alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 500.267 Filing and service. ( a ) *Filing.* All documents submitted to the Administrative Review Board (Board) shall be filed in accordance with 29 CFR part 26.
( b ) *Computation of time for delivery.* Documents are not deemed filed with the Board until actually received by that office. All documents, including documents filed by mail, must be received by the Board either on or before the due date.
( c ) *Manner and proof of service.* A copy of all documents filed with the Board shall be served upon all other parties involved in the proceeding. Service under this section shall be in accordance with 29 CFR part 26.
[86 FR 1786, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gordon Kemp, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 140]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [3]) and sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). Defendant contends that the *Miranda*warnings should have been repeated after a four-hour break in the interrogation. Defendant failed to raise that contention at the suppression hearing and thus has failed to preserve it for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v DiLenola,*245 AD2d 1132; *People v Mota,*243 AD2d 316, *lv denied*91 NY2d 835). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. “ Tt is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued *Miranda*warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous’ ” *(People v Stanton,*162 AD2d 987, *lv denied*76 NY2d 991, quoting *People v Glinsman,*107 AD2d 710, *lv denied*64 NY2d 889, *cert denied*472 US 1021; *see, People v Thomas,*233 AD2d 347, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1102; *People v Baker,*208 AD2d 758, *lv denied*85 NY2d 905).

The contention of defendant that his statements to police were involuntary or improperly obtained because he was in the throes of a diabetic reaction and was taking medication for a psychiatric condition is also unpreserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v DiLenola, supra; People v Mota, supra; People v Sutton,*111 AD2d 197, *lv denied*66 NY2d 768) and in *888any event is lacking in merit. “[Biased on the totality of the circumstances [citations omitted], including the duration and conditions of detention, the attitude of the police toward the defendant, and the age, physical state and mental state of the defendant” *(People v Baker, supra,*at 758-759; *see also, People v Sakadinsky,*239 AD2d 443, *lv denied*90 NY2d 897), we conclude that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s statements were voluntary. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Attempted Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Scudder, Callahan and Balio, JJ.
**EXHIBIT      99.15**

**AMENDMENT      NO. 5 TO**

**LONGVIEW      FIBRE COMPANY**

**HOURLY      EMPLOYEES 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN**

|   | (a) | Distributions                Pursuant to QDROs.                If a QDRO so provides (or the portion of the Participant's Account                payable                to the Alternate Payee does not exceed $1,000), the portion of a                Participant's Account payable to an Alternate Payee may be distributed,                in                a form permissible under Article 12 (determined by taking into                account the size of the award), to the Alternate Payee at any time                beginning as soon as practicable after the Administrator's determination                that the domestic relations order constitutes a QDRO is made, regardless                of whether the Participant is entitled to a distribution from the                Plan at                such time. If applicable, the Alternate Payee shall be provided the                notice                prescribed by Code section 402(f). |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.103 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: ( a ) *Tax refund offset* refers to the IRS income tax refund offset program operated under authority of 31 U.S.C. 3720A.
( b ) *Past-due legally enforceable debt* is a delinquent debt administratively determined to be valid, whereon no more than 10 years have lapsed since the date of delinquency, and which is not discharged under a bankruptcy proceeding or subject to an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362.
( c ) *Agency* refers to the constituent offices, administrations and bureaus of the Department of Labor.
( d ) *Individual* refers to a taxpayer identified by a social security number (SSN).
( e ) *Business entity* refers to an entity identified by an employer identification number (EIN).
( f ) *Taxpayer mailing address* refers to the debtor's current mailing address as obtained from IRS.
( g ) *Memorandum of understanding* refers to the agreement between the Department and IRS outlining the duties and responsibilities of the respective parties for participation in the tax refund offset program.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS (LOSS) OF
THE LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLORATION COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  THIS SCHEDULE HAS BEEN RESTATED
TO CONFORM TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS ADOPTED IN 1996.  
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                            DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                                       12,500
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               128,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                  31,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            184,100
<PP&E>                                                    3,049,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                            1,809,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            1,478,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       190,500
<BONDS>                                                     739,500
<COMMON>                                                      5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  347,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              1,478,100
<SALES>                                                     789,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            789,300
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,086,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             22,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           25,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (345,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (118,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (226,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (226,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (6.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (6.80)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          60,333
<SECURITIES>                                       126
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,651
<INVENTORY>                                     97,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               377,935
<PP&E>                                         362,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 715,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,686
<BONDS>                                         99,399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,489
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   715,628
<SALES>                                        785,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               785,148
<CGS>                                          301,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  301,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               360,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,293
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,412
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             83,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.40
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



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

Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of a21, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert Pleus, Chairman
of the Board 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 results of operations of the Company.


 /s/ Albert H. Pleus
--------------------
Albert H. Pleus, Chairman
(Principal Financial Officer)



                                      -22-
§ 500.269 Stay pending decision of the Secretary. ( a ) The filing of a petition seeking review by the Secretary of a Decision and Order of an Administrative Law Judge, pursuant to § 500.264, does not stop the running of the thirty-day time limit in which respondent may file an appeal to obtain a review in the United States District Court of an administrative order, as provided in section 103(b)(2) or section 503(b)(2) of the Act, unless the Secretary issues a Notice of Intent pursuant to § 500.265.
( b ) In the event a respondent has filed a notice of appeal of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order in a United States District Court and the Secretary issues a Notice of Intent, the Secretary will seek a stay of proceedings in the Court until such time as the Secretary issues the final decision, as provided in § 500.268.
( c ) Where the Secretary has issued a Notice of Intent, the time for filing an appeal under sections 103(b)(2) or 503(b)(2) of the Act shall commence from the date of the issuance of the Secretary's final decision, as provided in § 500.268.
[54 FR 13330, Mar. 31, 1989]
#### HOLLAMBY v CLEVE RY CO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9912.

Decided November 18, 1929

Messrs. Payer, Minshall, Karch & Kerr, Cleveland, for Hollamby.

Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and S. B. Myerson, Esq., Cleveland, for Cleveland Ry Co et.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff claims to have been injured in said collision.

The chief question for our consideration is whether or not the court committed error in its refusal to give the follow-lowing charge requested by plaintiff, after the general charge was given by the court:

> “Mr. Minshall: Now if your Honor please, I'request that you charge that it would be negligence on the part of the defendant. The Cleveland Railway Company, to operate its car toward and past the place of the accident at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper having regard for the width, traffic, use and conditions then existing, at such place.

> “The court: I don’t think that is the law.

> “Mr. Minshall: May I have an exception to it?

> “The Court: Certainly. That rule applies to automobiles and the general street traffic, .not to a car operated on a fixed track as this was.”

We are of the opinion that the charge requested by plaintiff stated the law and that it applies to street cars as well as automobiles. A perusal of the general charge discloses that the court nowhere in its charge covered that point, and it also appears that the general charge was in harmony with the court’s notion of the law as expressed in its comments when it gave reasons for refusing plaintiff’s request to charge. In our opinion error was committed by the trial court in refusing such request to charge, and that the same substantially affects the rights of plaintiff.

For this reason the judgment of the Common Pleas Court is ordered reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ., Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 23




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-49167) of
Littlefield, Adams & Company (the "Company") of our report dated May 26, 2000
appearing on page F-1 of this December 31, 1999 Form 10-K. It should be noted
that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent to
December 31, 1999, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of
our report.



                                             /S/ VANDERHORST & MANNING CPAS, LLC

Dayton, Ohio
May 30, 2000
§ 4006.7 Premium rate for certain terminated single-employer plans. ( a ) The premium under this section (“termination premium”) applies to a DRA 2005 termination described in § 4007.13 of this chapter.
( b ) The amount of the premium under this section that is payable with respect to each applicable 12-month period (as described in § 4007.13 of this chapter) is the number of participants in the plan, determined as of the day before the termination date, multiplied by the termination premium rate. In general, the termination premium rate is $1,250. However, the termination premium rate is $2,500 for an “eligible plan” under section 402(c)(1) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (dealing with certain plans of commercial passenger airlines and airline catering services) while an election under section 402(a)(1) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (dealing with alternative funding schedules) is in effect for the plan if the plan terminates during the five-year period beginning on the first day of the first applicable plan year (as defined in section 402(c)(2) of that Act) with respect to the plan, unless the Secretary of Labor determines that the plan terminated as a result of extraordinary circumstances such as a terrorist attack or other similar event.
( c ) The premium under this section is in addition to any other premium under this part.
( d ) See § 4007.13 of this chapter for further rules about termination premiums.
[72 FR 71229, Dec. 17, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 13561, Mar. 11, 2014]
#### In the Matter of Jermain Walker, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 780]

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of making threats and engaging in conduct involving the threat of violence in violation of certain prison disciplinary rules. The charges in question stemmed from an incident wherein petitioner, using obscenities, was overheard threatening harm to correction officers. In sustaining such charges, the Hearing Officer relied upon, *inter alia,*the detailed misbehavior report authored by the correction officer who overheard petitioner’s statements. A penalty was imposed and, following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, subsequently transferred to this Court, to challenge the underlying determination.

Petitioner’s primary argument on review is that the determination before us is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, petitioner asserts that the underlying misbehavior report was written in retaliation for a grievance that petitioner had filed against the authoring correction officer and, hence, the testimony offered by such correction officer was unworthy of belief. We find this argument to be unpersuasive.

To be sure, the record reveals that the correction officer in question was, at the very least, mistaken when he initially testified that he was unaware of petitioner’s grievance at the time that he authored the relevant misbehavior report. Nonetheless, the correction officer denied that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for such grievance. In this regard, it is well settled that credibility determinations lie within the province of the Hearing Officer *(see generally, Matter of Flowers v Barkley,*244 AD2d 682) and, to that end, a Hearing Officer is free to accept or reject portions of the testimony offered by a particular witness as he or she sees fit.

Here, the Hearing Officer elected to credit the correction officer’s testimony that there was no retaliatory motive afoot and based the finding of guilt upon, *inter alia,*the misbehavior report authored by such officer. As the misbehavior report, standing alone, is sufficient to support the underlying determination (s*ee, Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966), we perceive no basis upon which to annul the determination. To *779the extent that petitioner points to certain time discrepancies between the misbehavior report and the facility logbook, we need note only that the Hearing Officer was well aware of petitioner’s argument on this point and determined such discrepancies to be inconsequential.

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
S. Con. Res. 67 Agreed to February 28, 2008

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur- ring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inau- gural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘joint committee’’), consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House 

of Representatives appointed by the President of the Senate and 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The 

joint committee is authorized to make the necessary arrangements 

for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presidentelect of the United States. 

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 

The joint committee— (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 

of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the 

joint committee and the heads of the departments and agencies, 

in connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; 

and 

(2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to carry out its responsibilities. 

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### § 4007.1 Purpose and scope.

This part, which applies to all plans that are covered by title IV of ERISA, provides procedures for paying the premiums imposed by sections 4006 and 4007 of ERISA. (See part 4006 of this chapter for premium rates and computational rules.)
#### § 453.20 Corporate sureties holding grants of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury.

The provisions of section 502(a) require that any surety company with which a bond is placed pursuant to that section must be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13), as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds. That Act provides, among other things, that in order for a surety company to be eligible for such grant of authority, it must be incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be satisfied of certain facts relating to its authority and capitalization. Such grants of authority are evidenced by Certificates of Authority which are issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and which expire on the June 30 following the date of their issuance. A list of the companies holding such Certificates of Authority is published annually in the Federal Register, usually in July. Changes in the list, occurring between July 1 and June 30, either by addition to or removal from the list of companies, are also published in the Federal Register following each such change.

[28 FR 14394, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985]