Casimir Pulaski formed the Pulaski Cavalry Legion, and in February 1779, 
        this legion ejected the British occupiers from Charleston, South 
        Carolina;
Whereas in October 1779, Casimir Pulaski mounted an assault against British 
        forces in Savannah, Georgia;
Whereas on the morning of October 9, 1779, Casimir Pulaski was mortally wounded 
        and was taken aboard the American ship USS Wasp, where he died at sea on 
        October 11, 1779;
Whereas before the end of 1779, the Continental Congress resolved that a 
        monument should be erected in honor of Casimir Pulaski;
Whereas in 1825, General Lafayette laid the cornerstone for the Casimir Pulaski 
        monument in Savannah, Georgia; and
Whereas in 1929, Congress passed a resolution recognizing October 11 of each 
        year as Pulaski Day in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Casimir Pulaski is 
proclaimed to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.

            Passed the Senate March 19, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              S. J. RES. 5

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United 
                          States posthumously.
```
### The Honorab le Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1289

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Michael Freeman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 23, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mic hael Freeman appeals the forty-month sentence imposed by th e Dist rict Court after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute an d 1 possess with intent to distribute cocaine base ( crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1994). We affirm.

At sentencing, Freeman objected to his offense-level calculation , wh ichwas derived from the penalty scheme set forth in 21 U.S.C
. § 841(b)(1), providing the same penalties for given amounts of crack and 100 ti mes greater amounts of powder cocaine (the 100-to-1 ratio)
. Freema n's objection was premised on Congress's rejection of a propose d amendm ent to the Sentencing Guidelines (Amendment 5) which would hav e eli minated the 100-to-1 ratio and equalized the penalties for crack an d powder cocaine.

### We do not r each the government's argument that Freeman lacks 2 

### standing to raise this challenge because he is a caucasian. -2- Freeman argued the 100-to-1 ratio had a dispropo rtionate adverse effect on African-Americans, Congress's rejection of Amendment 5 evidenced a di scriminatorypurpose on Congress's part in maintaining the penalt y scheme, and thus, continued application of the p enalty scheme violated his FifthAmendment equal protection and due process rights. The Distric t Court o verruled Freeman's objection, and he appeals. We rejected th e challenge Freeman raises here in United States v. Carter , No. 96-1329, 199 6 WL 453275, at *2-*3 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 1996) (per curiam). 2 Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
10-K/A Exhibit 10.2(B)






Exhibit 10.2(B)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 1 to Development Services Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated as of April 1, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), is between ACHAOGEN, INC. (“Achaogen”) and ARK Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ark”) and is issued pursuant to the Development Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 19, 2013, by and between Achaogen and Ark who are sometimes hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties” to this Amendment.
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as specified herein;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 8(b) Process for Entering Into Commercialization Agreement
		
	•
	The date of April 1, 2014 shall be extended through July 1, 2014


Other than as amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date(s) set forth below and it will be effective as of the day and year first above written.


ACHAOGEN, INC.    ARK DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
By:  /s/ Derek Bertocci    By:  /s/ Johnny Valdez    
Name:  Derek Bertocci    Name:  Johnny Valdez    
Title:  Chief Financial Officer    Title:  President & CEO    
Date:  April 16, 2014    Date:  4/9/2014