alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Definitions
 Beneficiary
 Code
 Company
 Executive Council Deferred Compensation Plan
 Fund
 Lubrizol Deferred Compensation Plan
 Participant
 1




---



##### 



Plan
 Plan Year
 Profit-Sharing Plan
 Supplemental Company Contributions
 Trust Agreement
 Trust Assets
 Trustee
 Valuation Date
 Separate Accounts
 Supplemental Matching Contributions
 Change in Control.
    2




---



##### 



Additional Definitions
   Eligibility
 Supplemental Company Contributions
 Supplemental Matching Contributions
 Allocation of Contributions
 3




---



##### 



Administration of Separate Accounts
   Vesting
 Distribution
 Distribution in the Event of Death
 Withholding for Taxes
   Authority of the Company
 4




---



##### 



Claims Review Procedure
 (a) the date on which the Claimants request was filed with the Company;
provided, however, that the date on which the Claimants request for
review was in fact filed with the Company shall control in the event that
the date of the actual filing is later than the date stated by the
Claimant pursuant to this paragraph (a);(b) the specific portions of the denial of his claim which the Claimant
requests the Company to review;(c) a statement by the Claimant setting forth the basis upon which he
believes the Company should reverse the Companys previous denial of his
claim for benefits and accept his claim as made; and(d) any written comments, documents, records and other information which
the Claimant desires the Company to examine in its consideration of his
position as stated pursuant to paragraph (c).
  5




---



##### 



Non-Alienation of Retirement Rights or Benefits
 Plan Non-Contractual
 6




---



##### 



Trust
 Interest of a Participant
 Controlling Status
 Claims of Other Persons
 Severability
 Governing Law
 7
(76 South. 479)

#### STATE v. STRAWBRIDGE.

(6 Div. 369.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 1917.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1917.)

1. Constitutional Law &wkey;>63 (3)— Delegation op Powers — Court oe County Commissioners.

The Legislature can delegate to the court of county commissioners of Lamar county the authority to make and promulgate rules and regulations the violation of which constitutes a crime. '

2. Licenses <§=>7(8) — Double Taxation.

A license tax upon vehicles is not unconstitutional and void as double taxation.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; Bernard Harwood, Judge.

Proceeding by the State against Will Strawbridge for failure to procure a license. Demurrer to complaint was sustained, and the State appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Certiorari denied 201 Ala. 62, 77 South. 356.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State. Nesmith & Young, of Vernon, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

[1] This appeal is on the record. There are hut two propositions involved: The first question presented is, Can the Legislature delegate to the court of county commissioners of Lamar county the authority to make and promulgate rules and regulations, the violation of which constitutes crime. This question has been decided in the affirmative in the following cases: Whaley v. State, 168 Ala. 152, 52 South. 941, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 499; State v. McCarty, 5 Ala. App. 212, 59 South. 543; Floyd v. State, 15 Ala. App. 654, 74 South. 752.

[2] The next insistence is that the license tax upon vehicles is a double taxation, and is therefore unconstitutional and void. This question was decided adversely to the ruling of the lower court in the instant case in Hudgens v. State, 72 South. 605.1 The court therefore erred in sustaining the demurrers to the complaint, and for the errors pointed out, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

15 Ala. App. 156.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Marketing Service 

          - [TB-00-09] 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of committee renewal. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture has renewed the Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee for an additional period of 2 years. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. Duncan III, Deputy Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, 300 12th Street, S.W., Stop 0280, Room 502 Annex Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, (202) 205-0567. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee, which reports to the Secretary through the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, recommends opening dates and selling schedules for the flue-cured marketing area which aid the Secretary in making an equitable apportionment and assignment of tobacco inspectors. The Committee consists of 39 members; 21 producer representatives, 10 warehouse representatives, and 8 buyer representatives, representing all segments of the flue-cured tobacco industry and meets at the call of the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that renewal of this Committee is in the public interest. 

To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, persons with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. 

This notice is given in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). 

Dated: May 22, 2000. 

Paul W. Fiddick, 

Assistant Secretary for Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-13239 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
132 STAT. 3670 PUBLIC LAW 115–262—OCT. 10, 2018 

Public Law 115–262 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit Medicare part D plans 

from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals regarding the prices for 

certain drugs and biologicals. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Know the Lowest Price Act 

of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION ON DRUG 

PRICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4 of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1395w–104) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(m) PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION ON DRUG

PRICES.—A PDP sponsor and a Medicare Advantage organization 

shall ensure that each prescription drug plan or MA–PD plan 

offered by the sponsor or organization does not restrict a pharmacy 

that dispenses a prescription drug or biological from informing, 

nor penalize such pharmacy for informing, an enrollee in such 

plan of any differential between the negotiated price of, or 

copayment or coinsurance for, the drug or biological to the enrollee 

under the plan and a lower price the individual would pay for 

the drug or biological if the enrollee obtained the drug without 

using any health insurance coverage.’’. 

42 USC 1305 

note. 

Know the Lowest 

Price Act of 2018. 

Oct. 10, 2018 

[S. 2553] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
PUBLIC LAW 115–262—OCT. 10, 2018 132 STAT. 3671 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2553: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 4, considered and passed Senate. 

Sept. 25, considered and passed House. 

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2018): 

Oct. 10, Presidential remarks. 

Æ 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020. 

Approved October 10, 2018. 

42 USC 

1395w–104 note. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
#### § 780.122 Activities relating to race horses.

Employees engaged in the breeding, raising, and training of horses on farms for racing purposes are considered agricultural employees. Included are such employees as grooms, attendants, exercise boys, and watchmen employed at the breeding or training farm. On the other hand, employees engaged in the racing, training, and care of horses and other activities performed off the farm in connection with commercial racing are not employed in agriculture. For this purpose, a training track at a racetrack is not a farm. Where a farmer is engaged in both the raising and commercial racing of race horses, the activities performed off the farm by his employees as an incident to racing, such as the training and care of the horses, are not practices performed by the farmer in his capacity as a farmer or breeder as an incident to his raising operations. Employees engaged in the feeding, care, and training of horses which have been used in commercial racing and returned to a breeding or training farm for such care pending entry in subsequent races are employed in agriculture.
§ 785.27 General. Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities need not be counted as working time if the following four criteria are met: ( a ) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours;
( b ) Attendance is in fact voluntary;
( c ) The course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee's job; and
( d ) The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance.
### Floods of September 1952 in the Colorado and Guadelupe river basins, central Texas

By: Seth D. BreedingJ.H. Montgomery

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1260A

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

Following a severe drought floods of exceptional size occurred in the central Texas 'hill country' as a result of heavy rains during the period September 9-11, 1952. As much as 26 inches of rain fell in the Guadalupe River basin and in the central and lower Colorado River basin and broke the extended drought. The belt of the heavy rainfall was about 60 miles wide and extended northwest from New Braunfels for a distance of about 200 miles. The greatest concentration occurred along the divide between the Colorado and Guadalupe River basins. Record floods occurred on many large and small streams. Inflow into Lake Travis on the Colorado River reached 803,000 cfs from a 6, 650 square mile contributing area. Five persons were killed and 454 homes damaged. The total flood damage in the Colorado and Guadalupe River basins was nearly 12 million dollars.

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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6451

DAVID W. HUGHES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE H. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-2110-1) Submitted: August 17, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David W. Hughes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hughes v. Garraghty , No. CA-99-2110-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2001; entered Mar. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00622-CV

Ican Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Ican Aviation, Michael Zucker, President,

and Naomi Zucker, Vice President, Appellants

v.

Williamson County Appraisal Review Board, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 03-972-C368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Michael Zucker and Naomi Zucker are president and vice-president of

Ican Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Ican Aviation. They sought to represent the corporation in this suit

against appellee Williamson County Appraisal Review Board. On July 26, 2004, the trial court made

an oral determination that the Zuckers, neither of whom is an attorney, could not represent the

corporation. According to the clerk of the trial court, no written order was signed or is expected.

Appellate timetables do not begin to run “other than by signed, written order, even

when the signing of such an order is purely ministerial.” Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d

495, 496 (Tex. 1995). Without such a document, there is no order or judgment that is final and

appealable. Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995). The trial court

made only an oral pronouncement in this case. Appellants lack an order from which to appeal, and

therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Furthermore, even if there were a
2

written order on the issue, the trial court’s determination was not a final decision in the case, but

rather was an interlocutory decision and is not of a kind from which appeal may be taken. See Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2004-05) (listing allowable interlocutory

appeals and providing for interlocutory appeal upon agreement by parties); Stary v. DeBord, 967

S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals

of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”);see also Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 15.003(b) (West Supp. 2004-05) (interlocutory appeal from venue

determinations), 171.098 (West Supp. 2004-05) (interlocutory appeal from some determinations

related to arbitration); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 1205.068, .105 (West 2000) (interlocutory appeal

from decisions related to bonds); Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(8) (interlocutory appeal from the sealing or

unsealing of documents).

The trial court’s decision is not one from which interlocutory appeal is permitted, and

further there is no signed, written order from which appeal may be taken. We therefore dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

 

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 12, 2005
EX-10.37




 Exhibit 10.37 
  

					
			



		  
 Houston Technology Center

Suite 325
 410 Pierce
Street
 Houston, TX 77002

			 Phone: 832-431-3555

Fax: 858-756-0482
		

 March 31, 2015 
 Robert E.
Sobol, MD 
  

	Re:	First Amendment to Consulting Letter dated April 2, 2014 (the “Consulting Letter”) 

 Dear Dr.
Sobol: 
 Both you and MultiVir Inc. (the “Company”) acknowledge that a Trigger Event as defined in the Consulting
Letter has not been completed as of March 31, 2015. In that regard, both you and the Company agree that the second full paragraph of page 2 of the Consulting Letter shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as
follows: 
 If the Company does not complete a Trigger Event on or before June 30, 2015, this Agreement shall terminate on June 30,
2015; provided, however, that this agreement shall continue after June 30, 2015 unless terminated upon 30-days prior written notice by either party. 

Except as expressly amended hereby the terms and conditions of the Consulting Letter shall remain in full force and effect. Kindly
countersign a copy of this letter and return it to me to evidence your acceptance of this amendment. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	MultiVir, Inc.
		
	By:		  /s/ Nicholas Puro

	Name:		Nicholas Puro
	Title:		President and COO


  

	
	Agreed and Consented to:
	
	  /s/ Robert E. Sobol, MD

	Print Name: Robert E. Sobol, MD.
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, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, Wayne Bassham, President and director and Todd
Albiston, Secretary/Treasurer of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 11/5/2004                         /s/Wayne Bassham
      ----------                         ---------------------------
                                         Wayne Bassham
                                         President and director


Dated: 11/5/2004                         /s/Todd Albiston
      ----------                         ---------------------------
                                         Todd Albiston
                                         Secretary/Treasurer and director
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.

                            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 Report of LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth C. Donahey,
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 27, 2004

                                              /s/  Kenneth C. Donahey
                                              -----------------------
                                                   Kenneth C. Donahey
                                                   Chairman, Chief Executive
                                                   Officer and President
combustionsurvey - EPA Boiler MACT Comments 

 

Please consider the attached Boiler MACT Comments from FMC Corporation, Green River, WY. 

 

Thank you. 

 

Angela Aalbers

Environmental Engineer

FMC - Green River

(P) 307-872-2111

(F) 307-872-2360

 

From: Angela Aalbers <Angela.Aalbers@fmc.com>

To: "combustionsurvey@erg.com" <combustionsurvey@erg.com>

Date: 7/15/2011 1:15 PM

Subject: EPA Boiler MACT Comments

CC: John Lucas <John.Lucas@fmc.com>, Mike Wendorf <MIKE.WENDORF@fmc.com>

Attachments: FMC EPA_BMACT_comments071411.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E203D73DO... 8/2/2011
### Geology and ground-water resources of Yuma County, Colorado

By: William G. Weist

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1539J

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (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.