alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 570.128 Loading of certain scrap paper balers and paper box compactors. ( a ) Section 13(c)(5) of the FLSA provides for an exemption from the child labor provisions for the employment of 16- and 17-year-olds to load, but not operate or unload, certain power-driven scrap paper balers and paper box compactors under certain conditions. The provisions of this exemption, which are contained in HO 12 (§ 570.63) include that the scrap paper baler or compactor meet an applicable standard established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and identified in the statute, or a more recent ANSI standard that the Secretary of Labor has found, incorporated by reference (*see* § 570.63), and declared to be as protective of the safety of young workers as the ANSI standard named in the statute.
( b ) These standards have been incorporated into these regulations by reference by the Federal Register as discussed in § 570.63. In addition, the scrap paper baler or paper box compactor must include an on-off switch incorporating a key-lock or other system and the control of the system must be maintained in the custody of employees who are at least 18 years of age. The on-off switch of the scrap paper baler or paper box compactor must be maintained in an off position when the machine is not in operation. Furthermore, the employer must also post a notice on the scrap paper baler or paper box compactor that conveys certain information, including the identification of the applicable ANSI standard that the equipment meets, that 16- and 17-year-old employees may only load the scrap paper baler or paper box compactor, and that no employee under the age of 18 may operate or unload the scrap paper baler or paper box compactor.
[75 FR 28459, May 20, 2010]
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 12 July 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of Yvonne Watts against 1) Bedford Primary Care Trust 2) Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-372/04)

(2004/C 273/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), dated 12 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 August 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of Yvonne Watts and 1) Bedford Primary Care Trust 2) Secretary of State for Health on the following questions:

Question 1

Having regard to the nature of the NHS and its position under national law, is Article 49 EC, read in the light of Geraets Smits, Muller-Faure and Inizan to be interpreted as meaning that in principle persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom enjoy an entitlement in EU law to receive hospital treatment in other Member States at the expense of the United Kingdom National Health Service (‘the NHS’).

In particular on the true interpretation of Article 49 EC:

Question 2

In answering Question 1, is it material whether hospital treatment provided by the NHS is itself the provision of services within Article 49 EC?

If so, and in the circumstances set out in the Statement of Facts, are Articles 48, 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as meaning that in principle;

Question 3

If Article 49 EC applies to the NHS, may it or the Secretary of State rely as objective justification for refusing prior authorisation for hospital treatment in another Member State on:

Question 4

In determining whether treatment is available without undue delay for the purposes of Article 49 EC, to what extent is it necessary or permissible to have regard in particular to the following:

Question 5

On the proper interpretation of Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation 1408/71 (1) and in particular the words ‘within the time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question’:

Question 6

In circumstances where a Member State is obliged in EU law to fund the hospital treatment in other Member States of persons ordinarily resident in the first Member State, is the cost of such treatment to be calculated under Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 by reference to the legislation of the Member State where the treatment is provided or under Article 49 EC by reference to the legislation of the Member State of residence?

In each case:

Question 7

Are Article 49 EC and Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Member States to fund hospital treatment in other Member States without reference to budgetary constraints and, if so, are these requirements compatible with the Member States' responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, as recognised under Article 152(5) EC?

----

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council, of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community.

----
#### § 452.83 Enforcement of campaign safeguards.

Certain of the safeguards of section 401(c) are enforceable at the suit of any bona fide candidate. This special statutory right to sue is limited to the distribution of campaign literature by the labor organization and the forbearance of such organization from discrimination among candidates with respect to the use of membership lists. Of course, all title IV safeguards, including those discussed in this paragraph, are subject to enforcement as provided in section 402. It should be noted that the right of a bona fide candidate to sue in the circumstances described herein is limited to the period prior to election. After the election, the only remedy would be through a suit by the Secretary under section 402.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 128 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in 

United States v. Philip G. Balcombe, Sansi G. Coonan, John S. Dear, 

Jan Lustig, Michella A. Marusa, Martin J. Ryan, Eleanore M. Vouselas, 

and Bruno Keller. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation in United States v. Philip G. Balcombe, 

Sansi G. Coonan, John S. Dear, Jan Lustig, Michella 

A. Marusa, Martin J. Ryan, Eleanore M. Vouselas, and 

Bruno Keller. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Philip G. Balcombe, 

Sansi G. Coonan, John S. Dear, Jan Lustig, Michella A. 

Marusa, Martin J. Ryan, Eleanore M. Vouselas, and 

Bruno Keller, Cr. No. 07–207, pending in federal district 

court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, testimony and documents have been requested from Maggie Murray, an employee in the office of Senator Pete Domenici; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 128 ATS 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Maggie Murray and any other employ2 ees of Senator Domenici’s office from whom testimony or 

3 the production of documents may be required are author4 ized to testify and produce documents in the case of 

5 United States v. Philip G. Balcombe, Sansi G. Coonan, 

6 John S. Dear, Jan Lustig, Michella A. Marusa, Martin 

7 J. Ryan, Eleanore M. Vouselas, and Bruno Keller, except 

8 concerning matters for which a privilege should be as9 serted. 

10 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

11 represent Maggie Murray and other employees of Senator 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

SRES 128 ATS 

1 Domenici’s staff in the actions referenced in section one 

2 of this resolution. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
CARDIA, INC.
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
JANUARY 1, 2000 TO MARCH 31, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              745,201
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       153,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          97,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    995,725
<PP&E>                                               96,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (16,960)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,137,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                87,099
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             12,001
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,038,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,137,918
<SALES>                                             381,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    381,628
<CGS>                                               (79,786)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      (533,705)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    7,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (144,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (144,845)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (144,845)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.12)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAK SUKYAS; EDWARD SUKYAS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

ROMANIA; RADEF ROMANIA FILM, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56557 

D.C. No. 

2:15-cv-01946-FMO-JC 

Central District of California, 

Los Angeles 

ORDER

Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,* District 

Judge.

The memorandum disposition filed on March 19, 2019 is amended as 

follows:

On page four of the memorandum disposition, in the paragraph beginning 

“The district court did not address,” replace <Although the Sukyas brothers 

sufficiently allege that the rights in issue—their ownership rights in CIRO’s assets, 

real estate, and business—are property rights, we remand for the district court to 

decide in the first instance whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken in violation of 

international law.’”> with <We remand for the district court to decide in the first 

instance whether the Sukyas brothers’ ownership rights in CIRO’s assets, real 

 

* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge 

for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

estate, and business are “rights in property,” and whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken 

in violation of international law.’”>.

With this amendment, Judges Wardlaw and Bennett vote to deny the 

appellees’ petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and Judge Sessions 

so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en 

banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en 

banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc 

is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing shall be 

permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### § 452.4 Investigatory provision—application.

The provisions of section 601 of the Act provide general investigatory authority to investigate alleged violations of the Act including violations of title IV. However, section 601 in and of itself provides no remedy, and the section must be read in conjunction with the remedy and statutory scheme of section 402, i.e., exhaustion of internal union remedies and a complaint to the Secretary following completion of the election before suit can be filed. In view of the remedy provided, an investigation prior to completion of an election may have the effect of publicizing the activities or unsubstantiated allegations of one faction to the prejudice of the opposition. To avoid this result, and as a matter of sound statutory construction, the Department will exercise its investigatory authority only in circumstances in which the outcome of the election could not be affected by the investigation.[4] Thus, the Department ordinarily will employ its investigatory authority only where the procedural requirements for a title IV investigation have been met; but in unusual circumstances or where necessary to collect or preserve evidence an investigation may be conducted after the conclusion of balloting.

###### Footnotes -
  452.4

[4] However questions involving the use of force or violence or the threat of the use of force or violence under circumstances which may violate section 610 (29 U.S.C. 530) of the Act will be referred promptly to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
§ 19.1 Definitions. For purposes of this regulation, the term: ( a ) *Financial institution* means any office of a bank, savings bank, card issuer as defined in section 103 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(n)), industrial loan company, trust company, savings and loan, building and loan, or homestead association (including cooperative banks), credit union, consumer financial institution, located in any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands.
( b ) *Financial record* means an original of, a copy of, or information known to have been derived from, any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution.
( c ) *Person* means an individual or a partnership of five or fewer individuals.
( d ) *Customer* means any persons or authorized representative of that person who utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution, or for whom a financial institution is acting or has acted as a fiduciary, in relation to an account maintained in the person's name.
( e ) *Law enforcement inquiry* means a lawful investigation or official proceeding inquiring into a violation of or failure to comply with any criminal or civil statute or any regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto.
( f ) *Departmental unit* means those offices, divisions bureaus, or other components of the Department of Labor authorized to conduct law enforcement inquiries.
( g ) *Act* means the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2022
FELICIA D. SLIGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Po stmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3028-Y) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia D. Sligh, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's claims of racial discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and lack of union representation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sligh v. Runyon , No. CA-96-3028-Y (D. Md. June 25, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 10.25







Summary of Retention Arrangement


Effective February 2, 2015







The following is a summary of an arrangement approved by the Compensation Committee of  the Board of Directors of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") in conjunction with the appointment of Jan Stern Reed as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company:







Ms. Reed was appointed as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company concurrent with the appointment of Marco Pagni as Chief Legal and Administrative Officer.  The Board was involved in establishing the roles, responsibilities and division of labor between Mr. Pagni and Ms. Reed, in order to best serve and protect the Company.  The Board also established a monitoring process to assess the effectiveness of the agreed upon division of labor, with the first formal check-in to take place approximately six months after the effective date of the arrangement.







If Ms. Reed departs the Company following such check-in, it will be considered an involuntary termination without cause for purposes of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Severance and Change in Control Plan, and Ms. Reed will be entitled to the following compensation:








		·	Severance according to the current terms of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Severance and Change in Control Plan as an involuntary termination for reasons other than cause;





 



		·	Vesting of any outstanding equity awards that would otherwise vest within one year of her termination date if she had remained an employee of the Company through such date; and





 



		·	Vesting of the unvested portion of the restricted stock unit (RSU) transition award granted to Ms. Reed on September 15, 2014.
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58 QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F7 Date: December 17,2008 Revision 1 

## Record ofContacts FDMS Docket No. 

### FAA-~261o- 

## 0lf30 With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date ATA Joe White 4/13/2010 Boeing Fritz Socdcl 4/12/2010 Boeing Todll 

### Esselst)'" 4/1112010

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List toVerify That This isthe Correct Revision Before Use
Exhibit 10.80


 





AMENDMENT


TO THE $236,500 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED OCTOBER
13, 2014


 


The parties agree that the $236,500 Promissory Note (the “Note”)
by and between Players Network (the “Borrower”) and Tangiers Investment Group, LLC (the “Lender”) is hereby
amended as follows:


 


		1.	Payment. The Lender shall make a payment to the Borrower of $53,750 of Consideration ($50,000 in cash and $3,750 in
an OID) under the Note on or before February 5, 2015.



 


		2.	Independent Transactions. The Borrower understands and agrees that the Note sets forth the terms for a series of independent
transactions in which the Lender may elect to make a payment of Consideration to the borrower with each payment of Consideration
creating a separate obligation of the Borrower to the Lender with the terms set forth in the Note. Accordingly, the Maturity Date
of each payment of Consideration, and the repayment terms for each payment of Consideration, are as set forth in the Note.



 


ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE
AND EFFECT.


 


Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated
February 5, 2015 by signing below:


 


 





	_________________________	_________________________
	Players Network	Tangiers Investment Group, LLC
	By:	By:
	Its:	Its: Managing Member
**Exhibit 32**

**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 Bear Lake Recreation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Wayne Bassham and Todd Albiston, 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| *Date:*** | *02/07/07*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Wayne Bassham***           |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Wayne Bassham***              |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *President and Director***     |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Bear Lake Recreation, Inc.*** |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                       |
| *Date:*** | *02/07/07*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Todd Albiston***           |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Todd Albiston***              |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Secretary and Director***     |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Bear Lake Recreation, Inc.*** |
### Geology and occurrence of ground water in the Townsend Valley, Montana

By: Howard W. LorenzR. G. McMurtreyHerbert A. Swenson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1360C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 19**                            (7906 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 20**                            (3228 pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.