alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISCLAIMER The full text of certain NPDES permits and the asso ciated fact sheets has been m a de available to provide online access to this public information. EPA is m aking permits and fact sheets available electronically to provide convenient access for inte rested public parties and as a reference for permit writers. The ownership of these documents lies with the permitting authority, typically a State with an authorized NPDES program

. While EPA m akes every effort to ensure that this web site rem a ins current and contains the final version of the active permit, we cannot guarantee it is so. For example, there m ay be som e delay in posting modifications m a de after a permit is i ssued. Also note that not all active permits are currently available electronically

. Only permits and fact sheets for which the full text has been provided to Headquarters by the permitting authority may be m a de available. Headquarters has requested the full text only for permits as they are issued or reissued, beginning Novem b er 1, 2002. Please contact the appropriate permitting authority (either a State or EPA Regional office) prior to acting on this information to ensure you have th e m o st up-to-date permit and/or fact sheet. EPA recognizes the official version of a permit or fact sheet to be the version designated as such and appropriately stored by the respective permitting authority

. The documents are gathered from all permitting au thorities, and all documents thus obtained are ma de available electronically, with no screening for comp leteness or quality

. Thus, availability on the website does not constitute endorsement by EPA.
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                     |  |                              
|------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Cybex Capital Corporation            |  | New York                     
|Cybex Fitness Gerate Vertriebs, GmbH |  | Germany                      
|Cybex International UK Ltd.          |  | United Kingdom               
|Tectrix Fitness Equipment, Inc.      |  | California                   
|CIC Leasing Company, LLC             |  | Massachusetts                
|CIC Leasing Company (O), LLC         |  | Massachusetts                
|Cybex Hong Kong Limited              |  | Hong Kong
#### St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Kendle.

(Decided May 27, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Branch, No. 3).

Appeal and Error — Rehearing—Petition for Overruled. — The petition for rehearing is overruled, but certain instructions are directed to he given upon another trial.

(For former opinion, see 163 Ky., 145).

HELM BRUCE, CHARLES H. STEPHENS and BRUCE *&*BULLITT for appellant.

JOHN B. BASKIN and HUMPHREY, MIDDLETON *&*HUMPHREY for appellee.

Response to Petition for Rehearing by

Judge Nunn

Overruling.

The court adheres to the doctrine announced in the opinion, but observes that if the court, on another trial, .gives instructions 1 and 2, in connection with No. 3, as modified, the issues will not be made quite clear to the jury. In lieu of instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the court on another trial will give to the jury the following instructions :

“(1) The court instructs the jury that they will find for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 with interest *123from the 18th day of January, 1912, unless they believe as in instruction No. 2.

“ (2) It was the duty of the plaintiff under the policy of insurance sued on to exercise ordinary care to employ two competent watchmen, one of whom should be kept on duty on board the boat at all times; and it was the duty of the watchman' on board the boat to exercise such care and skill to watch the boat as reasonably prudent and careful men usually exercise in watching similar premises during night hours. If the jury believe from the evidence that either the plaintiff or his watchman fáiled to perform his duties above set forth, then they' will find for the defendant.

“(3) Ordinary care is that degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons usually exercise under the same or similar circumstances.”

The petition for rehearing is overruled.
33888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

Hawkins, Department of Veterans

Affairs, at (202) 273–6708, before June 1,

2000. No time will be allocated for

receiving oral presentations from the

public. However, the Committee will

accept written comments from

interested parties on issues affecting

minority veterans. Such comments

should be referred to the Committee at

the following address: Advisory

Committee on Minority Veterans, Center

for Minority Veterans (00M), U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

20420.

Dated: May 16, 2000.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Marvin R. Eason,

Committee Management Officer.

FR Doc. 00–13167 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Advisory Committee on the

Readjustment of Veterans, Notice of

Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–

463 that a Meeting of the Advisory

Committee on the Readjustment of

Veterans will be held June 15 and 16,

2000. This will be a regularly scheduled

meeting for the purpose of reviewing

VA services of veterans, and to

formulate Committee recommendations

and objectives. The meeting on both

days will be held at The American

Legion, Washington Office, 1608 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

agenda on both days will commence at

8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m.

The agenda for Thursday, June 15,

will include reviews of Veterans Health

Administration (VHA) special emphasis

programs for prosthetics, environmental

agents and post-traumatic stress

disorder. The agenda for both days will

also include strategic planning sessions

to formulate goals and objectives for a

Committee field visit to VA facilities to

be conducted later in the year.

On Friday, June 16, the Committee

will review Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA) programs related

to PTSD compensation, vocational

rehabilitation and counseling, and

transition assistance.

The meeting will be open to the

public. Those who plan to attend or

who have questions concerning the

meeting may contact Alfonso R. Batres,

Chief Readjustment Counseling Officer,

Department of Veterans Affairs

Headquarters Office at (202) 273–8967.

Dated: May 16, 2000.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Marvin R. Eason,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–13168 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–M
#### § 794.4 Significance of official interpretations.

The interpretations of the law contained in this part are official interpretations of the Department of Labor with respect to the application under described circumstances of the provisions of law which they discuss. These interpretations indicate the construction of the law which the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator believe to be correct and which will guide them in the performance of their duties under the Act unless and until they are otherwise directed by authoritative decisions of the courts or conclude, upon re-examination of an interpretation, that it is incorrect. The interpretations in this part provide statements of general principles applicable to the subjects discussed and illustrations of the application of these principles to situations that frequently arise. They do not and cannot refer specifically to every problem which may be met in the consideration of the exemption discussed. The omission to discuss a particular problem in this part or in interpretations supplementing it should not be taken to indicate the adoption of any position by the Secretary of Labor or the Administrator with respect to such problem or to constitute an administrative interpretation or practice or enforcement policy. Questions on matters not fully covered by this part may be addressed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210 or to any Regional or Area Office of the Division.
§ 4219.2 Definitions. ( a ) The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: employer, ERISA, IRS, mass withdrawal, multiemployer plan, nonforfeitable benefit, PBGC, plan, and plan year.
( b ) For purposes of this part: *Initial withdrawal liability* means the amount of withdrawal liability determined in accordance with sections 4201 through 4225 of title IV without regard to the occurrence of a mass withdrawal.
*Mass withdrawal liability* means the sum of an employer's liability for *de minimis* amounts, liability for 20-year-limitation amounts, and reallocation liability.
*Mass withdrawal valuation date* means— ( 1 ) In the case of a termination by mass withdrawal, the last day of the plan year in which the plan terminates; or
( 2 ) in the case of a withdrawal of substantially all employers pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw, the last day of the plan year as of which substantially all employers have withdrawn.
*Reallocation liability* means the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocated to an employer in the event of a mass withdrawal.
*Reallocation record date* means a date selected by the plan sponsor, which is not earlier than the date of the plan's actuarial report for the year of the mass withdrawal and not later than one year after the mass withdrawal valuation date.
*Redetermination liability* means the sum of an employer's liability for *de minimis* amounts and the employer's liability for 20-year-limitation amounts.
*Unfunded vested benefits* means the amount by which the present value of a plan's nonforfeitable benefits exceeds the value of plan assets (including claims of the plan for unpaid initial withdrawal liability and redetermination liability), determined in accordance with section 4281 of ERISA and part 4281, subpart B.
( c ) For purposes of subpart B— *Withdrawal* means a complete withdrawal as defined in section 4203 of ERISA.
[61 FR 34102, July 1, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 79636, Dec. 30, 2008; 86 FR 1277, Jan. 8, 2021]
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, May 17, 2000, 2:30 p.m. to May 17, 2000, 3:30 p.m., NIH, Rockledge II, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 26, 2000, 65 FR 24491-24492.                

The meeting is cancelled due to the fact that a review meeting is no longer required.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

LeVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12906  Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EX-4.a



 CONTRACT DATA PAGE 

Contract Number:
[P9999999999]                        Contract Date: [May 2, 2014] 

 

			
	Owner: [JOHN DOE]		[Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]     Age at Issue: [38]]
		
	[Owner: [JANE DOE]		Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]        Age at Issue: [37]]
		
	Annuitant: [JOHN DOE]		Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]       Age at Issue: [38]
		
	[Annuitant: [JANE DOE]		Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]        Age at Issue: [37]]

 Beneficiary: As named by You 

Initial Purchase Payment: [$25,000.00] 
 Maximum
Purchase Payment Without Our Approval: [$1,000,000] 
 Purchase Payment Age Limit: [Prior to the
86th birthday] 
 Minimum Subsequent Purchase Payment: [$500] 

Fixed Account Option(s) Minimum Guaranteed Interest Rate: [1.0% - 3.0%] 

Minimum Partial Withdrawal Amount: [$1,000] 
 Maximum
Penalty-Free Withdrawal Percentage: [10%] 
 Minimum Systematic Withdrawal Amount: [$100] 

Minimum Amount Remaining After Any Partial Withdrawal: [$2,500] 

Withdrawal Charge Schedule: 
  





 
 See Page [11] for Withdrawal Provisions. 

  

					
	V-803-CIV (11/14)		3		










 CONTRACT DATA PAGE (Cont’d.) 

 

 [Premium Tax: None] 

Minimum Transfer Amount: [$100] 
 Separate Account
Charge [(including guaranteed death benefit risk charge of [0.10%])]: [1.65%] 
 Annual Contract Maintenance Fee: [$50] 

Transfer Fee: [$25] 
 Earliest Annuity Date After the
Contract Date: [Two years] 
 Latest Annuity Date: [1st day of the month following Your 95th Birthday] 
 Separate Account: [Variable Separate Account] 

 

									
	



		 Optional Elections:
 Income Plus

Maximum Anniversary Value
 Return of Purchase Payment
				 Optional Election Details:
 See
Attached Endorsement ASE-6248
 See Attached Endorsement AGE-8023

See Attached Endorsement AGE-8022
		 





							


  

					
	V-803-CIV (11/14)		4
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Broadband Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Heysel, Chief Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: August 14, 2003 | By: | /s/ MATTHEW HEYSELName:	Matthew Heysel
Title:	Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 778.331 Awards for performance on the job.

Where a prize is awarded for the quality, quantity or efficiency of work done by the employee during his customary working hours at his normal assigned tasks (whether on the employer's premises or elsewhere) it is obviously paid as additional remuneration for employment. Thus prizes paid for cooperation, courtesy, efficiency, highest production, best attendance, best quality of work, greatest number of overtime hours worked, etc., are part of the regular rate of pay. If the prize is paid in cash, the amount paid must be allocated (for the method of allocation see § 778.209) over the period during which it was earned to determine the resultant increase in the average hourly rate for each week of the period. If the prize is merchandise, the cost to the employer is the sum which must be allocated. Where the prize is either cash or merchandise, with the choice left the employee, the amount to be allocated is the amount (or the cost) of the actual prize he accepts.
### Geology and hydrology of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana

By: Douglas C. Alverson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1576F

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1128** 

KINGSLEY KELECHI OGIDEH , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General, Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : November 5, 2010 Decided: November 24 , 2010

Before AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Liam Ge, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, P. Michael Truman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kingsley Kelechi Ogideh, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Ogideh’s appeal from his order of removal and denying his motion to remand his case to the immigration court. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition for review. First, we reject Ogideh’s claim that his due process rights were violated when he was not provided with an approved, edited, and signed transcript of his remo val hearing and the immigration judge’s oral decision prior to submission of his appellate brief to the Board. To succeed on a due process claim in an asylum or removal proceeding, an alien must establish two closely linked elements: (1) that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey , 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) ; Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 320

- 22, 324 (4th Cir. 2002). Because Ogideh did not demonstrate ho w the outcome of his administrative appeal was impacted by this failure, the Board properly rejected this claim. Ogideh next challenges the Board’s constru ing his motion to remand as a motion to reopen, based on In re Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A . 1988) , and denying it because Ogideh failed to substantially comply with Lozada ’s requirements for an3 ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We have reviewed Ogideh’s argument, the relevant record, and the Board’s analysis of this issue, and hold the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying th e motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (20 1 0). The Board was further correct in concluding that r eopening to allow an alien to pursue discretionary relief is not permitted when that relief had been explained to the alien, and the alien had been afforded the opportunity to pursue such relief. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010) ; see also Obioha v. Gonzales , 431

F .3d 400, 408

- 09 (4th Cir. 2005) . The transcript of Ogideh’s administrative hearing reflects this is p recisel y what happened

here. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review substantially for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Ogideh (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2009 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 788.13 Counting the eight employees.

The determination of the number of employees employed in the named operations is to be made on an occupational and a workweek basis. Thus the exemption will be available in one workweek when eight or less employees are employed in the exempt operations and not in another workweek when more than that number are so employed. For a discussion of the term “workweek” see part 778 of this chapter. The exemption will not be defeated, however, if one or more of the eight employees so engaged is replaced during the workweek, for example, by reason of illness. But if additional employees are employed during the workweek in the named operations, even if they work on a different shift, the exemption would no longer be available if the total number exceed eight. Similarly, all of an employer's employees employed in any workweek in the named operations must be counted in the eight regardless of where the work is performed or how it is divided. Thus if an employer employs four employees in felling timber and preparing logs at one location and five at another location in those operations, the exemption would not be available. Similarly, if he employs six employees in such operations and three other employees in transportation work as discussed in § 788.11, the exemption could not apply. Under such circumstances he would be employing more than eight employees in the named operations. The fact that some of these employees may not be engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce or may be engaged in other exempt operations will not affect these conclusions (*Woods Lumber Co.* v. *Tobin,* 199 F. 2d 455 (C.A. 5)). Except for replacements, therefore, all of an employer's employees employed in the named operations in a workweek must be counted, regardless of where they perform their work or in which of the named operations or combinations of such operations they are employed. The length of time an employee is employed in the named operations during a workweek is also immaterial for the purpose of applying the numerical limitation. Thus, even if an employee would not himself be exempt because he is engaged substantially in nonexempt work (see § 788.17), nevertheless, if, as a regular part of his duties, he is also engaged in the operations named in the exemption, he must be counted in determining whether the eight employee limitation is satisfied.
#### § 551.4 Requirements for petition.

A petition for a finding under section 13(b)(11) of the Act and this part shall include in such detail as the Administrator may deem necessary for evaluation under the standards provided by the statute and this part, all the information required by § 551.5. Such information may be presented in any form convenient to the petitioner; no particular form is prescribed for the petition. The petition shall also include, by attachment, a copy of any collective bargaining agreement or other document governing the method of payment for the work of employees covered by the wage payment plan with respect to which a finding is requested. The petition, together with any such documents, shall be filed with the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.