alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4207.4 Withdrawal liability payments during pendency of abatement determination. ( a ) *General rule.* An eligible employer that completely withdraws from a multiemployer plan and subsequently reenters the plan may, in lieu of making withdrawal liability payments due after its reentry, provide a bond to, or establish an escrow account for, the plan that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section or any plan rules adopted under paragraph (d) of this section, pending a determination by the plan sponsor under § 4207.3(b) of whether the employer satisfies the requirements for abatement of its complete withdrawal liability. An employer that applies for abatement and neither provides a bond/escrow nor pays its withdrawal liability payments remains eligible for abatement.
( b ) *Bond/escrow.* The bond or escrow allowed by this section shall be in an amount equal to 70 percent of the withdrawal liability payments that would otherwise be due. The bond or escrow relating to each payment shall be furnished before the due date of that payment. A single bond or escrow may be provided for more than one payment due during the pendency of the plan sponsor's determination. The bond or escrow agreement shall provide that if the plan sponsor determines that the employer does not satisfy the requirements for abatement of its complete withdrawal liability under this part, the bond or escrow shall be paid to the plan upon notice from the plan sponsor to the bonding or escrow agent. A bond provided under this paragraph shall be issued by a corporate surety company that is an acceptable surety for purposes of section 412 of ERISA.
( c ) *Notice of bond/escrow.* Concurrently with posting a bond or establishing an escrow account under paragraph (b) of this section, the employer shall notify the plan sponsor. The notice shall include a statement of the amount of the bond or escrow, the scheduled payment or payments with respect to which the bond or escrow is being furnished, and the name and address of the bonding or escrow agent.
( d ) *Plan amendments concerning bond/escrow.* A plan may, by amendment, adopt rules decreasing the amount specified in paragraph (b) of a bond or escrow allowed under this section. A plan amendment adopted under this paragraph may be applied only to the extent that it is consistent with the purposes of ERISA.
ACL/AoD/Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy (PADD) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2023 Estimated Allocation

5/18/2022

Awards for FY 2023 are based on the FY 2023 President's Budget Request.

Actual awards will be calculated using the latest data points and the 

FY 2023 Congressional Appropriations.

State/Territory

FY 2022 Current 

Level Amounts FY 2023 Estimates

Alabama 525,886 729,286

Alaska 414,977 592,502

Arizona 790,779 1,091,177

Arkansas 414,977 592,502

California 4,326,849 5,970,545

Colorado 610,675 842,770

Connecticut 429,327 608,401

Delaware 414,977 592,502

District of Columbia 414,977 592,502

Florida 2,282,687 3,149,057

Georgia 1,072,495 1,479,511

Hawaii 414,977 592,502

Idaho 414,977 592,502

Illinois 1,298,529 1,792,322

Indiana 673,998 929,897

Iowa 414,977 592,502

Kansas 414,977 592,502

Kentucky 477,475 662,578

Louisiana 521,082 718,756

Maine 414,977 592,502

Maryland 620,525 856,388

Massachusetts 671,948 927,419

Michigan 994,563 1,372,313

Minnesota 528,959 731,773

Mississippi 425,434 602,265

Missouri 599,658 827,450

Montana 414,977 592,502

Nebraska 414,977 592,502

Nevada 421,561 597,680

New Hampshire 414,977 592,502

New Jersey 926,758 1,279,169

New Mexico 414,977 592,502

New York 2,146,172 2,961,335

North Carolina 1,096,601 1,512,706

North Dakota 414,977 592,502

Ohio 1,227,350 1,693,275

Oklahoma 444,131 624,723

Oregon 434,715 607,044

Pennsylvania 1,351,657 1,865,202

Rhode Island 414,977 592,502

South Carolina 537,152 744,923

South Dakota 414,977 592,502

Tennessee 716,344 988,216

Texas 3,237,856 4,466,628

Utah 414,977 592,502

Vermont 414,977 592,502

Virginia 791,789 1,092,883

Washington 746,662 1,030,552

West Virginia 414,977 592,502

Wisconsin 541,426 751,009

Wyoming 414,977 592,502

American Samoa 222,010 316,985

Guam 222,010 316,985

Northern Mariana Islands 222,010 316,985

Puerto Rico 833,767 927,012

Virgin Islands 222,010 316,985

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. 222,010 316,985

TOTAL $41,714,400 $57,869,230
#### JULIO GUTIERREZ *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 18840)

Lavery, Landau and Daly, Js.

Argued December 7, 1999

officially released January 4, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.449 Grosse Tete Bayou.

The removable span of the S377 Bridge, mile 15.3 near Rosedale, shall be opened for the passage of vessels if at least 48 hours notice is given.

[USCG-2012-0115, 77 FR 57494, Sept. 18, 2012]
#### § 794.128 Sales made to out-of-State customers.

Whether the sale of goods or services is made to an out-of-State customer is a question of fact. In order for a customer to be considered an out-of-State customer, some specific relationship between him and the seller has to exist to indicate his out-of-State character. On the one hand, sales made to the casual cash-and-carry customer (such as at a gasoline station owned or operated by the enterprise), who, for all practical purposes, is indistinguishable from the mass of customers who visit the establishment, are sales made within the State even though the seller knows or has reason to believe, because of his proximity to the State line or because he is frequented by tourists, that some of the customers who visit his establishment reside outside the State. If the customer is of that type, sales made to him are sales made within the State even if the seller knows in the particular instance that the customer resides outside the State. On the other hand, a sale is made to an out-of-State customer and therefore, is not a sale made “within the State” in which the enterprise is located, if delivery of the goods is made outside that State, or if the relationship with the customer is such as to indicate his out-of-State character. Such a relationship would exist, for example, where an out-of-State company in the regular course of dealing picks up the petroleum products at the bulk storage station of the enterprise and transports them out of the State in its own trucks.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|             |   |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
| October 29, 2007 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|             |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|             |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |        |        |  |  |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|        |   |   |
|-------------|--------|--------|
| May 5, 2008 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|        |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|        |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|             |        |        |  |  |
Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER





As independent petroleum engineers, we
hereby consent to the use of our name included herein or incorporated by
reference in this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A by McMoRan Exploration Co. and
to the reference to our estimates of reserves and present value of future net
reserves as of December 31, 2007, into McMoRan Exploration Co.’s previously
filed Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-144496, 333-121779,
333-95195 and 333-108408) and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57484, 333-67485,
333-87380, 333-90170, 333-105533, 333-115335 and 333-124740).





/s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY,
L.P.


PETROLEUM ENGINEERS





Houston,
Texas


April 24,
2008
114 STAT. 2218 PUBLIC LAW 106–496—NOV. 9, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2425:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–359 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 106–496

106th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, design,

and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, and for other

purposes.

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 ‘‘Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project

Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

(a) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Tumalo

Irrigation District (referred to in this section as the ‘‘District’’),

is authorized to participate in the planning, design, and construction

of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon.

(b) The Federal share of the costs of the project shall not

exceed 50 percent of the total, and shall be nonreimbursable. The

District shall receive credit from the Secretary toward the District’s

share of the project for any funds the District has provided toward

the design, planning or construction prior to the enactment of

this Act.

(c) Funds received under this Act shall not be considered a

supplemental or additional benefit under the Act of June 17, 1902

(82 Stat. 388) and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary

thereto.

(d) Title to facilities constructed under this Act will be held

by the District.

(e) Operations and maintenance of the facilities will be the

responsibility of the District.

(f) There are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 for the

Federal share of the activities authorized under this Act.

Approved November 9, 2000.

Bend Feed Canal

Pipeline Project

Act of 2000.

Nov. 9, 2000

[S. 2425]
#### § 100.119 Special Local Regulation; East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI.

(a) *Regulated area.*

(1) The regulated area includes all waters of Narragansett Bay, Newport, RI, within the following points (NAD 83):

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 41°29′13′′ N | 071°20′07′′ W |
| 41°29′41′′ N | 071°20′87′′ W |
| 41°27′27′′ N | 071°22′00′′ W |
| 41°27′45′′ N | 071°22′83′′ W |

(2) In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start within the approach to Newport Harbor, the race will begin offshore and the following regulated area applies (NAD 83):

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 41°26′06′′ N | 071°22′27′′ W |
| 41°25′60′′ N | 071°21′97′′ W |
| 41°25′36′′ N | 071°22′65′′ W |
| 41°25′82′′ N | 071°22′93′′ W |

(b) *Effective period.* This special local regulation is in effect biennially on a date and times published in the Local Notice to Mariners.

(c) *Special local regulations.*

(1) Entry into this area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Southeastern New England.

(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 508-457-3211.

(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

(d) *Informational broadcasts.* The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through local notice to mariners and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the enforcement period for the regulated area as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

[USCG-2020-0035, 86 FR 29693, June 3, 2021]
HENRY
BROS. ELECTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following documents of our
report dated October 17, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Henry Bros. Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
adoption of SAB No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements
when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements),
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Henry Bros.
Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
2006.





Registration
Statement No. 333-131671 on Form S-3/A dated March 23, 2006


Registration
Statement No. 333-121056 on Form S-8 dated December 7, 2004


Registration
Statement No. 333-118438 on Form S-3 dated August 20, 2004


Registration
Statement No. 333-114664 on Form S-8 dated April 21, 2004


Registration
Statement No. 333-76802 on Form S-8 dated January 16, 2002




/S/
DEMETRIUS & COMPANY, L.L.C.





Wayne,
New Jersey


March 19, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13350]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-054]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Task Force on International Space 
Station Operational Readiness; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces an open meeting of the NAC Task Force on International Space 
Station Operational Readiness (IOR).

DATES: Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 12 p.m.--1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Room 7W31, Washington, 
DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip Cleary, Code IH, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/
358-4461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public up 
to The seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--Review the status of the assessment conducted by the IOR Task Force 
and the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Utkin) Advisory Expert 
Council on the Russian investigation of the Proton launch failures of 
July 5 and October 27, 1999. This assessment includes the corrective 
action taken to help ensure a successful International Space Station 
Service Module launch.

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the Scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitors register.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Mathew M. Crouch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13350 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.283 When is the application process stopped before the application is approved or denied? The Commandant (CG-5P) recommends to MARAD that the application process be suspended before the application is approved or denied if: ( a ) All applications are withdrawn before MARAD approves one of them; or
( b ) There is only one application; it is incomplete, and the applicant does not respond to a request by the Commandant (CG-5P) for further information, as per § 148.107 of this part.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39177, July 1, 2013]
§ 143.110 Guards and rails. ( a ) Except for helicopter landing decks which are provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, and areas not normally occupied, the unprotected perimeter of all floor or deck areas and openings shall be rimmed with guards and rails or wire mesh fence. The guard rail or fence shall be at least 42 inches high. The two intermediate rails shall be so placed that the rails are approximately evenly spaced between the guard rail and the floor or deck area: *Provided,* That if a toe board is installed then one of the intermediate rails may be omitted and the other rail placed approximately half way between the top of the toe board and the top guard rail.
( b ) The unprotected perimeter of the helicopter landing deck shall be protected with a device of sufficient strength and size as to prevent any person from falling from such deck.
( c ) Each catwalk and each stairway shall be provided with a suitable guard rail or rails, as necessary.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Proposed Navajo Ten-Year Forest Management Plan, Navajo Nation, 
Arizona/New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice reopens the public comment period published in the 
Federal Register on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30605) for the Final 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for the Proposed 
Navajo Ten-Year Forest Management Plan, Navajo Nation, Arizona/New 
Mexico. The new public comment period closes on June 30, 2000. Except 
for the closing date for the public comment period, the information on 
the FPEIS published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 
20197) remains unchanged.

DATES: The date by which written comments must arrive is June 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold D. Russell, (520) 729-7228.

    Dated: May 25, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-13661 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-01-P
792 A.2d 593

#### In the Matter of Richard Marc BROOKS. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 134 DB 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 28, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2002, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated January 28, 2002, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that RICHARD MARC BROOKS, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 The Honorable Mary H. Murguia, United States Circuit Judge for the **

Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY C. STONE INCORPORATED,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, et al.

 Defendants,

 and

GRANT H. GOODMAN,

 Real-party-in-interest - 

 Appellant.

No. 11-17090

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02454-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, Presiding** 

FILED

JAN 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 11-17090

Submitted January 17, 2012*** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Attorney Grant H. Goodman appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment imposing sanctions against him under its inherent authority for conduct

related to his representation of plaintiff in the underlying action. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Primus

Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against

Goodman because, among other actions, he improperly tried to remove a probate

action; misrepresented the law and the facts to the court; and caused defendants to

defend a baseless action before his client voluntarily dismissed it at the eleventh

hour. See id. at 649 (inherent authority sanctions are warranted for a party’s bad

faith in knowingly or recklessly raising frivolous claims or arguments); see also

Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (inherent authority sanctions are

available for an attorney’s reckless misstatements for an improper purpose).

Gordon’s remaining contentions, including those related to the district
3 11-17090

court’s alleged bias in imposing sanctions, are unpersuasive. See Toth v. Trans

World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (alleged bias must stem

from an extrajudicial source).

Goodman’s motion, in which he appears to ask this court to dismiss the state

disciplinary proceedings against him or to void his suspension from practice by the

state bar, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Ashley Tangonan <ash679@hawaii.edu> Tuesday, November26, 2013 10:42 PM Faulk, Scott (OST); EAS (OST) EAS Kaulapapa

Dear Department ofTransportation, I am writing to support MokuleleAirline's 4-year bid to link Kalaupapa to Kahului, Honolulu, Kapalua, and Ho'olehua. Mokulele is the best candidate as they have lowerfares, experienced friendly agents, frequentflights, multiple islands and ease ofbooking via Global Distribution System. It is importantwe have safe, stable and affordable service to Kalaupapa. Itravel 2 x aweek on mokulele airlines for bussiness,and there flight availability is whatworks. All the other islands depends on a reliable flight service. Please select Mokulele to serve Kalaupapa for 4 years
Mahala, Pualani Tangonan

1