alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Miller, Defendant. International Fidelity Insurance Company, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 831]

*1239Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), entered August 16, 2005. The judgment awarded the People the sum of $100,000 against the surety, International Fidelity Insurance Company.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: International Fidelity Insurance Company (surety) appeals from a judgment awarding the People the sum of $100,000. Defendant was charged with various crimes in a February 2001 indictment and bail was set at $100,000 cash or secured bond. Defendant was released from custody after the surety posted a bail bond. When defendant failed to appear for a hearing on July 2, 2001, Supreme Court issued a bench warrant and revoked bail, but the court did not make a finding that defendant’s absence was unexcused or direct forfeiture of the bail bond. By notice of motion dated August 3, 2004, the People moved for forfeiture of the bail bond pursuant to CPL 540.10. In exchange for an adjournment of the matter to afford the surety the opportunity to locate defendant, the surety waived any issue with respect to the timeliness of the People’s motion. On July 20, 2005, the surety notified the court that it could not locate defendant and, by the judgment that is the subject of this appeal, the court granted the People’s motion. In view of the surety’s waiver of any issue with respect to the timeliness of the People’s motion, we reject the present contention of the surety that the court erred in ordering forfeiture of the bail bond more than three years after issuance of the bench warrant. In any event, that contention lacks merit. Although CPL 540.10 (2) mandates that the People seek to enforce a forfeiture order within 120 days “after the adjournment of the court at which such bond was directed to be forfeited,” that time period does not begin to run until the court “finds that a defendant’s absence is unexcused and makes a determination on the record directing forfeiture of the bail bond” *(People v Nicholas,*97 NY2d 24, 25-26 [2001]). Here, the record establishes that the court did not make such a finding or determination when defendant failed to appear for the hearing on July 2, 2001. Present— Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
### [§2870. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title VIII, §818(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3751]

Section, added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, §865(a)(1), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1523, related to use of qualified apprentices by military construction contractors.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2019 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, §865(b), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1524, which provided that the amendments made by section 865 of Pub. L. 116–92 (enacting this section) would apply with respect to contracts awarded on or after 180 days after Dec. 20, 2019, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title VIII, §818(b)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3751.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-1937

___________________________ David I. Namer, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant , v. United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________ Submitted: September 6, 2012 Filed: September 12, 2012 [Unpublished]

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

____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate David Namer appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Upon 1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, Un ited States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).de novo review, seeMeuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail Emps. , 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007), we agree that summary judgment was pr oper for the reasons the district court stated. To the extent Namer challenges any of the district court’s discovery rulings, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 1120. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
-  Home 
-  107 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 107.211

## Section §107.211: Petition for reconsideration

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 107.211 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
### §991. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §32, 39 Stat. 384; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, covered government deposits in land banks, interest rate, security, and maximum amounts.
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.174 If an Indian tribe or tribal organization objects to the recommended decision, what will the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the IBIA do? ( a ) The Secretary or the IBIA has 15 days from the date he/she receives timely written objections to modify, adopt, or reverse the recommended decision. If the Secretary or the IBIA does not modify or reverse the recommended decision during that time, the recommended decision automatically becomes final.
( b ) When reviewing the recommended decision, the IBIA or the Secretary may consider and decide all issues properly raised by any party to the appeal, based on the record.
( c ) The decision of the Secretary or of the IBIA shall: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Specify the findings of fact or conclusions of law which are modified or reversed;
( 3 ) Give reasons for the decision, based on the record; and
( 4 ) State that the decision is final for the Department.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 671

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death

of the Honorable Julian C. Dixon, a Representative from the State

of California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 8, 2000

Mr. STARK submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives

on the death of the Honorable Julian C. Dixon, a Representative from the State of California.

1 Resolved, That the House has heard with profound

2 sorrow of the death of the Honorable Julian C. Dixon,

3 a Representative from the State of California.

4 Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the

5 House as the Speaker may designate, together with such

6 Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed

7 to attend the funeral.

8 Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House

9 be authorized and directed to take such steps as may be
2

HRES 671 ATH

1 necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolu2 tions and that the necessary expenses in connection there3 with be paid out of applicable accounts of the House.

4 Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolu5 tions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the

6 family of the deceased.

7 Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it ad8 journ as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

9 deceased.

Æ
# C_2006249EN.01000901.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/9

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-41/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 249/22)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.

1

---
**Docket No. F AA** **- 2013**  **- 0365** 


### Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  11/19/12 **Regional Airline Association** 11/19/1 2 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  11/19/12 **ATA Joe White**  11/19/12
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 2060** 

RAW COAL MINING COMPANY, INC. ,
Petitioner ,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION , Respondent s
.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

. ( WEVA 2011

- 858; WEVA 2011

- 2051; WEVA 2011

- 409 )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition d enied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Melissa M. Robinson, Adam J. Schwendeman, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Heidi W. Strassler, Associate Solicitor, W. Christian Sc humann, Appellate Litigation, David L. Edeli, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C. , for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Raw Coal Mining Company seeks review of the Federal

Mine Safe ty and Health Rev iew Commission’s (“Commission”) order
denying its motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(1), to reopen the civil penalty assessment proceedings

.

Our review of the record reveals that Raw Coal failed to urge

before the Commiss ion the objection it now makes to this court,
and it has not presented extraordinary circumstances excusing

that failure

. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 816(a)(1), 823(d)(2)(A)(iii)

(2012) Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

. We
dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
formexhibit10-1.htm


    
      

      

    

    
 

    May 1,
2008

    


    Marcia R.
Martin

    Redacted

    Reno,
NV 89509

    


    Dear
Marcia,

    


    This
correspondence serves as confirmation of our offer of employment to you as
GameTech International’s Chief Financial Officer. This position is important to
our organization and we look forward to the contributions you will bring to
GameTech and its Executive Team. We anticipate you joining our team June 9,
2008.

    


    As CFO,
your responsibilities will include the overall organization and management of
GameTech’s financial and accounting activities. In addition, you will have
responsibilities in conjunction with the CEO for investor relations as well as
mergers and acquisitions. We are prepared to offer you a salary of $200,000 per
year. With this position, you will also be eligible to participate in the
Executive Team Bonus Plan and Profit Sharing Plan. At the outset, we will offer
a GameTech stock option grant of 50,000 shares – 50% or 25,000 shares vest after
two years and the other 50% or 25,000 shares vest at the end of four years. This
stock option grant will be subject to board approval.

    


    GameTech
also offers a rich benefits package including medical, dental, vision,
disability and life insurance for yourself and your family. You will be eligible
for these benefits the first of the month following 30 days of
employment.  You will also be eligible to enroll in our 401K plan
immediately with payroll deductions commencing July 1, 2008. Many more benefits
will be described in the Plan Package.

    


    As was
previously discussed, GameTech operates in a highly regulated environment. Your
employment will not commence until our HR Department and our Compliance
Department completes background investigations and approves your
employment.

    


    You may
also be required to submit to multiple background investigations regarding your
suitability for licensing in various gaming jurisdictions. Should you be found
unsuitable or should you withdraw or refuse to complete and submit any licensing
application your employment will terminate and all offers and agreements between
you and GameTech will be voided. A copy of the multi jurisdictional license
application is provided for you.

     

    We are
truly pleased to have the opportunity to work with you and look forward to your
participation with us. We wish you the best of success in your new position.
This offer of employment (subject to our satisfactory due diligence as described
above) is valid for a one week period and expires on May 8,
2008.  Please sign this correspondence to except our
offer.

    


    Kind
Regards,

    


    


    


    _______________________________                                       

    Jay
Meilstrup                                                                                                Marcia
R.
Martin                    Date

    Chief
Executive Officer
### **CHAPTER 49—AUTHORIZATIONS**

Sec.
4901.
Requirement for prior authorization of appropriations.
4902.
Authorization of appropriations.
4903.
Authorization of personnel end strengths.
4904.
Authorized levels of military strength and training.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §121(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4238, inserted chapter 49 designation and heading and added items 4901 to 4904.
# C_2014003EN.01000801.xml

| 8.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/8

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 3/09

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 10.11.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.11.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Stock or group of stocks | HAD/7X7A34 |
| Species | Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) |
| Zone | VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 81/TQ39 |

Date and time of closure

10.11.2013

Duration

10.11.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

United Kingdom

Stock or group of stocks

HAD/7X7A34

Species

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Zone

VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

81/TQ39

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
### §1773. District of Columbia credit unions; conversion to Federal status

Any credit union organized under the District of Columbia Credit Unions Act, as amended, may apply for conversion into a Federal credit union by filing with the National Credit Union Administration Board (in sections 1773 to 1775 of this title referred to as the Board), pursuant to a resolution adopted by a majority of its directors, an organization certificate meeting the requirements of section 1753 of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–395, §1, Aug. 1, 1964, 78 Stat. 377; Pub. L. 91–206, §3, Mar. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 95–630, title V, §501, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3680.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The District of Columbia Credit Unions Act, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 88–395, §4, Aug. 1, 1964, 78 Stat. 377.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Federal Credit Union Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

"National Credit Union Administration Board" and "Board" substituted in text for "Director of the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions" and "Director", respectively, pursuant to section 3 of Pub. L. 91–206 and section 501 of Pub. L. 95–630 [12 U.S.C. 1752a] which transferred functions of Bureau of Federal Credit Unions, and Director thereof, to National Credit Union Administration and vested authority for management of Administration in National Credit Union Administration Board.

#### Repeals; Revocation of Organization Certificates Issued Under District of Columbia Credit Unions Act

Pub. L. 88–395, §4, Aug. 1, 1964, 78 Stat. 377, provided that: "Effective thirty days after enactment of this Act [Aug. 1, 1964], the District of Columbia Credit Unions Act (47 Stat. 326), as amended, is repealed and all organization certificates issued thereunder and still in force are revoked."
§ 27.310 Commencement of adjudication proceedings. ( a ) *Proceedings instituted by facilities or other persons.* A facility or other person may institute proceedings to review a determination by the Executive Assistant Director: ( 1 ) Finding, pursuant to the § 27.230(a)(12)(iv), that an individual is a potential security threat;
( 2 ) Disapproving a Site Security Plan pursuant to § 27.245(b); or
( 3 ) Issuing an Order pursuant to § 27.300(a) or (b).
( b ) *Procedure for applications by facilities or other persons.* A facility or other person may institute Proceedings by filing a Notice of Application for Review specifying that the facility or other person requests a Proceeding to review a determination specified in paragraph (a) of this section. ( 1 ) An Applicant institutes a Proceeding by filing a Notice of Application for Review.
( 2 ) An Applicant must file a Notice of Application for Review within seven calendar days of notification to the facility or other person of the Executive Assistant Director's Finding, Determination, or Order.
( 3 ) The Applicant shall file and simultaneously serve each Notice of Application for Review and all subsequent filings on the Executive Assistant Director and the Office of the Chief Counsel.
( 4 ) An Order is stayed from the timely filing of a Notice of Application for Review until the Presiding Officer issues an Initial Decision, unless the Secretary has lifted the stay due to exigent circumstances pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
( 5 ) The Applicant shall file and serve an Application for Review within 14 calendar days of the notification to the facility or other person of the Executive Assistant Director's Finding, Determination, or Order.
( 6 ) Each Application for Review shall be accompanied by all legal memoranda, other documents, declarations, affidavits, and other evidence supporting the position asserted by the Applicant.
( c ) *Response.* The Executive Assistant Director, through the Office of the Chief Counsel, shall file and serve a Response, accompanied by all legal memoranda, other documents, declarations, affidavits, and other evidence supporting the position asserted by the Executive Assistant Director within 14 calendar days of the filing and service of the Application for Review and all supporting papers.
( d ) *Procedural modifications.* The Secretary may, in exigent circumstances (as determined in his or her sole discretion): ( 1 ) Lift any stay applicable to any Order under § 27.300;
( 2 ) Modify the time for a response;
( 3 ) Rule on the sufficiency of Applications for Review; or
( 4 ) Otherwise modify these procedures with respect to particular matters.
[72 FR 17729, Apr. 9, 2007, as amended at 86 FR 41892, Aug. 4, 2021]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000594 23-JAN-2019 09:05 AM