alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE:

 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2007.

# PLACE:

 NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS:

 The two items are open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                    7870,                     *Railroad Accident Report*                    —Collision of Two CN Freight Trains, Anding, Mississippi, July 10, 2005 (DCA-05-MR-011).                

                    7834A,                     *Marine Accident Brief and Safety Recommendation Letter*                    —Fire on Board U.S. Small Passenger Vessel Massachusetts, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, June 12, 2006.                

# NEW MEDIA CONTACT:

 Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, March 16, 2007.

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *http://www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

Dated: March 9, 2007.

Vicky D'Onofrio,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-1202 Filed 3-9-07; 2:42 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. International Banking Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Frank Raymond et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.

(Argued February 21, 1907;

decided March 12, 1907.)

*People ex rel. International Banking Corpn.*v. *Raymond,*117 App. Div. 62, affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered Jan-*552nary 11, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming an assessment for taxation against the capital of the relator invested in business in this state.

*David Rumsey*for appellant.

*William B. Ellison, Corporation Counsel (Curtis A. Peters*and *George S. Coleman*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Werner and Chase, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1762 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1762

  To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
                          ``Bennett Freeze''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2009

 Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
                          ``Bennett Freeze''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE BENNETT FREEZE.

    Section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-9(f)) is 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
AECEWED,

. FEDERAL ELech TION
oreice Meet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 SEMERAL

FOR THE DISTRICT OF | 7

S ue AH "96

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 96-2295

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

FILED
OCT 7 4996

CLERK, US. DISTRICT
c
ORDER DISTRICT oF CoLUMaA

Defendant.

w In accordance with the proceedings in open court at the
-

tf status call of October 7, 1996, it is, this
Oo

a

“4 1996,

“t

day of October,

a ORDERED, ihat defendant’s response to pliaintiff’s motion to
5 expedite discovery must be filed by October 18, 1996, and
Plaintiff's reply thereto is due October 22, 1996; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant shall file a chronology
describing its handling of plaintiff’s administrative complaints
by the later of October 18, 1996, or two days after the Court
enters a stipulated protective order; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Parties shall appear in court for

a status conference on October 22, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

émas Penfield Jackson

U.S. District Judge i (y\
#### School District No. 7, in Danbury *v.*Moses Currier.

A school district cannot, by vote, deprive the prudential committee of the power to provide board for teachers.

Assumpsit, submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts :

At the annual meeting of said district in March, 1862, after the defendant had been elected and qualified as prudential committee for the ensuing year, and while he was taking part in the meeting, and without his dissent, it was voted to put up the board of the teachers for that year at auction, and it was struck off, at ninety-five cents per week, to one Sargent, a citizen of the district, and a responsible and proper person. The defendant hired his own daughter to teach the summer school, and refused to let the teachers board with Sargent, but boarded them himself, and took therefor, from the school money in his hands, one dollar and fifty cents per week. At the annual meeting of the district in March, 1863, the defendant made a report of his expenditures, which report the district refused to accept. This action was brought to recover the money retained by him for the board of the teachers.

*Pike*& Barnard, for plaintiff,

cited *School Dist.*v. *Sanborn,*25 N. H. 34; *School Dist.*v. *Tuttle,*26 N. H. 470; *Barrett*v. *School Dist.*37 N. H. 445; and suggested that *Tolman*v. *Marlborough,*3 N. H. 57, *Ross*v. *Allen,*10 N. H. 96, *School Dist.*v. *Esty,*16 N. H. 146, and *Stebbins*v. *School Dist.*16 N. H. 510, arose under statutes passed before the revision of 1842.

*Norris,*for defendant,

cited *Batchelder*v. *Salem,*4 Cush. 599; *Estes*v. *School Dist.*33 Me. 170; 19 N. H. 179; *Conley*v. *School Directors,*32 Penn. 194; *School Dist.*v. *Esty,*16 N. H. 146; *Barrett*v. *School Dist.,*37 N. H. 445.

Doe, J.

Sec. 10, ch. 70, Rev. Stats., provides that it shall be the duty of the prudential committee to select and hire teachers for the district, provide for them board, furnish necessary fuel, &c. To provide board for the teachers was an official duty expressly imposed upon the defendant by statute, and the vote of the district relating to that subject was an act of usurpation and void as an attempt to repeal an act of the legislature. The concurrence of the defendant in such an attempt would be immaterial, and his refusal to comply with the vote of the district is not sufficient to sustain this action.

*Case discharged.*
# CE2009294EN.01010602.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 294/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 294/106

---

Tuesday 8 July 2008Food additives ***II

P6_TA(2008)0330

European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 July 2008 on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives (16675/2/2007 — C6-0141/2008 — 2006/0145(COD))

2009/C 294 E/36

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Council common position (16675/2/2007 — C6-0141/2008) (1),

1

having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0428),

2

having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2007)0673),

having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0180/2008),

| 1. | Approves the common position as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the common position as amended;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 111 E, 6.5.2008, p. 10.

1

(2)  Texts adopted, 10.7.2007, P6_TA(2007)0321.

2

---

Tuesday 8 July 2008P6_TC2-COD(2006)0145

Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 8 July 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at second reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.)

---
Document

Exhibit 10.6




After Recording Return To:
Treadwell Syfan
P. O. Box 3280
Gainesville, GA  30503
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT


THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT, dated as of June 1, 2020 (the “Assignment”), is from GAINESVILLE AND HALL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (the “Authority”) to FOX FACTORY, INC., as bondholder (in such capacity, the “Bondholder”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Authority has authorized the issuance of its not to exceed $75,000,000 aggregate principal amount Taxable Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Fox Factory, Inc. Project), Series 2020 (the “Series 2020 Bonds” or the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the Bonds were issued under and secured by a Financing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2020 (the “Financing Agreement”) between the Authority and the Bondholder; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Lease Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2020 (the “Lease Agreement”), between the Authority and Fox Factory, Inc., as lessee (in such capacity, the “Lessee”), the Authority has agreed to lease the Project (as defined in said Lease Agreement) to the Lessee and the Lessee agreed, among other things, to make rental payments to the Authority sufficient to pay, among other things, all debt service on the Bonds and certain other expenses; and
WHEREAS, a Short Form Lease Agreement incorporating the Lease Agreement by reference is recorded in Deed Book ______, pages ______, Hall County, Georgia Deed Records (the “Short Form Lease”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Financing Agreement, the Lease Agreement is being assigned on a first priority basis to the Bondholder to secure payment of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has agreed to execute this Assignment to evidence the assignment of its right, title and interest in and to the Lease Agreement to the Bondholder pursuant to the Financing Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Authority, intending to be legally bound, by these presents does hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey, alienate, assign, transfer and set over unto the Bondholder and to it and its assigns forever for the benefit of the Bondholder, all and singular, the Lease Agreement and the Short Form Lease and the rights of the Authority under and pursuant to the terms thereof, and all rental payments and other payments receivable by the Authority thereunder (except for certain indemnification rights provided therein).  The Project which is the subject of the Lease Agreement and the Short Form Lease is more particularly described in the Short Form Lease, which Short Form Lease is incorporated herein and by reference made a part hereof.  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has executed this Assignment of Lease Agreement under seal, the day and year first above written.


GAINESVILLE AND HALL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:  /s/ Philip A. Wilheit 
Chairman
Attest: /s/T. Treadwell Syfan
Secretary




As to the Issuer, signed and sealed and delivered in the presence of:
By: /s/ Lisa F. Smith
Witness
By: /s/ Sandra K. Jones
Notary Public
My commission expires: July 10, 2023
lH NMR in DMSO 

~Mri~OOmN O~~~ ~MNOm~~ 

m~~MNrimmvM~Mm~~omvNO 

~~~~VV~~M~Om~v~MNNNN 

MMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNN 

~///

~ 

~ "t•· ""I"' ""I"" ' " '1"""'"1""'" 

~ 

'I'"" '1""""'1 ""' 

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ppm 

B~R 

L><..J NA.~ 20141205 

£Xl'NO 2 

PROCJ;o 1 

Date_ 20Ult05 

T.u:;e 9.28 

lUST.RDM .spect 

PROEHD 5 em PABBO EBPULPROG ozqJO 

TO 65536 

SOLVEIG OMSO 

tiS 'I 

OS 0 

SWH 9014. ·123 Hz 

FlDRE.S 0.13"1549 H:z: 

AQ 3.6351135 sec 

RG 9().5 

ow 55.467 U!ICC 

0!': 6 .50 usee 

n: 6"1l.2 K 

01 1. OOOOOCOO sec 

'!00 1 -~~- CHANr:E:t. ! 1 --~ 

IIUCl lH 

Pl ,I'. 10 u~Pr. PLl 1.00 dB 

PLlW 10.29555321 W 

SFOl 300.1318534 Mff: 

SI 32768 

SF' JOO .1300022 Mflz 

WOW !:~ ssa o 

LS 0.30 H:z: 

GJl. 0 

PC 15.00
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAN SCHNEIDER 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 08-01447 (JDB)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 Defendant.

ORDER

On August 20, 2008, plaintiff Jan Schneider filed a complaint seeking to compel the

Federal Election Commission ("FEC") to act on an administrative complaint plaintiff filed with

the FEC. On December 15, 2008, the FEC filed a motion to dismiss, noting that it had since acted

on plaintiff's administrative complaint and arguing that this case was now moot. Plaintiff filed an

opposition, in which she "concede[d], as she must, that the FEC conveniently took action on her

administrative complaint." Pl's Opp. at 1. Nonetheless, she went on to address, at length, the

merits of her suit. While maintaining that the case was not moot, plaintiff requested an additional

three weeks "to decide what, if anything, further to do about this action." On January 26, 2009,

the Court granted that request and ordered plaintiff to file a status report by February 26, 2009. In

her status report, plaintiff continued to describe what she views as the FEC's shortcomings. But in

the last sentence of her status report, plaintiff wrote that she "will continue to pursue the same fair

elections objectives by more effective means." Pl's. Status Rpt. at 4. Given the background of

this case, the Court understands this sentence to mean that plaintiff will no longer pursue this case. 

The Court will therefore proceed as though plaintiff has requested a voluntary dismissal pursuant

Case 1:08-cv-01447-JDB Document 13 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

to Rule 41(a)(2). The FEC does not object to a dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

that this case is DISMISSED and the FEC's motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

 

 /s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2009 

Copy to:

Jan Schneider

487 Meadowlark Drive

Sarasota, FL 34236

Plaintiff

Case 1:08-cv-01447-JDB Document 13 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 2 of 2
§ 411.33 UC education. ( a ) During the intake process and periodically thereafter, each care provider facility must ensure that during orientation or a periodic refresher session, UCs are notified and informed of the care provider facility's zero tolerance policies for all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in an age and culturally appropriate fashion and in accordance with § 411.15 that includes, at a minimum: ( 1 ) An explanation of the UC's right to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment as well as the UC's right to be free from retaliation for reporting such incidents;
( 2 ) Definitions and examples of UC-on-UC sexual abuse, staff-on-UC sexual abuse, coercive sexual activity, appropriate and inappropriate relationships, and sexual harassment;
( 3 ) An explanation of the methods for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment, including to any staff member, outside entity, and to ORR;
( 4 ) An explanation of a UC's right to receive treatment and counseling if the UC was subjected to sexual abuse or sexual harassment;
( b ) Care provider facilities must provide the UC notification, orientation, and instruction in formats accessible to all UCs at a time and in a manner that is separate from information provided about their immigration cases.
( c ) Care provider facilities must document all UC participation in orientation and periodic refresher sessions that address the care provider facility's zero tolerance policies.
( d ) Care provider facilities must post on all housing unit bulletin boards who a UC can contact if he or she is a victim or is believed to be at imminent risk of sexual abuse or sexual harassment in accordance with § 411.15.
( e ) Care provider facilities must make available and distribute a pamphlet in accordance with § 411.15 that contains, at a minimum, the following: ( 1 ) Notice of the care provider facility's zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
( 2 ) The care provider facility's policies and procedures related to sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
( 3 ) Information on how to report an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment;
( 4 ) The UC's rights and responsibilities related to sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
( 5 ) How to contact organizations in the community that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for UC victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
( 6 ) How to contact diplomatic or consular personnel.
Editorial Note on Part 303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 303 appear at 64 FR 6249, Feb. 9, 1999.

§ 303.109 Procedures for State monitoring, evaluation and reporting on programs funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. ( a ) *Monitoring.* The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs are providing services authorized in section 469B(a) of the Act, are being conducted in an effective and efficient manner, are complying with Federal evaluation and reporting requirements, and contain safeguards to insure the safety of parents and children.
( b ) *Evaluation.* The State: ( 1 ) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs;
( 2 ) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary;
( c ) *Reporting.* The State must: ( 1 ) Report a detailed description of each program funded, providing the following information, as appropriate: service providers and administrators, service area (rural/urban), population served (income, race, marital status), program goals, application or referral process (including referral sources), voluntary or mandatory nature of the programs, types of activities, and length and features of a completed program;
( 2 ) Report data including: the number of applicants/referrals for each program, the total number of participating individuals, and the number of persons who have completed program requirements by authorized activities (mediation—voluntary and mandatory, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement—including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements; and
( 3 ) Report the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section annually, at such time, and in such form, as the Secretary may require.
[64 FR 15136, Mar. 30, 1999]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID WEBB,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOANNE SUMIE ONIZUKA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16391

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00487-DAELEK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

David Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action arising from his purchase of a used vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JUN 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16391

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064,

1068 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm the dismissal of each defendant because the

district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.22**

**PAETEC Holding Corp.**

**Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation**

Non-employee directors of PAETEC Holding Corp. receive fees for their service on the board of directors of the Company. Each non-employee directorcurrently is entitled for his board service to annual fees of $50,000, payable in cash in four equal quarterly installments in arrears. In addition, Mr. Tansukh Ganatra is entitled to participate in the company’s health insurance plan inwhich the company covers a portion of the expenses. All directors are reimbursed for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with their board service.
§ 2506.16 What will the notice tell me about my opportunity for review of my debt? The notice provided by the Corporation under §§ 2506.14 and 2506.15 will also advise you of the opportunity to obtain a review within the Corporation concerning the existence or amount of the debt or the proposed schedule for offset of Federal employee salary payments. The notice will also advise you of the following: ( a ) The name, address, and telephone number of a Corporation official whom you may contact concerning procedures for requesting a review;
( b ) The method and time period for requesting a review;
( c ) That the filing of a request for a review on or before the 60th day following the date of the notice will stay the commencement of collection proceedings;
( d ) The name and address of the Corporation official to whom you should send the request for a review;
( e ) That a final decision on the review (if one is requested) will be issued in writing at the earliest practical date, but not later than 60 days after the receipt of the request for a review, unless you request, and the review official grants, a delay in the proceedings;
( f ) That any knowingly false or frivolous statements, representations, or evidence may subject you to: ( 1 ) Disciplinary procedures appropriate under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, 5 CFR part 752, or any other applicable statute or regulations;
( 2 ) Penalties under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733) or any other applicable statutory authority; and
( 3 ) Criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 1001, and 1002, or any other applicable statutory authority;
( g ) Any other rights available to you to dispute the validity of the debt or to have recovery of the debt waived, or remedies available to you under statutes or regulations governing the program for which the collection is being made; and
( h ) That unless there are applicable contractual or statutory provisions to the contrary, amounts paid on or deducted for the debt that are later waived or found not owed will be promptly refunded to you.