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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2343

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to authorize the Secretary of

Agriculture to provide supplemental crop disaster assistance under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 14, 1995

Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to authorize the

Secretary of Agriculture to provide supplemental crop

disaster assistance under certain circumstances, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SUPPLEMENTAL CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

4 The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et

5 seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new

6 section:
2

•HR 2343 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 522. SUPPLEMENTAL CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

2 ‘‘The Secretary may provide supplemental crop disas3 ter assistance to agricultural producers if the Secretary

4 determines that the amount of assistance otherwise pro5 vided under this Act is insufficient and that extraordinary

6 circumstances warrant the assistance.’’.

Æ
#### Meyer L. Sire, Appellant, *v.*Charles S. Furst et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

*Sire*v. *Furst,*143 App. Div. 927, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted May 29, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 13, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to impress a trust upon real property and the proceeds of real property.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the affirmance was unanimous, the exceptions frivolous, and that no questions of law were presented for review.

*Benjamin N. Cardozo*and *Maurice Marks*for motion.

*Henry B. Johnson*and *Ralph Q. Kelly*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0245

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ZECHARIAH JUSTIN DANIEL SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 14, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 8 2023

05/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0245
Editorial Note on Part 195
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency venting or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks. ( a ) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in the event of spillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.
( b ) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks specified: ( 1 ) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as API Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of impoundment must be in accordance with the following sections of NFPA-30 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3); ( i ) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance with section 22.11.2; and
( ii ) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be installed in accordance with section 22.11.1.
( 2 ) For tanks built to API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3) , the installation of impoundment must be in accordance with section 5 or 11 of API Std 2510.
( c ) Aboveground breakout tank areas must be adequately protected against unauthorized entry.
( d ) Normal/emergency relief venting must be provided for each atmospheric pressure breakout tank. Pressure/vacuum-relieving devices must be provided for each low-pressure and high-pressure breakout tank.
( e ) For normal/emergency relief venting and pressure/vacuum-relieving devices installed on aboveground breakout tanks after October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (d) of this section requires the following for the tanks specified: ( 1 ) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric pressure tanks built to API Spec 12F must be in accordance with section 4 and Appendices B and C of API Spec 12F (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3) .
( 2 ) Normal/emergency relief venting installed on atmospheric pressure tanks (such as those built to API Std 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C) must be in accordance with API Std 2000 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3).
( 3 ) Pressure-relieving and emergency vacuum-relieving devices installed on low-pressure tanks built to API Std 620 must be in accordance with Section 9 of API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) and its references to the normal and emergency venting requirements in API Std 2000 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3).
( 4 ) Pressure and vacuum-relieving devices installed on high-pressure tanks built to API Std 2510 must be in accordance with sections 7 or 11 of API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3).
[Amdt. 195-66, 64 FR 15935, Apr. 2, 1999, as amended by Amdt. 195-86, 71 FR 33410, June 9, 2006; Amd .t195-94, 75 FR 48606, Aug. 11, 2010; Amdt. 195-99, 80 FR 186, Jan. 5, 2015; 80 FR 46848, Aug. 6, 2015]
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 2

- NM

- 22 4

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### § 236.508 Interference with application of brakes by means of brake valve.

The automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal apparatus shall be so arranged as not to interfere with the application of the brakes by means of the brake valve and not to impair the efficiency of the brake system.

[49 FR 3386, Jan. 26, 1984]
Exhibit 10.2


 


Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


March 22, 2006


 


This Amendment is made to that Employment Agreement dated October 1,
2001 by and between Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tapestry) and Patricia
Pilia (Executive.)


 


Whereas, Executive and Tapestry are desirous to conform the terms of
the Employment Agreement to changes made in the law relating to taxation of
severance payments.


 


Now, therefore, Executive and Tapestry hereby agree as follows:


 


In the event that the Company and Executive determine that any
compensation payable to Executive under any nonqualified deferred compensation
plan, including without limitation any severance benefit provided under the
Employment Agreement, fails to satisfy the distribution requirement of Section
409A(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), as
a result of Executive’s status as a “specified employee” within the meaning
of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code, then the payment of such benefits
shall be automatically delayed to the minimum extent necessary so that such
benefits are not subject to the provisions of Section 409A(a)(1) of the Code.


 


All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain
unchanged.


 


Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc


 


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Kai Larson

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Patricia Pilia

  	
   

  
	
  Patricia Pilia
98-2434.

#### State ex rel. Troutman v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss and on motion for summary judgment. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 OMEGA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 9, 2007
    /s/ Daniel L. WarfelDaniel L. WarfelChief Financial Officer  Page 39
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Premcor Inc. and The Premcor Refining Group Inc.



Premcor Inc.:



|                                |  |                      
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Name                            |  | State of Organization
|The Premcor Refining Group Inc. |  | Delaware             
|Premcor USA Inc.                |  | Delaware             
|Sabine River Holding Corp.      |  | Delaware             
|Sabine River LLC                |  | Delaware             
|Neches River Holding Corp.      |  | Delaware             
|Port Arthur Coker Company L.P.  |  | Delaware             
|Port Arthur Finance Corp.       |  | Delaware             
|The Premcor Pipeline Co.        |  | Delaware             
|Premcor P.A. Pipeline Company   |  | Delaware             
|Premcor Investments Inc.        |  | Nevada               



The Premcor Refining Group Inc.:



|                               |  |                      
|------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|Name                           |  | State of Organization
|Sabine River Holding Corp.     |  | Delaware             
|Sabine River LLC               |  | Delaware             
|Neches River Holding Corp.     |  | Delaware             
|Port Arthur Coker Company L.P. |  | Delaware             
|Port Arthur Finance Corp.      |  | Delaware             
|Premcor P.A. Pipeline Company  |  | Delaware             
|Premcor Investments Inc.       |  | Nevada
#### § 238.711 End structure integrity of cab end.

The cab ends of Tier III trainsets shall comply with the requirements of appendix F to this part to demonstrate the integrity of the end structure. For those units of Tier III trainsets without identifiable corner or collision posts, the requirements of appendix F to this part apply to the end structure at each location specified, regardless of whether the structure is a post.
§ 214.343 Training and qualification, general. ( a ) No employer shall assign an employee to perform the duties of a roadway worker, and no employee shall accept such assignment, unless that employee has received training in the on-track safety procedures associated with the assignment to be performed, and that employee has demonstrated the ability to fulfill the responsibilities for on-track safety that are required of an individual roadway worker performing that assignment.
( b ) Each employer shall provide to all roadway workers in its employ initial or recurrent training once every calendar year on the on-track safety rules and procedures that they are required to follow.
( c ) Except as provided for in § 214.353, railroad employees other than roadway workers, who are associated with on-track safety procedures, and whose primary duties are concerned with the movement and protection of trains, shall be trained to perform their functions related to on-track safety through the training and qualification procedures prescribed by the operating railroad for the primary position of the employee, including maintenance of records and frequency of training.
( d ) Each employer of roadway workers shall maintain written or electronic records of each roadway worker qualification in effect. Each record shall include the name of the employee, the type of qualification made, and the most recent date of qualification. These records shall be kept available for inspection and photocopying by the Federal Railroad Administrator during regular business hours.
[61 FR 65976, Dec. 16, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 37889, June 10, 2016]
#### § 236.727 Circuit, track; coded.

A track circuit in which the energy is varied or interrupted periodically.
-----Original Message----- 

From: cmgrytzka@yahoo.com [mailto:cmgrytzka@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:10 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Carrie Grytzka 

4712 Chandler St 

Missoula, MT 59808
#### Madison Cooper, *Appellant, v.*Thomas R. Langdon, Respondent.

Order reversed. Opinion by

Macomber, J,
#### § 22.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the DOT OSDBU STLP is to provide financial assistance in the form of short-term loans from Participating Lenders that are guaranteed by DOT OSDBU, to DBEs and SDBs for the execution of DOT funded and supported transportation-related contracts.
-----Original Message----- 

From: myrajn@yahoo.com [mailto:myrajn@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Myra Bennett 

1122 Evergreen Dr 

Encinitas, CA 92024
EXHIBIT 23.3




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Stockholder and Board of Directors


Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. as Manager of Vermont Transco LLC:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-141681, 333-151019 and 333-162979) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No.  333-152872) on Form S-8 of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation of our report dated March 8, 2010, with respect to the balance sheets of Vermont Transco LLC as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of income, changes in members’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.






/s/ KPMG LLP






Burlington, Vermont


March 12, 2010




Vt. Reg. No. 92-0000241
#### § 234.229 Shunting sensitivity.

Each highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall detect the application of a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance when the shunt is connected across the track rails of any part of the circuit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000706270
<NAME> AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         165,079
<SECURITIES>                                    64,423
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,072)
<INVENTORY>                                     27,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               435,743
<PP&E>                                       1,029,269
<DEPRECIATION>                               (337,933)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,619,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          552,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     741,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,619,618
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               990,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  868,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,581
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7625** 

IGNATZIO GIULIANO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States Dis trict Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 6:10

- cv - 02485

- MBS )

Submitted : February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirme d by unpublished per curiam opinion
. Ignatzio Giuliano, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ignatzio Giuliano , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendati on of the magistrate judge and denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Giuliano v. Warden , No. 6:10

- cv - 0 2485

- MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of Max & Erma’s Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending May 14, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, William C. Niegsch, Jr., the Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr. William C. Niegsch, Jr.  Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer     June 21, 2006  This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed“filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
28
From: jjwbj1@gmail.com [mailto:jjwbj1@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jennilee Mohler 

7630 Reitz Rd., #110 

Perrysburg, OH 43551
From: jpmcgett@comcast.net [mailto:jpmcgett@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:32 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

James McGettigan 

2 south tallahassee avenue 

atlantic city, NJ 08401
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

National Business Aviation Association, Krueger Aviation, Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Y ouri Bujko, James Ross, Wonderful Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Complainants


### v. City ofSanta Monica, California Respondent 

### Docket No. 16

- 14-04



### NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe above referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules ofPractice for Federally

-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued inthis matter is hereby extended to on or about August 1, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case. 

# ii~Jl.?J_ Eduardo A. Angeles Associate Administrator

for Airports 

# .j Uri€, 

### ;/_d J U)

## /It; 

# Y Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 22, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

### (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: FOR COMPLAINANT Richard 

### K. Simon, Esq
. 1

700 Deck er School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 rsimon3@verizon.net FOR RESPONDENT Marsha Jones Moutrie Joseph Lawrence Lance S. Garns 

### Ivan Campbell Santa Monica City Attorney's Office 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401 

### G. Brian Busey Paul Varnado James Sigel Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Zane O. Gresham Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100
#### John Strowbridge, Appellant, v. Minor J. Jones and Mary Stilwell, Administrators, etc., Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.