alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 85 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 85

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING FRANK W. BUCKLES.

    (a) In General.--The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be 
used at any time on June 18, 2008 for a ceremony to honor the only 
living veteran of the First World War, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, as a 
tribute and recognition of all United States military members who 
served in the First World War.
    (b) Implementation.--Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as he Architect of 
the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the Senate May 22, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 85

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to honor Frank W. 
 Buckles, the last surviving United States veteran of the First World 
                                  War.
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15


                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


          Agreement made and entered into as of the 4th day of January, 1993 by
and between Stanley Halbreich (the "Employee") and Sports Imprints, Inc. (the
"Corporation").

          WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Employee are parties to a certain
employment agreement effective as of November 16, 1992 (the "Employment
Agreement"); and

          WHEREAS the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement in
accordance with the terms of Paragraph 5.2 of the Employment Agreement.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and
conditions herein contained the parties hereto agree as follows:
          1. Paragraph 3.1(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to
read as follows:
          "3.1(b) an annual bonus equal to nine (9%) percent of the first Five
          Hundred Thousand ($500,000) Dollars of the Corporation's calandar year
          pre-tax earnings (the "Basic Bonus") subject to non-refundable monthly
          draws in anticipation thereof in the sum of Four Thousand One Hundred
          ($4,100) Dollars."
<PAGE>   2


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement,
effective as of the 16 day of November, 1992.


Signed, Sealed & Delivered
     In Our Presence

                                             SPORTS IMPRINTS, INC.
---------------------------
/s/ Sarah Colasurdo                          By: /s/ Jerrold Luloff
---------------------------                     ------------------------
                                                 President

(CORPORATE SEAL)                      Attest:    /s/ Jerrold Luloff
                                                ------------------------
                                                 Secretary

                                             EMPLOYEE
---------------------------
/s/ Sarah Colasurdo                              /s/ Stanley Halbreich
---------------------------                     ------------------------
                                                Stanley Halbreich
#### HOWARD v PENNSYLVANIA RD. CO.

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist„ Lucas Co.

No. 2371.

Decided May 26, 1930

Deeds & Cole, Toledo, for Howard.

Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Effler, Toledo, for Rd. Co.

*446LLOYD, J.

The plaintiff claims that these facts raise a clear inference of negligence on the part of the defendant and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In our judgment the maxim res ipsa loquitur, thus invoked, is applicable to the issues involved in the instant case and if the' facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence justify an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant proximately causing injury to plaintiff, then the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor' of the defendant and the judgment of that court should be reversed. •

Central R. Co. of N. J. vs. Peluso, 286 Fed., 661;

B. & O. vs. Hast, 299 Fed., 419;

B. & O. vs. Flechtner, 300 Fed., 318.

The evidence shows that the yards and tracks where the derailment occurred were owned by and in the exclusive control of ■the defendant and its servants; that blocks of wood like that in evidence were used by employes of the defendant in and about the yards for various purposes, and in the repair shops there located, and according to the plaintiff, had been used a short time prior to his injuries, in repairing the very track over which he was proceeding at the time of the derailment, and since, in determining the question under consideration, the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, our conclusion is that the facts of the occurrence warrant an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff is not relieved of the burden of proof but “the burden of evidence — that is, of explanation” is placed thereby upon the defendant.

Sweeney vs. Erving. 228 U. S., 233;

Kraljer vs. Snare & Triest Co., 221 Fed., 255, 256.

The weight of the inference as well as the weight of the explanation is for the determination of the jury.

We educe the conclusion, therefore, that the judgment of the court of common pleas must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

WILLIAMS and RICHARDS, JJ., concur.
§ 4043.26 Inability to pay benefits when due. ( a ) *Reportable event.* A reportable event occurs when a plan is currently unable or projected to be unable to pay benefits. ( 1 ) *Current inability.* A plan is currently unable to pay benefits if it fails to provide any participant or beneficiary the full benefits to which the person is entitled under the terms of the plan, at the time the benefit is due and in the form in which it is due. A plan is not treated as being currently unable to pay benefits if its failure to pay is caused solely by— ( i ) A limitation under section 436 of the Code and section 206(g) of ERISA (dealing with funding-based limits on benefits and benefit accruals under single-employer plans),
( ii ) The need to verify a person's eligibility for benefits,
( iii ) The inability to locate a person, or
( iv ) Any other administrative delay, to the extent that the delay is for less than the shorter of two months or two full benefit payment periods.
( 2 ) *Projected inability.* A plan is projected to be unable to pay benefits when, as of the last day of any quarter of a plan year, the plan's “liquid assets” are less than two times the amount of the “disbursements from the plan” for such quarter. “Liquid assets” and “disbursements from the plan” have the same meaning as under section 303(j)(4)(E) of ERISA and section 430(j)(4)(E) of the Code.
( b ) *Waiver—plans subject to liquidity shortfall rules.* Notice under this section is waived unless the reportable event occurs during a plan year for which the plan is exempt from the liquidity shortfall rules in section 303(j)(4) of ERISA and section 430(j)(4) of the Code because it is described in section 303(g)(2)(B) of ERISA and section 430(g)(2)(B) of the Code.
[80 FR 55002, Sept. 11, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 6062, Feb. 4, 2020]
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

167) ll-K-(C)-3 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:54 AM Sheet 167 of 325 
P.2 

/A\ R a = 0 

II-K-(C)-3 

SINGLE-CAR COAL TRANSPORTATION COST FORECASTS. 

Letter from T. Hogan, EEA to N. Clarke, Interstate 

Commerce Commission. 

December 19, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(C)-3
#### *Groat *vs.*Gillespie and Gibbons.

In an action on an *attachment bond,*the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the value of the property levied upon, if he has not been dispossessed; and where it is not shown that he has been subjected to costs, he is entitled to only *.'nominal damages.*

This was an action of debt on an attachment bond, tried at the Rensselaer circuit before the Hon. John P. Cushman, one of the circuit judges.

*292Gillespie sued out an attachment in a justices’ court against the property of Groat, and gave a bond, conditioned, among other things, to pay to Groat *all damages and costs ivliieh Tie should sustain by reason of the issuing of the*attachment, *if Gillespie should fail to recover judgment thereon.*Under the attachment, a *shanty*and some trifling articles of property were levied upon. On the return of the attachment, Gillespie did not appear, and the justice entered judgment of nonsuit, charging costs to neither party. The *shanty*was unoccupied at the time of the levy, and the property was not interfered with, otherwise than by merely making the levy. The circuit judge ruled, that by the levy the property was in the custody of the law, in charge of the constable, and must be deemed to continue in the possession of the constable until relinquished by him or by the plaintiff in the attachment, and notice of such relinquishment given to the defendant in the attachment; and that the measure of the damages in this cause was the value of the shanty. To this decision, the counsel for the defendants excepted. Proof of the value of the shanty was given, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for *sixty dollars.*The defendants ask for a new trial.

*J. McKown,*for defendants.

*J.*Holmes, for plaintiff.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, C. J.

The ruling at the circuit was [ *384 ] clearly erroneous. The plaintiff was entitled only to *the damages actually sustained in consequence of the attachment, and nothing more. The condition of the bond carries the remedy no farther, according to its terms. '

The ground of the recovery, is not that the proceedings have been irregular and void on the part of plaintiff in the attachment, but that' he has *failed to recover a judgment.*So far as respects the remedy in this form, it is wholly immaterial whether they be regular or not. The breach has no necessary connection with the fact.

The measure of damages, therefore, in trover or trespass, as in the case of an *illegal*levy, was improperly applied. Upon the facts in this case, I do not see that the plaintiff was entitled to anything more than *nominal damages.*

New trial granted.
§ 4204.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* Under section 4204 of ERISA, an employer that ceases covered operations under a multiemployer plan, or ceases to have an obligation to contribute for such operations, because of a bona fide, arm's-length sale of assets to an unrelated purchaser does not incur withdrawal liability if certain conditions are met. One condition is that the sale contract provide that the seller will be secondarily liable if the purchaser withdraws from the plan within five years and does not pay its withdrawal liability. Another condition is that the purchaser furnish a bond or place funds in escrow, for a period of five plan years, in a prescribed amount. Section 4204 also authorizes the PBGC to provide for variances or exemptions from these requirements. Subpart B of this part provides variances and exemptions from the requirements for certain sales of assets. Subpart C of this part establishes procedures under which a purchaser or seller may, when the conditions set forth in subpart B are not satisfied or when the parties decline to provide certain financial information to the plan, request the PBGC to grant individual or class variances or exemptions from the requirements.
( b ) *Scope.* In general, this part applies to any sale of assets described in section 4204(a)(1) of ERISA. However, this part does not apply to a sale of assets involving operations for which the seller is obligated to contribute to a plan described in section 404(c) of the Code, or a continuation of such a plan, unless the plan is amended to provide that section 4204 applies.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131174 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131174 

 COA: 269753 

Saginaw CC: 00-019048-FC 

ERIC LAMARR MACON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
U. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0469 

JOSEPH GOINS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

COMMANDER JASON VALDEZ, 

Respondent. 

ViLLi) 

SEP 2 0 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

clerVc of Supreme Court 

State nf Montana 

ORDER 

Joseph Goins petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, his second in two months arising 

from his present detention on criminal charges in Yellowstone County. Goins asserts that 

he has a misdemeanor offense, not a felony, and that "[t]hey are trumping up [his] charges." 

He faults the alleged victim, assorted accomplices, the Judge, and the Yellowstone County 

Detention Center (YCDC). He states that the YCDC has violated his civil rights and his 

attorney-client privilege by opening legal mailidocument[s] prior to delivery . . ." Goins 

concludes that this situation has impeded justice and that he should be released. 

Available electronic records indicate that Goins has two pending matters in the 

Yellowstone County District Court. The District Court sentenced him in May 2022, and 

Goins was charged with a new offense the following month. The court has set bond at 

$20,000. Goins has counsel to represent him. This Court denied Goins's petition for 

habeas corpus relief on related grounds last month. Goins v. State of Montana, 

No. OP 22-0410, Order (Mont. Aug. 16, 2022). 

Similarly, Goins is not entitled to relief here. Goins has not demonstrated illegal 

restraint or incarceration, pursuant to § 46-22-101(1), MCA. See also Miller v. Eleventh 

Judicial District Ct., 2007 MT 58, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186. Although 

excessive bail may be raised in a habeas petition under § 46-22-103, MCA, Goins has not 

met his burden; he was released from jail in 2021 and has not demonstrated that he 

09/20/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0469
complied with the release order's conditions, the contrary appearing from the record of 

district court docket entries. 

The cause of Goins's incarceration is his pending criminal charges. Section 46-22-

101(1), MCA. As stated previously, the issues arising from his current criminal charges 

will be reviewed by this Court only after any final judgment in his cases, not through a 

pretrial habeas corpus proceeding. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Goins' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to Joseph 

Daniel Goins; and to Teny Halpin, Clerk of District Court, Yellowstone County, under 

Cause Nos. DC-21-1016 and DC-22-771, for distribution of copies to the presiding Judge 

and counsel of record intl).LYellowstone County District Court. 

DATED this e:bi‘—day of September, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

/41")-74 --` 

Justices 

2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13178]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-08]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Waco, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revises Class E airspace at Waco, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 65 FR 14856 is 
effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air 
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 20, 2000, 
(65 FR 14856). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised that public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on August 10, 2000. No adverse comments were received, 
and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 16, 2000.
JoEllen Casilio,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 00-13178 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
2500

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2450

2550

2450

2450

2550

2450

2450

2550

2500

2550 2500

2600

2450

2600

2600

2500

2450

2500

2550

2450

2450

2450

2600

2550

2500

2450

2600

N RD

18 RD

FOWLER ST

21 RD

M RD

23 RD

O RD

BRIAN ST

CROOKED RD

P RD

K RD

VINE ST

19 RD

L RD

H RD

I RD

17 RD

S BLA NI E ST

22 RD

./

160

54 ./

160

54

./54

J RD

./160 ./160 ./160 N RD

18 RD

FOWLER ST

21 RD

M RD

23 RD

O RD

BRIAN ST

CROOKED RD

P RD

K RD

VINE ST

19 RD

L RD

H RD

I RD

17 RD

S BLA NI E ST

22 RD

OP23

./

160

54 ./

160

54

./54

J RD

OP23

OP23

./160 ./160 ./160

OP23

Crooked Creek

Crooked Creek

Sand

Creek

Meade

Meade County

Fairgrounds

Artesian

Valley

Watson

Landing Field

A R T E S I A N

V A L L E Y

Lockhart

Cemetery

Graceland

Cemetery

Meade Municipal Airport

41

25

41

26

41

27

41

28

41

29

41

30

41

31

41

32

41

33

41

34

41

35

41

36

41

24

41

37000mN

41

25

41

26

41

27

41

28

41

29

41

30

41

31

41

32

41

33

41

34

41

35

41

36

41

24000mN

41

37

3

80 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 3

88 379

3

80 381 382 3

83 384 385 3

86 387 388 379000mE 389

770 000FEET

800 000FEET

1 540000

1 570 000

FEET

FEET

17'30"

20' 20'

20' 17'30"

100°22'30" 20' 17'30"

100°22'30"

37°22'30" 37°22'30"

100°15'

37°15' 37°15' 000m

E

17'30"

100°15'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

MEADE, KS

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

MEADE QUADRANGLE

KANSAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14S

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads........National Transportation Dataset, 2006

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2006

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Kansas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 48 ́

14 MILS

6° 18 ́

112 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14S

LG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Proffitt

Lake NW

Meade NW Meade NE

Irish

Flats NE

Lake

Meade

Missler Meade

Fowler

Fowler SW

KANSAS
#### § 22.11 Referral of complaint and answer to the ALJ.

Upon receipt of an answer, the reviewing official shall file the complaint and answer with the ALJ.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Successful Practices in the Employment of Nonfarm Women on Farms in the Northeastern States, 1943

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Valentine, Frances W. 						*Successful Practices in the Employment of Nonfarm Women on Farms in the Northeastern States, 1943 : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 199*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5472,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board of Directors andShareholders 

K-V Pharmaceutical Company 

Bridgeton, Missouri 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Nos. 33-44927, 333-00199, 333-48252 and 333-85516) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-87402 and 333-106294) on Form S-3 of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the Company) of our reports dated June 10,2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting which appear in this Form 10-K. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue asa going concern. 

Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting expresses an adverse opinion onthe effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2011. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

June 10, 2011