alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4281.18 Outstanding claims for withdrawal liability. ( a ) *Value of claim.* The plan sponsor shall value an outstanding claim for withdrawal liability owed by an employer described in paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section: ( 1 ) If the schedule of withdrawal liability payments provides for one or more series of equal payments, the plan sponsor shall value each series of payments as an annuity certain in accordance with the provisions of § 4281.13.
( 2 ) If the schedule of withdrawal liability payments provides for one or more payments that are not part of a series of equal payments as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the plan sponsor shall value each such unequal payment as a lump-sum payment in accordance with the provisions of § 4281.13.
( b ) *Employers neither liquidated nor in insolvency proceedings.* The plan sponsor shall value an outstanding claim for withdrawal liability under paragraph (a) of this section if, as of the valuation date— ( 1 ) The employer has not been completely liquidated or dissolved; and
( 2 ) The employer is not the subject of any case or proceeding under title 11, United States Code, or any case or proceeding under similar provisions of state insolvency laws; except that the claim for withdrawal liability of an employer that is the subject of a proceeding described in this paragraph (b)(2) shall be valued under paragraph (a) of this section if the plan sponsor determines that the employer is reasonably expected to be able to pay its withdrawal liability in full and on time.
( c ) *Claims against other employers.* The plan sponsor shall value at zero any outstanding claim for withdrawal liability owed by an employer that does not meet the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
#### In the Matter of Robert Lavery et al., Appellants, v Town of New Castle Planning Board, Respondent. Unicorn Contracting Corporation, Intervenor-Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 680]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated June 3, 1997, granting preliminary subdivision approval and a steep slope permit to the intervener Unicorn Contracting Corporation, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered May 15, 1998, which, upon a determination that the granting of preliminary subdivision approval to the intervenor Unicorn Contracting Corporation did not violate the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As the Court of Appeals stated in *Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia*(87 NY2d 668, 688): “A court’s authority to examine a SEQRA review conducted by an entity that was required to do so is limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was *217affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The relevant question before the court is ‘whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a “hard look” at them, and made a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination’ ” *(see also, Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v Jorling, 85*NY2d 382, 396-397; *Matter of Coalition for Responsible Dev. v Town Planning Bd.,*221 AD2d 626; *Matter of Philipstown Dirt Rds. Assn. v Town Bd.,*246 AD2d 656).

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Town of New Castle Planning Board complied with the substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act *(see,*ECL article 8) and, consequently, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding *(see, Matter of Coalition for Responsible Dev. v Town Planning Bd., supra; Matter of Kelsky v Town Bd.,*215 AD2d 482, 484).

The petitioners’ remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 94 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas service members representing a wide diversity of 

races and nationalities have fought in every war in the 

history of the United States; 

Whereas on July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed 

Executive Order 9981, ordering the racial integration of 

the Armed Forces; 

Whereas President Truman declared that there should be 

equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in 

the Armed Forces, without regard to race, color, religion, 

or national origin; 

Whereas the United States could not maintain an all-volunteer force without the service of, and critical role played 

by, service members representing a wide diversity of races 

and nationalities; 

Whereas service member diversity brings a unique perspective 

and experience to the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the Armed Forces led the way in social integration 

prior to the signal achievement of the legal victory in the 

Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, 

347 U.S. 483 (1954), which rejected separate white and 

colored schools; 

Whereas the Armed Forces led the way in social integration 

prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
2 

•SCON 94 ES 

which banned discrimination in employment practices and 

public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

which restored and protected voting rights, and the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968, which banned discrimination in the 

sale or rental of housing; 

Whereas the integration of the Armed Forces enhanced the 

combat effectiveness of the military 60 years ago, and 

that still holds true to the current day; 

Whereas the efforts of the Armed Forces to ensure equality 

of treatment and opportunity for their personnel significantly assisted in the advancement of that goal for all 

Americans; and 

Whereas in 2008, members representing a wide diversity of 

races and nationalities serve in senior leadership positions 

throughout the Armed Forces, as commissioned and warrant officers, as senior noncommissioned officers, and as 

civilian leaders: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the historic significance of the 

4 60th anniversary of the integration of the Armed 

5 Forces of the United States; 

6 (2) reaffirms the commitment of the Federal 

7 Government to ensuring diversity in the military; 

8 and 

9 (3) commends African-Americans, Hispanics, 

10 Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and service 

11 members of all races and nationalities for their re-
3 

•SCON 94 ES 

1 markable achievements, sacrifices, and contributions 

2 to our Armed Forces in all conflicts in United States 

3 history in the face of discrimination, hostility, and 

4 other obstacles. 

Passed the Senate July 22, 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 94 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the integration 

of the United States Armed Forces.
§ 520.502 What information must an application to employ student-learners at subminimum wages contain? Student-learner applications must contain: ( a ) A statement clearly outlining the vocational training program and showing, particularly, the processes in which the student-learner will be engaged when in training on the job;
( b ) A statement clearly outlining the school instruction directly related to the job;
( c ) The total number of workers employed in the establishment;
( d ) The number and hourly wage rates of experienced workers employed in the occupation in which the student-learner is to be trained;
( e ) The hourly wage rate or progressive wage schedule which the employer proposes to pay the student-learner;
( f ) The age of the student-learner;
( g ) The period of employment training at subminimum wages;
( h ) The number of hours of employment training a week and the number of hours of school instruction a week;
( i ) A certification by the appropriate school official that the student named on the application form will be receiving instruction in an accredited school, college, or university and will be employed pursuant to a bona fide vocational training program, as defined in subpart C of this part. The certification by the school official must satisfy the following conditions: ( 1 ) The application must be properly executed in conformance with § 520.501 of this subpart;
( 2 ) The employment training must conform with the provisions of § 520.503 (a), (c), (d), and (g) and paragraphs (a) and (c) of § 520.506;
( 3 ) The occupation must not be one for which a student-learner application was previously submitted by the employer and a special certificate was denied by the Administrator.
(The information collection requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1235-0001) [62 FR 64959, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 82 FR 2228, Jan. 9, 2017]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 20, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0167. HEART OF GEORGIA CARDIOLOGY, LLC v. DONNA SHAHEEN KEIFER .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18C02928
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 9, 2011 |                                        |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ William E. Luther                       |   |
|                         | William E. Luther                           |
|                         | Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer |
§ 4219.32 Interest on overdue, defaulted and overpaid withdrawal liability. ( a ) *Interest assessed.* The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan— ( 1 ) Shall assess interest on overdue withdrawal liability payments from the due date, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, until the date paid, as defined in paragraph (e); and
( 2 ) In the event of a default, may assess interest on any accelerated portion of the outstanding withdrawal liability from the due date, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, until the date paid, as defined in paragraph (e).
( b ) *Interest rate.* Except as otherwise provided in rules adopted by the plan pursuant to § 4219.33, interest under this section shall be charged or credited for each calendar quarter at an annual rate equal to the average quoted prime rate on short-term commercial loans for the fifteenth day (or next business day if the fifteenth day is not a business day) of the month preceding the beginning of each calendar quarter, as reported by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Statistical Release H.15 (“Selected Interest Rates”).
( c ) *Calculation of interest.* The interest rate under paragraph (b) of this section is the nominal rate for any calendar quarter or portion thereof. The amount of interest due the plan for overdue or defaulted withdrawal liability, or due the employer for overpayment, is equal to the overdue, defaulted, or overpaid amount multiplied by: ( 1 ) For each full calendar quarter in the period from the due date (or date of overpayment) to the date paid (or date of refund), one-fourth of the annual rate in effect for that quarter;
( 2 ) For each full calendar month in a partial quarter in that period, one-twelfth of the annual rate in effect for that quarter; and
( 3 ) For each day in a partial month in that period, one-three-hundred-sixtieth of the annual rate in effect for that month.
( d ) *Due date.* Except as otherwise provided in rules adopted by the plan, the due date from which interest accrues shall be, for an overdue withdrawal liability payment and for an amount of withdrawal liability in default, the date of the missed payment that gave rise to the delinquency or the default.
( e ) *Date paid.* Any payment of withdrawal liability shall be deemed to have been paid on the date on which it is received.
S. Con. Res. 62 Agreed to December 19, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of H.R. 660, an Act to amend title 

18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, 

victims, and their family members, and for other purposes, the 

Clerk of the House of Representatives shall strike section 502 

of the Act and insert the following:

‘‘SEC. 502. MAGISTRATE JUDGES LIFE INSURANCE.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after ‘hold office during good 

behavior’, the following: ‘magistrate judges appointed under section 

631 of this title,’. 

‘‘(b) CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of construing and applying 

chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment 

of insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, the following categories of judicial officers shall be deemed to be judges of the 

United States as described under section 8701 of title 5, United 

States Code: 

‘‘(1) Magistrate judges appointed under section 631 of title 

28, United States Code. 

‘‘(2) Magistrate judges retired under section 377 of title 

28, United States Code. 

‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (b) and the amendment made 

by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any payment made 
S. Con. Res. 62—2

on or after the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning 

on or after the date of enactment of this Act.’’. 

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
CONVEYANCES.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1898.]

Smith, Cox and Swing, JJ.

#### Creed v. Henkel.

Construction or Uncertain Deed.

Where the meaning of a deed, as to a portion of the property conveyed, is uncertain, it may be found and formed in the construction placed upon it, at the time of the execution and for many years afterward, by the parties to it.

Swing, J.

The controversy in this case is over a four foot strip of ground lying .between plaintiff’s and defendant’s lots on the west side of Vine street, near Charlton. It appears that the parties derived title from the same source, the deed to the defendant providing for a four foot passage way between the properties, but permitting him to enclose the passage way overhead and use the plaintiff’s south wall for support. Upon this state of facts the question at once arises as to whether this four foot strip or passage way did extend through to the rear of the two lots, or whether it was intended that it should only extend back the length of the house wall? The court below held that the passage way was limited to the length of the house wall, and denied the plaintiff an injunction against the closing up of the remainder of the strip. The circuit court is divided in its opinion, but its judgment is contrary to that below.

A majority of the circuit court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked for in her petition.

“The language of the deed is not clear and certain as to that four feet on the south side, but we are satisfied from the evidence that the parties for a great many years construed the deed to mean that the four feet extended from Vine to Zeltner street, and this construction of the deed as placed upon it by the parties renders certain that which standing alone is uncertain. The four feet, therefore, extends from the front to the rear of the wall.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Lee Enterprises, Incorporated 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 333-06435, No.333-105219, No. 333-132767, No. 333-132768 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 333-132768 on Form S-8 of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated of our reports dated December 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Lee Enterprises,Incorporated as of September 28, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) , stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the 52-week period ended September 28, 2008, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of September 28, 2008, which reports appear in the September 28, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated. 

 

Our report dated December 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to revise the2007 and 2006 consolidated financial statements, as more fully described in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2007 and 2006 consolidated financialstatements other than with respect to such adjustments to reflect the results of discontinued operations related to the 2008 divestiture. 

 

Our report dated December 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption of the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, effective October 1, 2007. 

 

Our reportdated December 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has short-term obligations that cannot be satisfied by available funds and has incurred violations of debt covenantsthat subject the related principal amounts to acceleration, all of which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from theoutcome of that uncertainty. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

December 31, 2008
Hillsborough

No. 6400

#### Robert Perkins Thayer v. State Tax Commission

March 29, 1973

*114
      *Robert Perkins Thayer,*pro se.

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Charles G. Cleave-land,*attorney, for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court *(Johnson,*J.) granting a motion of the defendant tax commission to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition.

The case was tried by the court, but there is no transcript of the evidence. Therefore, the only question before us is whether any error of law appears on the record. *Fitzgerald v. Lawson,*96 N.H. 447, 78 A.2d 527 (1951).

The essential facts apparently are undisputed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the selectmen’s assessment made on his real estate and sought an abatement. RSA 76:16. The selectmen declined to act and the plaintiff, aggrieved by this decision, endeavored to appeal to the tax commission under RSA 76:16-a which provides as follows: “If the selectmen neglect or refuse so to abate, any person aggrieved, having complied with the requirements of chapter 74, upon payment of an application fee of ten dollars, may, within six months after notice of such tax, and not afterwards, apply in writing to the state tax commission, which after due inquiry and investigation shall make such order thereon as justice requires.”

It is elementary that the plaintiff’s remedies are statutory and that he can succeed only by following the statutory conditions. *Kaemmerling v. State,*81 N.H. 405, 406, 128 A. 6, 7 (1924). In the present case, he not only never alleged in his petition that he had complied with RSA ch. 74, but further asserted that he will not pay the $10 filing fee as required by RSA 76:16-a.

*115Notwithstanding this, the commission apparently tried to investigate the plaintiff’s complaints as required by RSA 76:16-a and sent a representative to examine the property. The plaintiff denied the representative admission to his house, stating that the interior [of the house] was “out of bounds”.

It is clear that no appeal is or was properly pending before the commission, since the plaintiff has never fulfilled the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal. In this situation, the superior court had no jurisdiction over the case and the defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly granted. *Winnipiseogee etc. Co. v. Laconia,*74 N.H. 82, 84, 65 A. 378, 379 (1906). *See also Bartlett v. New Boston,*77 N.H. 476, 93 A. 796 (1915); *cf. H.J.H. Inc. v. State Tax Commission,*108 N.H. 203, 205, 230 A.2d 739, 740 (1967).

An examination of the record contained in the reserved case discloses no error, and the order is

*Judgment for the defendant.*
#### § 4203.6 OMB control number.

The collections of information contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 1212-0050.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (333-83660), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
33-14358), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-37836) and the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-56620) of Longview Fibre Company of
our report dated December 7, 2001 relating to the financial statements and of
our report dated December 7, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appear in this Form 10-K/A.




PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
--------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Portland, Oregon
June 20, 2002
#### § 4907.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
##### 



Definitions
 Beneficiary
 Code
 Company
 Credited Service
 Final Average Pay
 Lubrizol Pension Plan
 Normal Retirement Date
 Participant
 1




---



##### 



Plan
 Change in Control.
     Vesting
 Normal Retirement Benefit
   2




---



##### 



Early Retirement Eligibility and Determination of Benefit
 Separation from Service
 Payment to Participant
    3




---



##### 



Payment in the Event of Death Prior to Commencement of Distribution
 Actuarial Factors
 Funding
 Plan Administrator
 4




---



##### 



Not a Contract of Continuing Employment
 Right of Amendment and Termination
 Termination and Distribution of Accrued Benefits
 Construction
 Severability
 Governing Law
  THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATIONBy:Title:By:Title:
 5
#### In the Matter of John M. Kelly, Appellant, against William F. Morgan, Jr., as Commissioner of Public Markets of the City of New York, Respondent.

(Argued November 19, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Joseph F. Ryan*and *Abraham Bernard King*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Arthur Bainbridge Hoff*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.