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

## I l!TI SYMllOL 

## A,vl't -ICO 

# 11Y1'rCOJ1c. m 

## {oJ;

## J,/1.0 RIN 2I20-AA64 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Airplanes Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Federal Aviation Administration ~ (4910-13-P] 

# 41,,~":

7-
=~ 

## CC:..A-- ,n 

## /y'ft /' ." SYMBOl. 

## A,-J

## 1".- /l'f ~1TIALSISIG [Docket No. FAA-2010-0S16; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-2S1-AD; Amcndme 

# tli ",'l1-1, 

# i&,~a.Lf 27-7lS mhl.ll~ 39-*'**><If"AD20JO-**-h] V:- 

### otn~SVMa:..1 v 

## A.NJ't -

# to I 

# .;;b

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). 14 CFR Part 39

ACTION: Final rule. SUM.~Y: Weare adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) fortheproducts lis ed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) Q\J11NGS'lMBO!, originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe <NITIAlSiSIC; condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: AT'- OUT[NC; SYMaOL When preparing for landing, the flight crew ofa F28 Mark 0100 (Fokker 100) aeroplane observed amain landing gear (MLG) unsafe indication after landing gear down selection. 

## ** + [T]he right (RH) MLG was partly extended and the left (LH) MLG door was open but without the MLG being extended. 

## *** Subsequent investigation revealed that the cause ofthe MLG extension problem was the (partially) blocked hydraulic return line from the MLG selector valve by pieces ofhard plastic. These were identified as parts of the poppet seat ofPBSOV [parking brake shut-off valve] Part Number (PIN) 70379. 

## ***
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 650 

Designating July 10, 2020, as ‘‘Collector Car Appreciation Day’’ and recognizing that the collection and restoration of historic and classic cars 

is an important part of preserving the technological achievements and 

cultural heritage of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 2, 2020 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. BURR) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 10, 2020, as ‘‘Collector Car Appreciation 

Day’’ and recognizing that the collection and restoration 

of historic and classic cars is an important part of preserving the technological achievements and cultural heritage of the United States. 

Whereas many people in the United States maintain classic 

automobiles as a pastime and do so with great passion 

and as a means of individual expression; 

Whereas the Senate recognizes the effect that the more than 

100-year history of the automobile has had on the economic progress of the United States and supports wholeheartedly all activities involved in the restoration and exhibition of classic automobiles; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 650 ATS 

Whereas the collection, restoration, and preservation of automobiles is an activity shared across generations and 

across all segments of society; 

Whereas thousands of local car clubs and related businesses 

have been instrumental in preserving a historic part of 

the heritage of the United States by encouraging the restoration and exhibition of such vintage works of art; 

Whereas automotive restoration provides well-paying, highskilled jobs for people in all 50 States; and 

Whereas automobiles have provided the inspiration for music, 

photography, cinema, fashion, and other artistic pursuits 

that have become part of the popular culture of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 10, 2020, as ‘‘Collector Car 

3 Appreciation Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes that the collection and restora5 tion of historic and classic cars is an important part 

6 of preserving the technological achievements and cul7 tural heritage of the United States; and 

8 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

9 to engage in Collector Car Appreciation Day events 

10 and commemorations— 

11 (A) that create opportunities for collector 

12 car owners to educate young people about the 

13 importance of preserving the cultural heritage 

14 of the United States, including through the col15 lection and restoration of collector cars; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 650 ATS 

1 (B) in accordance with applicable public 

2 health guidelines. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.8(II)

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER 7


                  REINSURANCE NOVATION AGREEMENT ENDORSEMENT
                  ------------------------------------------

     This Agreement is made and entered into by and among HARBOR INSURANCE
COMPANY (the "Ceding Company"), THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (the "Assuming
Company") and USF REINSURANCE CO. (the "Reinsurer") as of the 1st day of
January, 1990.

     WHEREAS, the Ceding Company and the Reinsurer entered into a Accident and
Health Reinsurance Contract (Contract Number Harbor 250) dated 1st day of
January, 1986 the "Contract" whereby the Reinsurer acts as a reinsurer of the
Ceding Company; and

     WHEREAS, the Ceding Company and the Assuming Company have entered into an
Assumption Reinsurance and Administration Agreement effective January 1, 1990
(the "Assumption Reinsurance Agreement") whereby the Assuming Company has
assumed all of the gross policy obligations of the Ceding Company under the
policies which are the subject of the Contract; and

     WHEREAS, the parties wish to substitute the Assuming Company for the Ceding
Company as a party to the Contract;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained
herein, the Ceding Company, the Assuming Company and the Reinsurer agree as
follows:

     1.  As of the Effective Date (as defined below), the Assuming Company shall
assume all of the liabilities and obligations of the Ceding Company under the
contract and shall be substituted for the Ceding Company, in the Ceding
Company's name, place and stead, as the cedant thereon so as to effect a
novation of the Contract and release the Ceding Company from any and all
liabilities or obligations thereunder.

     2.  As of the Effective Date, the Assuming Company shall be entitled to all
of the rights of the Ceding Company under the Contract and shall be entitled to
enforce all such rights in the name, place and stead of the Ceding Company.

     3.  The Effective Date of this Endorsement shall be 12:01 a.m. Pacific
Standard Time on the 1st day of January, 1990, (the "Effective Date").
<PAGE>
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Endorsement as of the
first day and year written above.
  
                               HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY


                               BY: /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]^^ 
                                   ---------------------------------
                                       VICE PRESIDENT
                                  

                               THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY



                               BY: /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]^^
                                   ---------------------------------
                                       VICE PRESIDENT

                               USF REINSURANCE CO.


                               BY: /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]^
                                   ---------------------------------
#### Crow *v.*Rogers.

Opinion delivered April 21, 1930.

*635
      *Price Dickson,*for appellant.

*J. V. Walker,*for appellee.

*636Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant urges as the only question for determination that the court erred in holding the lien of his chattel mortgage on the undivided interest in the Williams-Rogers Agency inferior and subject to the equitable lien of the Motor Credit Company, a creditor of the old partnership. Ap-pellee Rogers continued in the partnership business with Williams after he had purchased the McMichael interest, and mortgaged his undivided one-half interest therein to secure his individual debt to Homer Crow, appellant. The rule is announced in 47 C. J. 919, § 410, as follows:

> "The rights of the creditor of an individual partner in the firm assets are confined to the share or interest of his debtor in such assets, and since a partner’s share thereof can be ascertained only after the firm debts have been paid, an individual creditor is entitled to be paid only out of the debtor partner’s share in the surplus which remains after the firm debts have been paid, and the equities between the partner and his copartners have been adjusted, and the partner’s share has been ascertained and set apart.” Our case, *Parker*v. *Wells,*84 Ark. 172, 105 S. W. 75, is cited in support of this text. See also 47 C. J. 937, § 437.

The agreement between McMichael and Rogers with Roy Williams, purchaser of McMichael’s interest in the agency, to which appellant Crow was not a party, to pay the debts of the old partnership could not have had effect to release the assets from the equitable lien of the Motor Company or estop it from asserting the superiority of its claim against such partnership assets over the mortgage of Rogers’ interest to Crow. The mortgage was given by a partner of his interest in the firm property to secure an individual debt after the creation of the debt to the Motor Credit Company, a general creditor of the firm, and only covered the partner’s interest in the assets after the payment of the firm creditors, the lien of same being subject and inferior to the rights of the creditor of the partnership in such assets. The decree is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              7
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                   28759  
<ALLOWANCES>                     3418
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                42171
<PP&E>                          10045
<DEPRECIATION>                   7761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  48376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           26944
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                           50
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                      20679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    48376
<SALES>                         69650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                69650
<CGS>                           60635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   60635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               1329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2396
<INCOME-TAX>                      899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1497
<DISCONTINUED>                   1526
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                     3023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .65

        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 3:18cr112
Plaintiff,
District Judge Walter H. Rice
v.

JIMMY L. WEBB, JR.

Defendant.

ENTRY ORDERING UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S OFFICE TO SERVE SUBPOENA

It is hereby requested and ordered that the United States Marshal’s Office serve
subpoenas upon Destiny Kunkel in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 10, 2019 a uw) Use

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of United Retail Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended November 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Raphael Benaroya, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and George R. Remeta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that based on our 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 results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                            | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/RAPHAEL BENAROYARaphael BenaroyaChief Executive OfficerDecember 10, 2003 | 
|                                                                            | 
|/s/GEORGE R. REMETAGeorge R. RemetaChief Financial OfficerDecember 10, 2003 |
February 25, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting N otes for the December 13 , 201 3 Conference Call with AF&PA , URS, and

NCASI

FROM: Kelley Spence (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0640

This memorandum summarizes the meeting between t he American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA)

, URS Corporation

, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)

, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) on December 13 , 2013 . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed New Source Performance Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills.

Meeting Attendees:

John Bradfield

– EPA/SPPD Katie Hanks

– RTI Tom Holloway

– RTI Tim Hunt

– AF&PA Amy Marshall

– URS Corporation Kelley Spence

– EPA/SPPD Vipin Varma

– NCASI

Discussion Points:

 Averaging times for incinerator temperature monitoring

 TRS emission reductions gained using the Clean Condensate Alternative (subpart S)
Case 1:00-cr-00094-HJW     Document 158      Filed 12/26/2007     Page 1 of 1
Search Help More Search Options 

Printable Version 

Microwave Ovens Test 

Procedure NOPR Public 

Meeting 

The purpose of this public meeting is to give 

DOE an opportunity to present its 

methodology and the results of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) analyses and to 

respond to interested parties questions for 

revising test procedures for Microwave Ovens. 

On this page, you will find meeting materials, 

instructions for submitting comments on this 

rulemaking, and contact information. 

The following documents are available as 

Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe

Reader. 

Meeting Materials 

z NOPR Test Procedure, Federal Register, 

October 17, 2008 (PDF 137 KB) 

z Agenda (PDF 21 KB) 

z Presentations (Available after the 

meeting) 

z Transcript (Available after the meeting) 

How to Submit Comments 

You may submit comments electronically, by 

EERE Information Center 

DATE: November 14, 2008 

TIME: 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT 

LOCATION:

U.S. Department of Energy 

Forrestal Building 

Room 8E-089 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products... 11/13/2008

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 02
mail, or by courier. Wherever possible, 

comments in the electronic format should 

carry the electronic signature of the author. 

Absent an electronic signature, comments 

submitted electronically must be 

authenticated by submitting the signed 

original paper document. 

All comments submitted must identify the 

docket number, and regulatory identifier 

number (RIN). 

z Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-TP0011 and Regulatory Identifier 

Number (RIN) 1904-AB78. 

Comments may be submitted using any of 

the following methods: 

z Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov/

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

z E-mail: 

microoven-2008-tp-0011@ee.doe.gov

Include docket number ERE-2008-BTTP-0011 and/or RIN 1904-AB78 in the 

subject line of the message. 

z Postal Mail: 

Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Building Technologies Program 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Mailstop EE-2J 

Washington, DC 20585 

Please include one signed original. 

z Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Building Technologies Program 

950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor 

Washington, DC 20024 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945 

Please include one signed original. 

Comments should clearly identify docket 

number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011. The 

deadline for submitting comments is 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products... 11/13/2008

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 02
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov 

Content Last Updated: 10/23/2008 

December 31, 2008. 

Contact Information 

Stephen Witkowski

Project Manager 

(202) 586-7463 

Printable Version 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products... 11/13/2008

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 02
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL J. COTTRELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-69

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge on April 18, 2019. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

Statement of Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be

affirmed. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 13). This matter is now before the Court on

Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). 

Defendant has also filed a response. (Doc. 15). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Plaintiff raises one main objection to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s findings: that the

ALJ failed to provide good reasons for according less than controlling weight to the opinions of

Mr. Cottrell’s treating physician, Dr. Bonasso. (See generally, Doc. 14). Defendant responds

that Plaintiff’s argument is not new, but just reiterating the same argument already made in his

Statement of Errors. (Doc. 15). The Court agrees. 
Plaintiff’s objection presents the same issue already presented to, and carefully

considered by, the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has not

presented any new evidence or argument other than what was previously presented in his

Statement of Errors. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions, specifically with respect to the weight the ALJ gave to the medical opinions of Dr.

Bonasso. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s and the ALJ’s reasoned basis for the

weight given to Dr. Bonasso’s opinion. 

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objection, but finds that the decision of the

ALJ was supported by substantial evidence as acknowledged in detail in the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned Report and

Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.

Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s objection has been thoroughly considered and is hereby OVERRULED. 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 13, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner

of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

The Clerk shall remove Documents 13 and 14 from the Court’s pending motions list, and

enter final judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-
#### Colling v Avon Disposal, Inc,

Nos. 89390, 89391;

Court of Appeals Nos. 103920, 103974 (after remand).

Appeal dismissed upon stipulation of the parties on March 2, 1992, with prejudice and without costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
ALICIA D. WILLIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-158
Plaintiff, Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to stay
proceedings. (Doc. 14). For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED in part.
Specifically, this matter is stayed for 45 days. In addition, the Commissioner shall file a status
report within 30 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
#### THE UNION COUNTY PARK COMMISSION, A BODY POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE COUNTY OF UNION, A BODY POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, A BODY POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued May 3, 1977

Decided June 3, 1977.

Certification Denied September 27, 1977.

Before Judges Lynch, Milmed and Antell.

*Mr. Richard R. Width*argued the cause for appellant *(Messrs. Lindabury, McCormick & Esiabrook,*attorneys).

*Mr. William J.*McCloud, County Counsel, aTgued the cause for respondent County of Union.

*Mrs. Frances Lawrence*Antonin, Assistant County Counsel, argued the cause for intervenor County of Hudson *(Mr. Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr.,*Hudson County Counsel, attorney).

Pee Curiam.

The order of June 17, 1976 under review is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Feller in his opinion, 154 *N. J. Super.*213 (Law Div. 1976).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDMUND A. SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 152 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1668

___________________________ Adrianne L. Laramore lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Quality Residence, LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: July 20, 2022 Filed: July 25, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal in a civil action, Minnesota resident Adrianne Laramore appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion to compel, and thedistrict court’s 1 orders denying her motions for a preliminary injunction and

temporary restraining order (TRO). After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction as to both the denial of the motion to compel, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of district courts); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2000) (pretrial discovery orders are not immediately appealable, because they can be effectively reviewed after final judgment); and the denial of a TRO, see Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review denials of TROs). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (appellate courts have jurisdiction from interlocutory orders refusing injunctions); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (reviewing denial of preliminary injunctive relief for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as to the denial of the motion to compel and the denial of a TRO; and we affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-