alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 42659.

Second Dist., Div. Four.

Nov. 16, 1973.]

#### STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and AUDREY L. STURM, Respondents.

*375Counsel

T. Groezinger, James J. Vonk, George S. Bjornsen and W. R. Lowndes for Petitioner.

Banks & Leviton, John R. Banks and Felix E. Smith for Respondents.

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

The real party in interest, a physical education teacher, suffered an industrial injury on February 4, 1972. Her employer paid her salary through the rest of that school year and furnished medical care. Her employment was terminated at the close of the school year (June 30, 1972) and payments then ceased.  Petitioner (the employer’s insurance carrier) learned of that termination on August 7, 1972,1 but it did not make any payments on account of disability until September 14, 1972, when it paid to her the amount of the unpaid back payments. There has been no further delay. Ultimately the real party in interest was awarded permanent disability and collateral benefits, the award making no provision for disability beyond reciting that they had been “adequately paid.” *376However the award found unreasonable delay in making the disability payment as above recounted and imposed the 10 percent penalty provided for in section 5814 of the Labor Code on the full amount of the final award. The appeals board affirmed.

The action of the referee and the board was in direct conflict with our opinion in *Daniels*v. *Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.*(1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 504 [104 Cal.Rptr. 129]. In that case, following our interpretation of *Garcia*v. *Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.*(1972) 6 Cal.3d 687 [100 Cal.Rptr. 149, 493 P.2d 877], we affirmed an award which imposed the 10 percent penalty only on the temporary disability payments actually delayed unreasonably. The Supreme Court denied a hearing. The same result should follow here. Admittedly, only the amount due from July 1 to September 14, 1972, was unreasonably delayed.2 It is only on that amount that the 10 percent penalty may be imposed.

The order is annulled insofar as it imposes on petitioner a penalty computed on the entire amount awarded by the award of May 13, 1973; the matter is remanded to the board with directions to make a new award of penalty consistent with this opinion.

Files, P. J., and Jefferson, J., concurred.

The petition of respondent Sturm for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 10, 1974.

1

The petition puts the date of petitioner’s knowledge of the termination of payments by the employer as August 14, 1972; the referee’s report on the petition to the board for reconsideration sets the date as August 7, 1972; we accept the referee’s factual finding.

2

Admittedly, petitioner was under no duty to pay benefits to the real party in interest until it knew of the termination of payments by the employer, but its liability ran from the date of actual termination.
No. 11-5103.

#### Manning *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
#### § 27.1320 Notification to white space database administrators.

To receive interference protection, 600 MHz licensees shall notify one of the white space database administrators of the areas where they have commenced operation pursuant to §§ 15.713(j)(10) and 15.715(n) of this chapter.

[80 FR 73085, Nov. 23, 2015]
No. 11-9324.

#### Richardson *v.*Dayton Public Schools et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 27.209 Designated entities; bidding credits; unjust enrichment. ( a ) Designated entities entitled to preferences in the WCS in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 bands auction are small businesses and very small businesses as defined in § 27.110(b). Designated entities will be eligible for bidding credits, as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) A winning bidder that qualifies as a *small business* may use a bidding credit of 25 percent to lower the cost of its winning bid.
( c ) A winning bidder that qualifies as a *very small business* may use a bidding credit of 35 percent to lower the cost of its winning bid.
[62 FR 9658, Mar. 3, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 2349, Jan. 15, 1998; 65 FR 57268, Sept. 21, 2000; 67 FR 45373, July 9, 2002]
Exhibit 10.8


AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO
1999 INCENTIVE PLAN OF
 U.S. CONCRETE, INC.


Adopted March 7, 2007; Effective as of January 1, 1999


          The Board of Directors of U.S. Concrete Inc. (the “Company”) by resolution has duly adopted this Amendment No. 5 to the Company’s 1999 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), retroactive to January 1, 1999. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.


          1.          The following definition in Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


          “‘Fair Market Value’ of a share of Common Stock means, as of a particular date, (i) if shares of Common Stock are listed on a national securities exchange, the closing sales price per share of Common Stock on the consolidated transaction reporting system for the principal national securities exchange on which shares of Common Stock are listed on that date, or, if no such sale is so reported on that date, on the last preceding date on which such a sale was so reported, (ii) if shares of Common Stock are not so listed but are quoted on the Nasdaq National Market, the closing sales price per share of Common Stock reported by the Nasdaq National Market on that date, or, if no such sale is so reported on that date, on the last preceding date on which such a sale was so reported, (iii) if the Common Stock is not so listed or quoted, the mean between the closing bid and asked price on that date,
or, if there are no quotations available for that date, on the last preceding date for which those quotations are available, as reported by the Nasdaq Stock Market, or, if not reported by the Nasdaq Stock Market, by the National Quotation Bureau Incorporated, or (iv) if shares of Common Stock are not publicly traded, the most recent value determined by an independent appraiser the Company appoints for that purpose. For purposes of the Director Options to be awarded on the IPO Closing Date pursuant to Paragraph 9(b), the Company has determined that the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the IPO Closing Date will be the IPO Price.”
No. 11-9573.

#### Hall *v.*Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir, Certiorari denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47489-47490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6980]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[DOD-2006-OS-0177]

Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, 
United States (2005 ed.) and Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice extends the comments period and changes the 
address to send the comment on the Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed 
Amendments notice which was published on August 10, 2006 (71 FR 45780).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel L. Peter Yob, 703-
588-6744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2006 (71 FR 45780), the 
Department of Defense published a notice on Proposed Amendments to the 
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (205

[[Page 47490]]

ed.) and Notice of Public Meeting. The comment period was published 
with a 30 day limit. The address to forward the comments were not in 
compliance with the Federal Docket Management System. This notice 
extends the comment period and identifies where the commentors should 
forward their comments.
    The following changes to the August 10th notice are as follows:

DATES: Comments on the proposed changes must be received no later than 
October 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or 
RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other 
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.
    All other information remains unchanged.

    Dated: August 10, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 06-6980 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Tracy L. Keegan, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |     |  |                            
|----- |  | -------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: |  | August 7, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Tracy L. Keegan        
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Tracy L. Keegan,           
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer



33
#### State of Florida, ex rel., Harry D. Davis, *Relator,*v. A. J. Ryan, Thomas E. Swanson, John B. Sherwin, and Floyd L. Wray, Members of tbe Broward County Port Authority, *Respondents.*

143 So. 297.

Division B.

Order entered August 4, 1932.

*Slvwtts & Bowen, L. 8. Bonsteel*and *Herbert 8. Sawyer,*for Relator;

*McCune, Hiaasen <& Fleming,*for Respondents;

*A. L. Gray,*for tbe City of Hollywood.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of tbe petition of tbe City of Hollywood to be made a party respondent to this cause, which is a proceeding in mandamus by a bond holder to enforce alleged contract rights alleged to exist under tbe bonds in issue, wbicb were originally issued by said City of Hollywood 'but which are in this proceeding sought to be enforced against Bro'ward County Port Authority as assumer of tbe liability thereof, it is ordered that tbe petition of tbe City of Hollywo'od to be made a party respondent to tbe alternative writ of mandamus be granted, without prejudice to tbe right of relator to make any and all appropriate motions with respect thereto.

It is further ordered that said City of Hollywood do serve upon counsel for relator copies of said motion and *387its proposed answer to the alternative writ tendered with same, and that said answer as tendered he filed, subject to such action as relator may be advised to' take concerning same.

It is so ordered.

Buford. C.J., and "Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms and Guides, Taxation of Cost Rates, and Scheduled Electronic Filing for Unrepresented Parties - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iOqrSP13D4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-federal-circuit-rules-court-forms-and-guides-taxation-of-cost-rates-and-scheduled-electronic-filing-for-unrepresented-parties\/\">Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms and Guides, Taxation of Cost Rates, and Scheduled Electronic Filing for Unrepresented Parties<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-federal-circuit-rules-court-forms-and-guides-taxation-of-cost-rates-and-scheduled-electronic-filing-for-unrepresented-parties\/embed\/#?secret=iOqrSP13D4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms and Guides, Taxation of Cost Rates, and Scheduled Electronic Filing for Unrepresented Parties” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"iOqrSP13D4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The July 1, 2020 amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules go into effect today.  The final version of the Federal Circuit Rules (July 1, 2020) (pdf) is available on the court\u2019s website and will apply to all cases filed or pending on or after July 1, 2020, to the extent practicable.  The court has also adopted changes [...]"}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 131 (Friday, July 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 42026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-910-0777-XQ]


Call for Nomination for Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of vacancy on Resource Advisory Council and call for 
nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations 
for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Sierra Front-Northwestern 
Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) in Nevada, to fill a 
vacancy on that RAC for an employee of the State of Nevada. The RAC 
provides advice and recommendations to BLM's Winnemucca and Carson City 
Field Offices on land use planning and management of the public lands 
within their geographic areas. Public nominations will be considered 
for 45 days after the publication date of this notice.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues 
related to management of lands administered by BLM. Section 309 of 
FLPMA directs the Secretary to select 10 to 15 member citizen-based 
advisory councils that are established and authorized consistent with 
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As 
required by the FACA, the interests represented by the individuals 
appointed to the RAC must be balanced and representative of the various 
issues concerned with the management of public lands.
    These include three categories, one of which is Category three, 
holders of State, county or local elected office, employees of a State 
agency responsible for management of natural resources, academicians 
involved in natural sciences, representatives of Indian tribes, and the 
public-at-large.
    The employee of a State agency whose term has not yet expired has 
resigned from this RAC, and this notice is to solicit nominations for a 
replacement. Nominations should be sent to Jo Simpson, Nevada State 
Office, BLM, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada, 89520-0006; Telephone (775) 
861-6586.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Simpson, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of Communications, P.O. Box 
12000, Reno, Nevada, 89520-0006.

    Dated: June 20, 2000.
Robert E. Stewart,
Acting Chief, Office of Communications.
[FR Doc. 00-17135 Filed 7-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Y3K Secure  Enterprises  Software,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
March  31,  2004 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, Leon M. Caldwell,  Treasurer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350),  that to my
knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  May 19, 2004

/S/ LEON M. CALDWELL
---------------------------------
Leon M. Caldwell, Treasurer


                                       30
* 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. 01-41299 Summary Calendar

PHILLIP JOE BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MIKE RATCLIFF, Victoria County Sheriff; RAYMUND RUIZ, Captain; CHARLES HENIN; KELLY ALEXANDER; MARISA KING; VICTORIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; MIKE ANDES; FREDDIE NEISSER; JOE GARCIA; JOHNNY VALDEZ; LUIS MARTINEZ; FRANK CASILLAS; JEFF THOMPSON; FRANK ZDANSKY; GERALD LAGRANGE; DAN SMITH, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. V-99-CV-42

-------------------- December 13, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Phillip Joe Barnes appeals the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Barnes raises as his sole issue on appeal that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment for the defendants when his motion to compel discoveryNo. 01-41299 -2- was still pending. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnes’s request for additional discovery given that Barnes failed to specify what additional information he needed and that he was less than diligent in seeking additional discovery. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co. , 987 F.2d 1138, 1155-56 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Barnes’s motions for appointment of counsel and publication of our opinion
are DENIED.
No. 11-9458.

#### Haynes *v.*R. W. Selby Co. Inc. et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
> 
**U.S.    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY    Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4244    Version 1.1, August 2005**
**Hydrogeology of the Unconsolidated Sediments, Water Quality, and Ground-Water/Surface-Water Exchanges in the Methow River Basin, Okanogan County, Washington**
**Prepared    in cooperation with**
No. 11-9491.

#### Dixon *v.*Lopez, Acting Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Sustainable Futures

Summary Assessment

Using

P2 Framework Models

Chemical Assessed:

Sanitized Version

CAS Registry Number:

Sanitized Version

Participant Name:

Cytec Industries Inc.

Date of Assessment:

September 2010 This document was de veloped to help compile estimation results from U.S. EPA OPPT’s P2

Framework Models www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/ and is used by OPPT during Sustainable

Futures (SF) training described at www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchem s/sustainablefutures.htm

. Participants in the voluntary SF Pilot Project are asked to submit the information contained in this

assessment along with their SF PMNs in their choice of format.

Use of this specific format is not mandatory.
October 24, 2011

Ms. Anna D. Tague 40 Singingwood Lane Orinda, CA 94563

Dear Ms. Tague:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your October 11, 2011, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2011- 1130), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 11-9217.

#### Smith *v.*Lassiter, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.