alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 100.35 Special local regulations. ( a ) The Commander of a Coast Guard District or Captain of the Port (COTP) as authorized by 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), after approving plans for the holding of a regatta or marine parade within his or her district or zone, is authorized to promulgate such special local regulations as he or she deems necessary to insure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the approved regatta or marine parade. Such regulations may include a restriction on, or control of, the movement of vessels through a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the regatta or marine parade.
( b ) The Commander of a Coast Guard District or COTP as authorized by 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), after approving plans for the holding of a regatta or marine parade upon the navigable waters within his or her district or zone, and promulgating special regulations thereto, must give the public full and adequate notice of the dates of the regatta or marine parade, together with full and complete information of the special local regulations, if there be such. Such notice should be published in the local notices to mariners.
( c ) The special local regulations referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, when issued and published by the Commander of a Coast Guard District or COTP as authorized by 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), must have the status of regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C 70041.
( d ) We have organized the special local regulations by district. Subparts B through J contain special local regulations from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth Districts, respectively.
[USCG-2009-0416, 74 FR 27438, June 10, 2009, as amended by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019; USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30878, June 28, 2019; USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58277, Sept. 18, 2020]
#### § 452.125 Delegates from labor organizations under trusteeship.

It would be unlawful under section 303(a)(1) of the Act to count the votes of delegates from a labor organization under trusteeship in any convention or election of officers of the organization imposing the trusteeship unless such delegates were chosen by secret ballot vote in an election in which all the members in good standing of the subordinate organization were eligible to participate.[56]

###### Footnotes -
  452.125

[56] Section 303(b) of the LMRDA provides criminal penalties for violation of section 303(a)(1).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11077 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. TERESA RODRIGUEZ ESTRADA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-85-ALL Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Teresa Rodriguez Estrada appeals from the sentence imposed following her conviction of bank fraud. Estrada contends that the district court erred by adjusting her offense level for using sophisticated means because her position as an officer at the Omni American Federal Credit Union allowed her legitimately to open accounts, make transfers and withdrawals, and pledge collateral. According to Estrada, the district court properly adjusted her offense le vel for abusing her position. However, she argues, her conduct was not United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11077

2 intricate or complex enough to warrant an adjustment for using sophisticated means. Estrada’s creation of 39 bogus accounts and her use of those accounts to conduct transactions were at least as sophisticated as the schemes at issue in United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2007), and Unite d States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330 (5th Cir. 1996), where we affirmed sophisticated-means adjustments. Moreover, application of two different adjustments to the same course ofconduct does not constitute double counting ifeach adjustment targets a different aspect ofthedefendant’s behavior. U nited Statesv. Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 1995). The use of sophisticated means to commit the offense and Estrada’s abuse ofher position to commit the offense were different aspects ofher behavior; theref

ore, the sophisticated-means adjustment did not constitute double counting. See id. AFFIRMED.
2012 Model S Sales Commission Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 



 
 June 5, 2012 
 George Blankenship 
 607 Gloucester Lane 
 Foster City, CA 94404 
  

	 	Re:	2012 Model S Sales Commission Plan 

 Dear
George: 
 This letter formalizes your 2012 Model S Sales Commission Plan (the “Plan”) as approved by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of Tesla Motors, Inc. The terms of the Plan are as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 You will receive $15.00 for each Model S delivered to a customer in the 2012 calendar year. This Plan is retroactive and applies to Model S vehicles
delivered prior to the date of this letter and through the 2012 calendar year. 


  

	 	•	 	 This Plan is in addition to your current Roadster Sales Commission Plan, pursuant to which you receive $200.00 for each Roadster delivered.



  

	 	•	 	 Commissions for a particular calendar month will be paid during the following calendar month according to Tesla’s regular payroll schedule and
policies. Commission payments are subject to applicable taxes, deductions and withholdings. Monthly commission payments are considered earned when paid by Tesla. You must be employed by Tesla at the time of payment in order to receive such payment.



  

	 	•	 	 Qualification of a “delivery” under this Plan shall be subject to the reasonable discretion of Tesla. 



Please acknowledge the terms of this Plan by signing below and returning a copy of this letter to me. We look forward to an amazing 2012: The Year of
the Model S! 
 Sincerely, 

/s/ Arnnon Geshuri 
 Arnnon Geshuri 
 VP Human Resources 

 

	
	Acknowledged and Accepted:
	
	/s/ George Blankenship
	George Blankenship

 TESLA MOTORS, INC. | 3500 Deer Creek Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304
USDA
SOLA

United States Department of Agriculture
Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

tl

EVITE LA PROPAGA(
ENFERMEDADES. D
GITRICOS

Photo credit: USDA photo by Randall Smith
Crédito: USDA, Randall Smith

It is illegal to move or mail citrus fruit to addresses outside Florida unless the shipment is accompanied by either:

+ Acertificate issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which allows the shipment to move to any State or
U.S. Territory, or

+ Alimited permit issued by USDA, which prohibits the shipment from moving to specified States and U.S. Territories.

Only citrus fruit processed in a USDA-approved commercial packinghouse can be shipped outside Florida.

It is also illegal to move or ship live citrus plants, plant parts, propagative seeds, budwood, or cuttings outside Florida
without a USDA-issued limited permit. Only citrus plants grown in a USDA-approved citrus nursery stock facility can
be shipped outside Florida. Other USDA and State requirements also apply.

For additional information, please call 1-800-282-5153 toll free or visit:
www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/chrp or www.SaveOurCitrus.org

Es ilegal trasladar o enviar citricos por correo a lugares ubicados fuera de Florida a menos que

el envio incluya la siguiente documentacion:

+ Un certificado emitido por el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, (USDA), que permite el traslado del envio hacia
cualquier estado o territorio de los Estados Unidos; o

+ Un permiso limitado emitido por el USDA que prohibe el traslado del envio a ciertos
estados y territorios especificos de los Estados Unidos.

Solo se pueden enviar fuera de Florida aquellas frutas citricas que estén procesadas
en una empresa empacadora comercial aprobada por el USDA.

También es ilegal transportar o enviar fuera de Florida plantas de citricos vivas,
partes de plantas, semillas propagativas, esquejes o estacas sin un permiso limitado
emitido por el USDA. Solo se pueden enviar fuera de Florida plantas citricas
cultivadas en un vivero/almacén de plantas citricas aprobado por el USDA. Otros
requerimientos del USDA 0 del Estado también aplican.

Si desea recibir informacion adicional, llame sin cargo al 1-800-282-5153
o ingrese a: www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/chrp o www.SaveOurCitrus.org

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
El USDA es un proveedor y empleador de oportunidades igualitarias.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Servicio de Inspeccién de Sanidad Agropecuaria (APHIS)
APHIS 81-45-013 + Issued August 2013 APHIS 81-45-013 + Emitido en agosto de 2013
This publication supersedes Program Aid No. 2044, Esta publicacién reemplaza al Programa de Ayuda Numero 2044,

“Don't Spread Citrus Diseases,” which was published in April 2010. “Don't Spread Citrus Diseases,” que se publicé en abril del 2010.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES RENALDO, 

Appellant,

v.

FINANCIAL PORTFOLIOS II, INC., as successor in interest to 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. f/k/a WACHOVIA; and 

CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,

Appellees.

No. 2D20-3275

September 29, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett 

Lamar Battles, Judge.

Christine K. Sahyers of Law Offices of Christine K. Sahyers, 

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Robert J. Lindeman of Marcadis Singer P.A., Tampa, for Appellee 

Financial Portfolios II, Inc., as successor in interest to Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. f/k/a Wachovia.

No appearance for Appellee Consolidated American Industries 

Corporation.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 
- 2 -

MORRIS, C.J., and KELLY and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
### Ground-water development in the high plains of Colorado, with a section on chemical quality of the ground water

By: Arnold J. BoettcherRobert Brennan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1819I

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### 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.
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 294/30 l

| | ISSN 1725-5228 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 294 |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 4730 listopada 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5228

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 294

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 4730 listopada 2004

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informacja |
| | Komisja |
| 2004/C 294/1 | Ostateczne roczne sprawozdania finansowe Wspólnot Europejskich — rok budżetowy 2003 — skonsolidowane sprawozdania dotyczące wykonania budżetu i skonsolidowane sprawozdania finansowe | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

I   Informacja

Komisja

2004/C 294/1

Ostateczne roczne sprawozdania finansowe Wspólnot Europejskich — rok budżetowy 2003 — skonsolidowane sprawozdania dotyczące wykonania budżetu i skonsolidowane sprawozdania finansowe

1

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

I Informacja

Komisja

| 30.11.2004 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2004

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

C 294/1

---

Ostateczne roczne sprawozdania finansowe Wspólnot Europejskich — rok budżetowy 2003 — skonsolidowane sprawozdania dotyczące wykonania budżetu i skonsolidowane sprawozdania finansowe

(2004/C 294/01)

Ostateczne roczne sprawozdania finansowe Wspólnot Europejskich — rok budżetowy 2003 — skonsolidowane sprawozdania dotyczące wykonania budżetu i skonsolidowane sprawozdania finansowe — nie zostały przetłumaczone na język [łotewski, litewski, estoński, polski, węgierski, czeski, słowacki, słoweński, maltański]. Natomiast wersja angielska sprawozdań finansowych dostępna jest w formie elektronicznej w EUR-Lex, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en>, w Dzienniku Urzędowym C 294 z dnia 30 listopada 2004 r.

---
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 March 31, 2004, 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
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 2 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 

assembled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

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

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of 

the Senate is assembled. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of 

2 Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled 

3 and that the Senate is ready to proceed to business. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 15

- 00816

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 13

- CV

- 0293

Style: The Landing Community Improvement Association

v Paul T. Young

Date motion filed * : November 13, 2017

Type of motion: Third Request for Extension to File Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration

Party filing motion: Appellee, Paul T. Young

Document to be filed: Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 22, 2017

Number of previous extensions granted: 1, with no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances

Date Requested: December 1, 2017

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 1, 2017

T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: November 21 , 2017
#### Marshall C. COLLINS and Naomi A. Collins, Appellees, v. Alberta COLLINS, Appellant.

No. 11180.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1967.

Decided May 30, 1967.

Harold Buchman, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.

Forrest V. Dunstan, Elizabeth City, N. C., for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The disputants in this case are Marshall Collins, Naomi Collins and Alberta Collins, respectively the father, sister and widow of the deceased serviceman, Vincent Collins. The dispute is over the proceeds of Vincent Collins’ National Service Life Insurance policy. When the insured procured the coverage, he designated his mother as primary beneficiary and his father and sister, contingent beneficiaries. Subsequently, the insured married, and his mother died.

The record contains testimony that the deceased told his wife that he had “willed” his insurance to her and that she would be taken care of for the rest of her life. Additionally, the widow offered a “Record of Emergency Data” form, which had been executed by the insured after his marriage, in which he designated his wife as beneficiary of his unpaid pay and allowances. In addition to spaces for designating beneficiaries of gratuity pay and for unpaid pay and allowances, the form contained a space for listing all insurance policies. The insured listed his NSLI policy but left blank the space in which he might have listed the beneficiary of that insurance. Thus, contrary to the widow’s assertion, the execution of the form is equally consistent with an intention on the part of the insured to leave his father and sister as the designated beneficiaries as with an intention to change the designated beneficiary to his wife. Its execution is not the kind of affirmative act, declarative of his purpose to change the beneficiary to his wife, which is essential for the effectuation of an otherwise unexecuted intention to do so. That was the finding and conclusion of the District Court and we affirm.

The present case is distinguishable from Bew v. United States, 4 Cir., 286 F.2d 570. In *Bew,*the serviceman also filled out an emergency data form. Unlike the present situation, however, he entered $10,000, the amount of his NSL insurance, after his wife’s name in the space used to designate the beneficiary of indemnity insurance. There was *1021nothing other than the NSL insurance to which the $10,000 could refer. Thus, the execution of the form was thought to be an act sufficiently indicative of an intention to change the beneficiary of the insurance to his wife.

Affirmed.
§ 780.329 Exempt work. ( a ) The standard that must be used to determine whether the individual employee is exempt is that his primary duty must be the range production of livestock and that this duty necessitates his constant attendance on the range, on a standby basis, for such periods of time so as to make the computation of hours worked extremely difficult. The fact that an employee generally returns to his place of residence at the end of each day would not affect the application of the exemption.
( b ) Thus, exempt work must be performed away from the “headquarters.” The headquarters is not, however, to be confused with the “headquarters ranch.” The term headquarters has reference to the place for the transaction of the business of the ranch (administrative center), as distinguished from buildings or lots used for convenience elsewhere. It is a particular location for the discharge of the management duties. Accordingly, the term “headquarters” would not embrace large acreage, but only the ranchhouse, barns, sheds, pen, bunkhouse, cookhouse, and other buildings in the vicinity. The balance of the “headquarters ranch” would be the “range.”
( c ) Furthermore, the legislative history indicates that this exemption was not intended to apply to feed lots or to any area where the stock involved would be near headquarters. Its sponsors stated that the exemption would apply only to those employees principally engaged in activities which require constant attendance on a standby basis, away from headquarters, such as herding, where the computation of hours worked would be extremely difficult. Such constant surveillance of livestock that graze and reproduce on range lands is necessary to see that the animals receive adequate care, water, salt, minerals, feed supplements, and protection from insects, parasites, disease, predators, adverse weather, etc.
( d ) The man-days of labor of employees principally engaged in the range production of livestock, even though the employees are exempt from the wage and hour requirements of the Act, are included in the employer's man-day count for purposes of application of section 13(a)(6)(A). Thus, if a cattle rancher in a particular calendar quarter uses 200 man-days of such range production labor and 400 man-days of agricultural labor performed by individuals not so engaged, he is required to pay the minimum wage to the latter employees in the following year.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 10, 2009

p0707 

# Order

July 10, 2009

138083

SANDRA ELLIS and GORDON ELLIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 138083 COA: 279930 Mecosta CC: 05-016890-NO JAMES HATCHEW, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., and C AVANAGH and H ATHAWAY , JJ., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because th ey are not persuaded that th e trial court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion for summary disp osition. When the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, there were disputed issues of material fact relating to the applicability of the ope n and obvious doctrine.