alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2550.408e Statutory exemption for acquisition or sale of qualifying employer securities and for acquisition, sale, or lease of qualifying employer real property. ( a ) *General.* Section 408(e) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) exempts from the prohibitions of section 406(a) and 406(b)(1) and (2) of the Act any acquisition or sale by a plan of qualifying employer securities (as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the Act), or any acquisition, sale or lease by a plan of qualifying employer real property (as defined in section 407(d)(4) of the Act) if certain conditions are met. The conditions are that: ( 1 ) The acquisition, sale or lease must be for adequate consideration (which is defined in paragraph (d) of this section);
( 2 ) No commission may be charged directly or indirectly to the plan with respect to the transaction; and
( 3 ) In the case of an acquisition or lease of qualifying employer real property, or an acquisition of qualifying employer securities, by a plan other than an eligible individual account plan (as defined in section 407(d)(3) of the Act), the acquisition or lease must comply with the requirements of section 407(a) of the Act.
( b ) *Acquisition.* For purposes of section 408(e) and this section, an acquisition by a plan of qualifying employer securities or qualifying employer real property shall include, but not be limited to, an acquisition by purchase, by the exchange of plan assets, by the exercise of warrants or rights, by the conversion of a security, by default of a loan where the qualifying employer security or qualifying employer real property was security for the loan, or in connection with the contribution of such securities or real property to the plan. However, an acquisition of a security shall not be deemed to have occurred if a plan acquires the security as a result of a stock dividend or stock split.
( c ) *Sale.* For purposes of section 408(e) and this section, a sale of qualifying employer real property or qualifying employer securities shall include any disposition for value.
( d ) *Adequate consideration.* For purposes of section 408(e) and this section, adequate consideration means: ( 1 ) In the case of a marketable obligation, a price not less favorable to the plan than the price determined under section 407(e)(1) of the Act; and
( 2 ) In all other cases, a price not less favorable to the plan than the price determined under section 3(18) of the Act.
( e ) *Commission.* For purposes of section 408(e) and this section, the term “commission” includes any fee, commission or similar charge paid in connection with a transaction, except that the term “commission” does not include a charge incurred for the purpose of enabling the appropriate plan fiduciaries to evaluate the desirability of entering into a transaction to which this section would apply, such as an appraisal or investment advisory fee.
[45 FR 51197, Aug. 1, 1980]
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________
No

. 201 700305

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### PATRICK T. HOEHN Information Systems Technician Third Class (E4),

United States Navy Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Robert Monahan, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: C ommand er, Navy Region Mid

- Atlantic, Norfolk, VA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: C ommander Irve C. Lemoyne, JAGC, USN. For Appellant : Lieutenant Colonel Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
Decided 21 D ecember 2017

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON
, F ULTON
, and S AYEGH
, Appellate M ilitary Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC Virginia One Development, INC, Avery Park Partners, LLC d/b/a Avery Park, DSH Diplomat, LLC d/b/a Diplomat Townhomes, Colony Creek, LLC, and Crossings Townhomes, LLC, Complainants/ Appellant


### v. The City of Atlanta, Georgia, Respondent

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME FAA Docket 16

- 12-09

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Admin istration (FAA) based on the above

r eferenced complaint, filed 

### in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR , Part 16. Pursuant to 14

**CF~** Part 16, subpart B. the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued 

### in this matter is hereby extended to on or about September 14, 2015. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.



# 1kAi,P
Eduardo 

### A Angele; Associate Administrator

for Airports

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### / I HEREBY CERTIFY that on (

# 7 Jutvf

### 201.~ I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: Counsel for Complainant Steven M. Taber Taber Law Group, P.C. 1 League, #60036 Irvine, CA 92602-0036 staber@taber law.com Counsel for Respondent Eric N. Heyer THOMPSON HINE LLP 1919 M Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Eric.Heyer@thompsonhine.com John L. Watkins Roy E. Hadley, Jr. THOMPSON HINE LLP Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326-2905 John.Watkins@thompsonhine.com Roy.Hadley@thompsonhine.com Hand Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-l00 FAA Eastern Region, AEA-600

Claudia Roberts Airport Compliance and Management

Analysis
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19
                                                                   Note 1

                                  STRAIGHT NOTE


    $50,000            South El Monte, California      July 3, 1995
--------------

    For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark Di Salvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, with
interest from July 7, 1995 on unpaid principal at the rate of fifteen (15) per
cent per annum; principal payable on July 6, 1996.  Interest shall be calculated
on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a 365 day year,
actual day month, payable monthly. Principal and interest shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States.  If action be instituted on this note, I
promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees.  This note is
secured by the product brand WATE-ON.

NOTE:  This note is a rollover of the note which was dated September 12, 1994,
and maturing on July 6, 1995.




July 28, 1995                          RONALD G. LEE
----------------------------           ----------------------------------------
Date                                   Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee


July 28, 1995                          MICHAEL L. AGRESTI
----------------------------           ----------------------------------------
Date                                   Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti

<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19
                                                                   Note 2

                                  STRAIGHT NOTE


     $50,000                 South El Monte, California    July 3, 1995
------------------

     For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Sass Di Salvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, with
interest from July 7, 1995 on unpaid principal at the rate of fifteen (15) per
cent per annum; principal payable on July 6, 1996.  Interest shall be calculated
on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a 365 day year,
actual day month, payable monthly. Principal and interest shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States.  If action be instituted on this note, I
promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees.  This note is
secured by the product brand WATE-ON.

NOTE:  This note is a rollover of the note which was dated September 12, 1994,
and maturing on July 6, 1995.




July 28, 1995                      RONALD G. LEE
---------------------------        -------------------------------------------
Date                               Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee


July 28, 1995                      MICHAEL L. AGRESTI
----------------------------       -------------------------------------------
Date                               Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti
#### § 4206.6 Amount of credit in plans using the rolling-5 method.

In a plan that uses the rolling-5 allocation method described in section 4211(c)(3) of ERISA, the credit shall equal the amount of the liability assessed for the prior partial withdrawal, reduced as if that amount was being fully amortized in level annual installments over the 5-year period beginning with the plan year in which the prior partial withdrawal occurred. When an employer's prior partial withdrawal liability has been reduced or waived, this credit shall be adjusted in accordance with § 4206.8.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Ari Muljana, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (b) | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Manas Petroleum Corporation.                                                  

Date: May 13, 2011

/s/ Ari
MuljanaAri MuljanaChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Exhibit 15











Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549



Commissioners:



We are aware that our report dated July 26, 2005 on our review of interim financial statements of LCNB Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company"), as of and for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement of the Company on Form S-8, filed on March 13, 2003.  Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.







/s/ J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.



J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.





Cincinnati, Ohio

July 26, 2005
§ 541.501 Making sales or obtaining orders. ( a ) Section 541.500 requires that the employee be engaged in: ( 1 ) Making sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of the Act, or
( 2 ) Obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities.
( b ) Sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of the Act include the transfer of title to tangible property, and in certain cases, of tangible and valuable evidences of intangible property. Section 3(k) of the Act states that “sale” or “sell” includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.
( c ) Exempt outside sales work includes not only the sales of commodities, but also “obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer.” Obtaining orders for “the use of facilities” includes the selling of time on radio or television, the solicitation of advertising for newspapers and other periodicals, and the solicitation of freight for railroads and other transportation agencies.
( d ) The word “services” extends the outside sales exemption to employees who sell or take orders for a service, which may be performed for the customer by someone other than the person taking the order.
#### Max Ott *vs.*The Connecticut Company.

Third Judicial District, New Haven,

June Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

A jury’s conclusion as to what the evidence establishes is final, unless it appears that it was one which could not have been reached reasonably and without indicating the influence of partiality, corruption, prejudice, or other impropriety.

Argued June 12th —

decided July 6th, 1917.

Action to recover damages for injuries to the person and property of the plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before *Greene, J.;*verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 1800, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*86
      *Harrison T. Sheldon,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Charles S. Hamilton,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The defendant concedes that the evidence presented to establish its negligence was such as to entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury upon that issue, and that clearly was the case. Upon the issue as to the absence of contributory negligence, evidence was before the jury which, if believed, would furnish a reasonable basis for the affirmative conclusion at which it arrived. Although we are not as strongly impressed by the trustworthiness of some pertinent portions of that evidence as the jury apparently was, we cannot forget that it was its office to determine what the evidence established, and that its conclusion must stand unless it appears that that conclusion was one which it could not have reached reasonably and without indicating that its members were influenced thereto by partiality, corruption, prejudice, or otherwise improperly.

We cannot say that the trial court erred in ruling that the jury’s conclusion, that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, was not one which, under the accepted rules of law, it should disturb.

There is no error.
#### WINTERS v THE CRICKET CLUB

Case No. 85-303 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

December 12, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Mitchell D. Adler for appellant.

D. Douglas Macgibbon for appellee.

Before RIVKIND, SALMON, MASTOS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge erroneously determined that Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). It is clear from a review of the record that no justiciable issues existed as to Appellant, Defendant below. Appellee’s suit initiated against Appellant was sham and frivolous. We reverse and *135remand for a determination of the amount of legal fees to be awarded Appellant for services in the trial court. We deny the motion for legal fees concerning this Appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.
### Geology and ground-water resources of central and southern Rosebud County, Montana, with chemical analyses of the waters

By: B. Coleman RenickHarry Buchholz Riffenburg

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp600

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.109 [Reserved]
1 

### 2 3 4 5 BAIRD, WILLIAMS & GREER, LLP 6225 NORTH 24m STREET, SUITE 125 PHOENIX, AluzONA 85016 TELEPHONE (602) 256-9400 Daryl M. Williams (004631) 6

**daalwilliams~bw*law.net** Attorneys for Solid

## E ge viation 7 

## 122016

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant,

vs. Solid Edge Aviation, an Arizona limited liability company, 15 Respondent. FAA Case No. 2015WP910067 Notice ofWithdrawal ofRequest for Hearing (Assigned to the Honorable Richard C. Goodwin)

16 SolidEdge Aviation has recently reached a settlement with the Federal Aviation 17 Administration with respect to the matters that are the subject ofthis proceeding. Therefore, 18 Solid Edge withdraws its request for a hearing and requests that this matter be dismissed. 19 Respectfully submittedthis 6th day ofApril 2016. 20 21 

### 22 23 24 25 26 ORIGINAL mailed this 6th day ofApril2016, to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. Southwest Washington, DC 20591 27 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 281 COPYmailed this same day to:



### 3 2 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC, 20590 Administrative LawJudge 4 

### 5 J. M. Harper 6 FederalAviationAdministration Office ofRegional Counsel- ANM-7 7 Northwest MountainRegion 1601 Lind Avenue, Southwest 

### 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Renton, WA 98057 Co 

### 'P ainant's Counsel"

**~** ./ 

# c J

2
792 A.2d 594

#### In the Matter of Steven Ernest KELLIS. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 110 DB 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 28, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2002, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board;of the Su*87preme Court of Pennsylvania dated January 28, 2002, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that STEVEN ERNEST KELLIS, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
\. ". 

. . 

.... , :: .' .,:' ......... ",-. 

STEVEN A. THOMPSDN •. 

. Executive Director '. 

. BRAD HENRY 

Governor' 

....... ,'" . ' ..... , ". ~::i..' ". 

,January23, 2007' .'. -·r .' '. 

OG&E , .......•...•. 

.~.~~.. ,.•::<:-::..:" - .:;~.;.~:.;;~~>";.<.- '.' 

:·/<\::i~<:'t:;;:~:~;::i~i~::h)-.: ·~~:~;~c.;f ~'~·~';~:~7~:,-~·~·);~~-,~~~~:;:. '. . . ­. ...... ;,:--: .--.... ",:,.~ .. :":.-. - .. /:...~ .... 

'~. 

....•)~.~.. ~~'::"'~:_' .1.\.",'_' :~:'-. r:-...~.;~.. .:'.:": ....;.'.:>" :'e~·. . .... " +.,.:.. '>:-'.': ,: 

•• '. ContmuousEIIIisi#6h~M6riit()ring{tEM) data; 


'-Facility eirllssions tests; '. .. . . . '. .
 • . ,. .··r;missi911S faplors; 


it .' . . Permit limits; or lastly, 


• Potential to emit. 

The Seminole application proposed an alternative emission rate in the use of monthly 

maximums for the annual simulations. This procedure is not in accordarice with EPA 

guidance and defeats the "worst case" ·evaluation methodology employed in the screening 

analysis. .. 

The Seminole modeling can .' not be accepted as submitted. . 

. ]07 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with soy ink 

. "C' 
BART Page2. 

While theHorseshoe application usedili.e 'correct emission rate. and generally complied 

.with~e CENRAP.protocol,seye,r~Lii3sues. {e'quir¢fp:tj:her -r~vievi., S~ctiori ,6,4.2 oftpe 

CENRAP BART lllOdeiing ,prbtocOl·ideIliifi~s.the ,need· to ~valuate s'ollrce inipacts 

.qeypI,td ~OO-kIn whilea,clmqwl~dgingtheliIDitatiOIlof models used at ,thisdistance~ In 

'the'abse~~e,6f anotl1e~irio~e appropriate\~ethod.ot ~valu~tion,'CALPUFFWocle1ing for 

the lI()r::;~sl1oe, Lake stationshpuJd be ext~l1ded· to ,in,clud~ rec~ptors ,at.". UpperBuffalo Wildemessa.ndHercule,s-Glad~sWilcie!;ness~ '••." ' .'" '" ",. , , ,'., . '. ' 

Several C~T'inputvariableswereidentifiedin Tab.le 3-1 oftheE()rseshoe wwv.er 

.a,pplica,tioll tha,tare ,at oddswithtl1epararn~tyrs. gocUlllellteg i~ thell10deling outputIiles. 

':<I':he foll()~gpaql1netets areih:qu(;:s~ioIl:' ;> '. ' ::'';~~'::;\;'' •••• " - .« ',', ••• ' •• ' - .', ", ' • 

CALMET , De~cription •. :, . 

-' .. Variable ,'. • .'. 

ICLOUD, . .. '," \ ", 

IEXTRP. 

, LVARY 

··lri,t~vi~wof¢e.s}lpplied1ll94.e:li1lg'()utput,fiIes;,valu¢s;'1ise4·geI!era:llycorre~dnd::With·

fue'Fec1eratiahd: Manager gUidance 'kId'af~ "mor~ appropnaftlthan those: idelitl:qc&iNo ; 

changes in modeling are requested. Please correct-' the documentation ~n subsequent sub'missibns'. "", , -,' , -,"',' ,,:., ' ',,", c." , 

;, r 

Both NH3 ruidozone .ciat~'.are'·.'ava.i:lable 'from the, DEQ for' inclusion as background 

concentrations. While. values used ,in'theaJ5plication wotild not requir~ reevaluation~ any 

subsequent modeling; should use data Obtairieci 'from the PEQ. .. 

Thank you for YoUrcooperatioii in this matter. Ifwe maybe cif further service, please 

contact Phillip Fielder or Lee Warden at (405) 702-4100. . . 

:Sincerely, 

Eddie Terrill 

Division Director 

Air Quality Division
#### § 511.18 Publication and effective date of wage order.

Promptly after receipt of the committee report the Administrator shall publish the committee recommendations in the Federal Register and shall provide by order that the recommendations contained in such report shall take effect upon the expiration of 15 days after the date of such publication.
(75 South. 1006)

#### O. K. FRENCH DRY CLEANING CO. v. WILLIAMS.

(6 Div. 106.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; O. B. Smith, Judge.

P. J. Clyde Randall, of Birmingham, for appellant. Perdue & Cox, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.