alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 15.18 Rehearing. ( a ) An individual dissatisfied with a final determination under § 15.17 may, within 30 days after the notice of the final determination is sent, request the adjudicating official to re-review the record.
( b ) The adjudicating official may require that another oral hearing be held on one or more of the issues in controversy, or permit the dissatisfied party to present further evidence or argument in writing, if the adjudicating official finds that the individual has: ( 1 ) Presented evidence or argument that is sufficiently significant to require the conduct of further proceedings; or
( 2 ) Shown some defect in the conduct of the adjudication under this subpart sufficient to cause substantial unfairness or an erroneous finding in that adjudication.
( c ) Any rehearing ordered by the adjudicating official shall be conducted pursuant to § § 15.14 through 15.16.
| Delaware                                                          |                                             | 000-23143               |       | 13-3379479                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)                     |                                             | (CommissionFile Number) |       | (IRS EmployerIdentification No.) |
|                                                              |                                             |                    |       |                             |
|                                                              | 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York |                    | 10591      |
|                                                              | (Address of principal executive offices)         |                    | (Zip Code) |
| Registrant's telephone number, including area code (914) 789-2800 |

----

| Item 7.01. | Regulation FD Disclosure. |
|------------|---------------------------|
| Item 9.01. | Financial Statements and Exhibits. |
|------------|------------------------------------|
| Exhibit No. | Description |
|-------------|-------------|
| 99.1   | Press Release dated December 3, 2015. |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------|

----

|   | PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | By:                             | /s/ ANGELO W. LOVALLO, JR. |
|   |                            | Angelo W. Lovallo, Jr. |
|   |                            | Vice President - Finance & Treasurer |
|   |                            | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
§ 385.1004 Commencement of proceedings (Rule 1004). ( a ) A petitioner commences proceedings, pursuant to this subpart, by filing with the Commission and serving upon the Secretary and any other participants in prior proceedings on the contested order a petition for review, which must contain: ( 1 ) A copy of the decision or order denying, in whole or in part, request for adjustment (the contested order); and
( 2 ) A complete statement of the petitioner's objections factual or legal to the contested order, including references to all authorities upon which the petitioner relies including but not limited to regulations, rulings, interpretations, and decisions on exceptions and appeals issued by the Department or its predecessor agencies and precedents established by the Commission.
( b ) A petition for review must be filed within 30 days of issuance by the Secretary of the order to be contested pursuant to this subpart.
( c ) Each petition for review filed with the Secretary of the Commission must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by § 381.304 of this chapter.
( d ) Upon receiving a petition for review and the fee required by paragraph (c), of this section, the Commission or its designee will designate a presiding officer for the proceedings.
[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982, as amended by Order 395, 49 FR 35357, Sept. 7, 1984]
#### § 301.305 Initial determination.

A claim for inmate accident compensation shall be determined by a Claims Examiner under authority delegated by the Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., pursuant to 28 CFR 0.99. In determining the claim, the Claims Examiner will consider all available evidence. Written notice of the determination, including the reasons therefore, together with notification of the right to appeal the determination, shall be mailed to the claimant at the claimant's last known address, or to the claimant's duly appointed representative.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 4 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the joint resolution H.J. Res. 31, the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives shall amend the long title so as to 
read: ``Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the Senate February 14, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.J. Res. 31.
```
# C_2013101EN.01000302.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag v Belgian State

(Case C-540/11) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation - Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation - Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC)

2013/C 101/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag

Applicants:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 57(2) EC and 293 EC — Permissibility of rules of national law which allow double taxation notwithstanding the existence of a bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Amendment of national law after the convention had been concluded — Bringing into question of an acquired right — Obstacle to the free movement of capital

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Insofar as Community law, as applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC and 293 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a situation in which the Member State, which has undertaken, in a bilateral double taxation convention, to establish a mechanism to eliminate such double taxation of dividends, then abolishes that mechanism by way of a legislative amendment that has the effect of reintroducing a double taxation.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
### §1884. Deep sea coral research and technology program

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate regional fishery management councils and in coordination with other federal 1 agencies and educational institutions, shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, establish a program—

(1) to identify existing research on, and known locations of, deep sea corals and submit such information to the appropriate Councils;

(2) to locate and map locations of deep sea corals and submit such information to the Councils;

(3) to monitor activity in locations where deep sea corals are known or likely to occur, based on best scientific information available, including through underwater or remote sensing technologies and submit such information to the appropriate Councils;

(4) to conduct research, including cooperative research with fishing industry participants, on deep sea corals and related species, and on survey methods;

(5) to develop technologies or methods designed to assist fishing industry participants in reducing interactions between fishing gear and deep sea corals; and

(6) to prioritize program activities in areas where deep sea corals are known to occur, and in areas where scientific modeling or other methods predict deep sea corals are likely to be present.

#### (b) Reporting

Beginning 1 year after January 12, 2007, the Secretary, in consultation with the Councils, shall submit biennial reports to Congress and the public on steps taken by the Secretary to identify, monitor, and protect deep sea coral areas, including summaries of the results of mapping, research, and data collection performed under the program.

(Pub. L. 94–265, title IV, §408, as added Pub. L. 109–479, title II, §211, Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3618.)

1 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
#### § 39.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24974 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24975 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24976 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24977 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24978 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24979 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24980 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24981 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24982 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24983 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24984 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24985 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24986 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24987 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24988 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24989 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24990 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24991 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24992 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24993 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24994 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24995 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24996 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24997 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24998 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 24999 1986
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


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


     I, David M. Sindelar, as Chief Executive Officer of Viasystems Group, Inc.
(the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  August 14, 2002


                                        /s/ David M. Sindelar
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       David M. Sindelar
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       of the Company
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133268 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver & (10) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133268 COA: 275490 Wayne CC: 05-007457-01 TYRONE ANDREW JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
remand to the trial court is DENIED.

l0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
No. 19,975.

#### Eugene D. Camenisch, et al., *v.*Saul A. Nuccitelli, et al., d/b/a Colorado United Engineering Company.

(372 P. [2d] 85)

Decided May 7, 1962.

Rehearing denied June 18, 1962.

Mr. W. H. Erickson, Mr. A. X. Erickson, Mr. Charles F. Brega, for plaintiffs in error.

No appearance for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Chief Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

From the record herein it appears that no judgment was entered in the trial court in favor of the defendants in error. On the contrary the claim of the defendants in error who were plaintiffs below was dismissed by the court and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs in error, Eugene D. Camenisch and Alice E. Camenisch.

*142Rule 111 (c) R.C.P. Colo., among other things, provides that to obtain a writ of error a party shall docket the case and “There shall be filed at the time of such docketing a designation of the parties which lists the names of the plaintiffs in error and of the defendants in error.” Section (e) of said rule provides, “Upon issuing the writ of error the clerk shall issue a summons to hear errors which shall be directed to the defendant in error, * * * . The summons to hear errors shall be served upon each party named in the writ of error as defendant in error * * *.”

The only parties designated as defendants in error in this court and the only parties upon whom a summons to hear errors has been served are Saul A. Nuccitelli, Gordon M. Hampton and William A. Duckworth, doing business as Colorado United Engineering Company.

Plaintiffs in error are in no wise aggrieved by the judgment, they being the victorious parties in the trial court. The plaintiffs below, whose claim was dismissed by the trial court, are not seeking to review the judgment. Although there were numerous other parties involved in the litigation as plaintiffs and defendants, with cross-claims and counter claims at issue, those parties were not served with summons to hear errors and none is before this Court.

The writ of error is dismissed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K Y / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN GE L I T A D AG S I L AG R I P A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70141 A ge nc yN o. A 029- 418- 871 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , an dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A nge l i t aD a gs i l A gr i pa , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , pe t i t i ons f or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to re consi der and re op en. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED DE C 23 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK Y / Res ea r ch 06- 70141 2 for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen o r r ec on si der, and revi ew d e n o v o c la im s o f

du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s . Ca n o -Me r i da v . I NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g A g r ip a ’s m o tio n a s u n tim e ly be c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d a l m os t10 m onths a f t e rthe B I A ’ s D e c e m be r21, 2 0 0 4 , o r d e rd is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(2), (c )( 2), an dA g r ip af

a ile dto e s tab lis h g r o u n d s f o re qu itab le to llin g , s e e I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e qu itab le to llin g a v a ilab le w h e r e “p e titio n e ris prevent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on er act s w i th du e d i l i g en ce”). Itfo l l o w s th atA g ri p a h as n o test ab l i sh eda du e p ro cess v io la tio n . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e qu ir in g e rr o rto succ ee d o n a du e proces s c l ai m ). P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
§ 115.388 Data review for corrective action. ( a ) The agency shall review data collected and aggregated pursuant to § 115.387 in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training, including: ( 1 ) Identifying problem areas;
( 2 ) Taking corrective action on an ongoing basis; and
( 3 ) Preparing an annual report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility, as well as the agency as a whole.
( b ) Such report shall include a comparison of the current year's data and corrective actions with those from prior years and shall provide an assessment of the agency's progress in addressing sexual abuse.
( c ) The agency's report shall be approved by the agency head and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means.
( d ) The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but must indicate the nature of the material redacted.
§ 32.25 Prerequisite certification. ( a ) Except as provided in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10286 or Public Law 107-37, and unless, for good cause shown, the Director grants a waiver, no claim shall be approved unless the following (which shall be necessary, but not sufficient, for such approval) are filed with the PSOB Office: ( 1 ) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, a certification from the public safety officer's public safety agency (as of the injury date) that he was permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a line of duty injury, and either— ( i ) That he has received (or legally is entitled to receive) the maximum disability benefits (including workers' compensation) legally payable by the agency with respect to disabled public safety officers of his kind, rank, and tenure; or
( ii ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, that the agency is not legally authorized to pay— ( A ) Any benefits described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, to any person; or
( B ) Any benefits described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, to public safety officers of the kind, rank, and tenure described in such paragraph; and
( 2 ) A copy of— ( i ) Each State, local, and federal income tax return filed by or on behalf of the public safety officer from the year before the injury date to the date of determination by the PSOB determining official; and
( ii ) Any rulings or findings made by any public agency (or public safety agency) that relate to the claimed disability.
( b ) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall also apply with respect to every public agency (or public safety agency) that legally is authorized to pay disability benefits with respect to the agency described in that paragraph.
( c ) No certification described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section shall be deemed complete unless it— ( 1 ) Lists every public agency (other than BJA), and every public safety agency, that legally is authorized to pay disability benefits with respect to the certifying agency; or
( 2 ) States that no public agency (other than BJA), or public safety agency, legally is authorized to pay disability benefits with respect to the certifying agency.
[71 FR 46037, Aug. 10, 2018, as amended at 83 FR 22386, May 15, 2018]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14976-14977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6369]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From Mathieson Chemical Co., Pasadena, TX, To Be Included in the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision 
to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from Mathieson 
Chemical Co., Pasadena, Texas, to be included in the Special Exposure 
Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class 
being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is 
as follows:
    Facility: Mathieson Chemical Co.
    Location: Pasadena, Texas.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees.
    Period of Employment: 1951 through October 2009.

[[Page 14977]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8acec9cbd9cac9cec9a4cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="094d4a485a494a4d4a274e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-6369 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>