alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.57 Acceptance criteria for new explosives. ( a ) Unless otherwise excepted, an explosive substance must be subjected to the Drop Weight Impact Sensitivity Test (Test Method 3(a)(i)), the Friction Sensitivity Test (Test Method 3(b)(iii)), the Thermal Stability Test (Test Method 3(c)) at 75 °C (167 °F) and the Small-Scale Burning Test (Test Method 3(d)(i)), each as described in the Explosive Test Manual (UN Manual of Tests and Criteria) (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). A substance is forbidden for transportation if any one of the following occurs: ( 1 ) For a liquid, failure to pass the test criteria when tested in the Drop Weight Impact Sensitivity Test apparatus for liquids;
( 2 ) For a solid, failure to pass the test criteria when tested in the Drop Weight Impact Sensitivity Test apparatus for solids;
( 3 ) The substance has a friction sensitiveness equal to or greater than that of dry pentaerythrite tetranitrate (PETN) when tested in the Friction Sensitivity Test;
( 4 ) The substance fails to pass the test criteria specified in the Thermal Stability Test at 75 °C (167 °F); or
( 5 ) Explosion occurs when tested in the Small-Scale Burning Test.
( b ) An explosive article, packaged or unpackaged, or a packaged explosive substance must be subjected to the Thermal Stability Test for Articles and Packaged Articles (Test method 4(a)(i)) and the Twelve Meter Drop Test (Test Method 4(b)(ii)), when appropriate, in the Explosive Test Manual. An article or packaged substance is forbidden for transportation if evidence of thermal instability or excessive impact sensitivity is found in those tests according to the criteria and methods of assessing results prescribed therein.
( c ) Dynamite (explosive, blasting, type A) is forbidden for transportation if any of the following occurs: ( 1 ) It does not have, when uniformly mixed with the absorbent material, a satisfactory antacid in a quantity sufficient to have the acid neutralizing power of an amount of magnesium carbonate equal to one percent of the nitroglycerin or other liquid explosive ingredient;
( 2 ) During the centrifuge test (Test Method D-2, in appendix D to this part) or the compression test (Test Method D-3 in appendix D to this part), a non-gelatin dynamite loses more than 3 percent by weight of the liquid explosive or a gelatin dynamite loses more than 10 percent by weight of the liquid explosive; or
( 3 ) During the leakage test (Test Method D-1 in appendix D to this part), there is any loss of liquid.
[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617 Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 51532, Oct. 1, 1993; 64 FR 51918, Sept. 27, 1999; 68 FR 75743, Dec. 31, 2003; 76 FR 56315, Sept. 13, 2011]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jyf-jep0

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2183

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I do not need the Federal government's "help" with MY IRAs. Reduce regulation rather than 

increase regulation!
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00394-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 141st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 141-307474-19

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

VICTOR MIGNOGNA, Appellant

V.

FUNIMATION PRODUCTIONS, LLC, JAMIE MARCHI, MONICA RIAL, AND 

RONALD TOYE, Appellees

AND

MONICA RIAL AND RONALD TOYE, Appellants

V.

VICTOR MIGNOGNA, Appellee
2

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

I write separately only to reiterate what has already been said both in the 

majority opinion and in the concurring and dissenting opinion.

First, I agree with the concurring and dissenting opinion that there is ample 

room in this record to support the trial court’s decision to award a lesser amount of 

attorney’s fees than Rial and Toye sought. 

But I also agree with the majority opinion in holding that a one-size-fits-all 

approach to determining appropriate attorney’s fees violates guiding rules and 

principles and, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in the manner in 

which it reduced the fees awarded to Rial and Toye here.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: August 18, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2378 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2378

To amend the White House Conference on Small Business Authorization Act 
to require the final report of the National Conference to be published 
in the Federal Register and distributed through the regional offices of 
                   the Small Business Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 1995

  Mr. McHale introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the White House Conference on Small Business Authorization Act 
to require the final report of the National Conference to be published 
in the Federal Register and distributed through the regional offices of 
                   the Small Business Administration.

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

SECTION 1. FINAL REPORT OF NATIONAL WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SMALL 
              BUSINESS.

    Section 7(a) of the White House Conference on Small Business 
Authorization Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``and published in 
        the Federal Register'' before the period at the end; and
            (2) in the third sentence by inserting ``and distributed 
        through the regional offices of the Small Business 
        Administration'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
[Civ. No. 1130.

First Appellate District.

February 5, 1913.]

#### F. M. THAL, Respondent, v. RADKE & COMPANY (a Corporation) , Appellant.

Sales—Action foe Price—Pleading and Proof—Harmless Error.— If, in an action to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered, the purchase and receipt of the goods are admitted by the answer, errors in the hearing of proofs of the sale and delivery are immaterial and harmless.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Jas. M. Troutt, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Henry C. Schaertzer, and D. Hadsell, for Appellant.

Lucius L. Solomons, for Respondent.

MURPHEY, J., *pro*tem.

Action for recovery of balance due for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiff's assignor to defendant. '

Appeal from the judgment on a bill of exceptions.

It will be unnecessary to consider the specifications of errors pointed out by the appellant in the rulings of the trial court, as all the alleged errors have reference to the admissibility of testimony offered to controvert facts admitted by the pleadings.

The purchase and receipt of the goods are admitted by the answer, the defendant contending, however, that the purchase was made upon the representation of the plaintiff’s assignor that the goods would have a “ready and easy sale,” and that if they did not have a “ready and easy sale” as represented, the plaintiff’s assignor would “exchange other goods, wares and merchandise of other sorts for them”; that the goods “did not and have not had a ready and easy sale, and that 85% thereof remains in defendant’s possession.”

Under the conditions above set out, the court proceeded to hear proofs of the sale and delivery of the goods, and in so *97doing committed all of the errors complained of. Manifestly any such errors would be immaterial and harmless'.

No complaint is made of errors in admitting evidence relative to the defense above indicated of an agreement for the return and' exchange of goods. As to this issue, the court found “that the sales of merchandise were made to the defendant absolutely and unconditionally.

This disposes of all of the objections made by the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6740

CORY ANTHONY SIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER KAPELUCK; C. J. HOWELL, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00021)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory Anthony Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Deering 

Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cory Anthony Simpson appeals the district court’s 

order declining to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation 

to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to 

prosecute, and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

on the merits of the action. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Simpson v. Kapeluck, No. 

2:09-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, 2010). We further deny 

Simpson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1

    TO

    AMENDED
      AND RESTATED

    BURLINGTON
      RESOURCES INC.

    EXECUTIVE
      CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

     

     

    The
      Amended and Restated Burlington Resources Inc. Executive Change in Control
      Severance Plan is amended, effective as of the “Effective Time” as defined in
      that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 12, 2005, by and among
      Burlington Resources Inc., ConocoPhillips and Cello Acquisition Corp., in the
      following respects:

     

    Article
      IX is amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, by adding the following new
      Section 9.8:

     

    “9.8
      Compliance
      with IRC Section 409A.
      It is
      intended that any payments or benefits under this Plan that provide for a
      deferral of compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code shall comply with
      the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and any regulations, guidance
      and
      transitional rules issued thereunder, and this Plan shall be interpreted and
      operated consistently with that intent. If the Company determines, following
      the
      issuance of final regulations, that any payments or benefits under this Plan
      would constitute a deferral of compensation which is subject to but which does
      not comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, the Company shall
      amend the Plan to the extent (but only to the extent) it deems necessary
      (including retroactively) in order to preserve compliance with the requirements
      of said Section 409A; provided, however, that any such amendment shall be made
      in a manner that preserves the economic value of the affected payments and
      benefits to the Participant.”
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mason N. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of Merrimac
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
     October 2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

/s/ Mason N. Carter
-----------------------
Mason N. Carter
Chief Executive Officer
November 16, 2004
```
#### William Levy, Appellant, *v.*Edward Popper et al., Respondents.

*Levy*v. *Popper,*134 App. Div. 963, modified.

(Argued May 4, 1911;

decided May 16, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, *553entered November 11, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an accounting and to recover damages for an alleged illegal sale of plaintiff’s stocks.

*John R. Dos Passos*and *Leon Kronfeld*for appellant.

*Daniel P. Hays*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Upon the merits we have reached the conclusion that the issues joined in the pleadings have been properly determined. But it appears that through some oversight the amount conceded to be due and owing the plaintiff, to wit, the sum of $1,709.54, which was tendered to him by the defendants before this action was brought, was not included in the judgment. In view of the fact that this was an equity action and is a final adjudication of the differences existing between the plaintiff and the defendants the item should have been included in the judgment, unless it appeared that the amount had been paid into court or the tender kept alive. The respondents’ counsel, upon the argument of this appeal, consented that the item 'might now be included. This correction, however, could have been made on motion at the Special Term without the expense of an appeal upon a case and exceptions. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the modification ordered should not affect the question of costs.

The judgment should be- modified so as to allow the plaintiff to recover the amount tendered, to wit, $1,709.54, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.
-----Original Message----- 

From: edsantafe@mac.com [mailto:edsantafe@mac.com] 

Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:32 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 01, 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, 

Edwin Cox 

421 Redding Rd Apt 123 

Lexington, KY 40517
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation Performance Profit Sharing Plan



 Exhibit 10.19 
 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 
 PERFORMANCE PROFIT SHARING PLAN (PPSP) SUMMARY 

Article 1—Plan Objective 

	1.1	The objective of the Performance Profit Sharing Plan (PPSP) is to provide incentives to all Cypress employees based on the Company’s quarterly earnings per share (EPS)
performance to the Company’s annual plan and the individual’s quarterly milestone performance. 

 Article 2—Eligibility
for Plan Participation 

	2.1	All regular full-time and part-time employees worldwide who are in “good standing” are eligible to participate in the PPSP. 

  

	2.2	Employees must be employed by the first day of the fiscal quarter to be eligible for the PPSP for that quarter. 

  

	2.3	Management reserves the right to discontinue participation of any participant in this plan, at any time, and for whatever reasons. 

 Article 3—Bonus Calculation and Payout 

	3.1	Bonuses will be paid quarterly. 

  

	3.2	The participant’s actual bonus will be based on the individual’s quarterly milestone performance and the Company’s quarterly EPS performance as measured against the
Company’s EPS Plan for each quarter. Specifically, the individual’s weekly base pay will be multiplied by the Company’s EPS factor for that quarter times the individual’s milestone achievement factor for that quarter.


  

	3.3	There will be no payout in any period where the actual EPS is less than or equal to zero. 

  

	3.4	Eligible employees may receive up to one week of base pay per quarter under the plan. 

  

	3.5	To be eligible for any portion of the bonus payment, the participant must be employed by the company on the scheduled payment date. A participant who terminates employment prior to
the payment date will forfeit the bonus. 

 Article 4—Milestone Achievement 

	4.1	Milestone setting and the determination of milestone achievement remains subject to the approval of the individual’s manager.
-----Original Message----- 

From: dennis-ennis@earthlink.net [mailto:dennis-ennis@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:20 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, 

Ennis Baker 

103 Lexington Rd 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Exhibit 3.2
    
 
  
     22




---



##### 



23




---



##### 



24




---



##### 



25




---



##### 



26




---



##### 



27




---



##### 



28




---



##### 



29




---



##### 



30




---



##### 



31




---



##### 



32




---



##### 



33




---



##### 



34




---



##### 



35




---



##### 



36




---



##### 



Generally
 37




---



##### 



38




---



##### 



39




---



##### 



40




---



##### 



41




---



##### 



42




---



##### 



43




---



##### 



44




---



##### 



45




---



##### 



46
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0685.html[7/21/2015 8:34:36 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-bt0u

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0685

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave our IRA and 401 k's alone. There is absolutely no need to regulate how we use the money for retirement.

It is such a intrusion of excessive regulation. It is wrong.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Boise and Payette National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting, which is open to the public. 

# DATES:

Wednesday, September 12, 2007, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal Officer, at 208-392-6681 or e-mail                     *dgochnour@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Agenda topics will include review and approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

Dated: August 29, 2007.

Richard A. Smith, 

Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest.

[FR Doc. 07-4345 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
-----Original Message----- 

From: sfree@onebox.com [mailto:sfree@onebox.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:00 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Steven Freiman 

888 Shelburne Falls rd 

Conway, MA 01341