alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 00138

#### In Re Application of June Maxine Burns

*Opinion filed March 28, 1978.*

Robert J. Hillebrand, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General for Illinois; Vincent J. Biskupic, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*390Per Curiam.

This claim arising out of the death of a policeman allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 48, Sec. 281, *et seq.,*1975.

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer; and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the full Court on March 15,1978, the Court finds that:

1. The Claimant, June Maxine Burns, is the mother of the decedent and is the beneficiary who was designated by him.

2. The decedent, Robert Broshears, age 25, was a patrolman employed by the East St. Louis Police Department and engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, on June 23, 1977.

3. On said date, at approximately 3:15 p.m., within his regular work hours and pursuant to his duty assignment, Officer Broshears was struck by a tractor-trailer truck while he was investigating, and assisting, at the scene of an earlier automobile accident. Officer Broshears was pronounced dead at 4:40 p.m., the same date, at the hospital to which he had been taken, and *391the Coroner’s certificate of death recites the immediate cause of death as “massive head and chest injuries.”

4. Officer Broshears was killed in the line of duty as defined in section 2(e) of the Act.

5. The proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act, and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be awarded to Ruth Maxine Burns, as mother and designated beneficiary of the deceased patrolman, Robert Broshears.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92424 / July 16, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20310

In the Matter of

S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

On February 22, 2019, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the 

Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds 

(the “Omnibus Order”)1authorizing the Secretary2to issue orders for calendar years 2019-2021 

appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, Miller Kaplan Arase LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), a 

certified public accounting firm, with one of their offices located in San Francisco, California, as 

tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund 

may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department 

of the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On June 29, 2021, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the Omnibus Order, the 

appointment of Miller Kaplan as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced 

proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance with the 

Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85174 (Feb. 22, 2019).

2

 Effective December 29, 2020, the Director of the Division of Enforcement is now also authorized to make 

appointments in accordance with the Omnibus Order. See Delegation of Authority to Director of the Division of 

Enforcement, Securities Act Rel. No. 10900 (Dec. 10, 2020).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(ii).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4785 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2019 

Mr. HURD of Texas (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. GOODEN, Mr. WRIGHT, Mrs. FLETCHER, Mr. 

BRADY, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. 

GRANGER, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. GONZALEZ of 

Texas, Ms. ESCOBAR, Mr. FLORES, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. ARRINGTON, 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. ROY, Mr. OLSON, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CUELLAR, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, 

Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. ALLRED, Mr. 

VEASEY, Mr. VELA, Mr. DOGGETT, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan 

Post Office’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4785 IH

1 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL RHONALD DAIN RAIRDAN 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in 

5 Castroville, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal 

11 Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### §460zzz–5. Management plan

#### (a) In general

Not later than 3 years after March 30, 2009, the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive management plan for the long-term protection and management of the Conservation Area.

#### (b) Purposes

The management plan shall—

(1) describe the appropriate uses and management of the Conservation Area;

(2) be developed with extensive public input;

(3) take into consideration any information developed in studies of the land within the Conservation Area; and

(4) include a comprehensive travel management plan.

(Pub. L. 111–11, title II, §2406, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1107.)
#### Angeline R. Peck, appellee, v. Margaretha Starks, appellant.

Filed April 2, 1902.

No. 11,442.

1. Vacation of Sale: Lien: Deduction by Appraisers: Two-Thirds Value. Where property sold in execution of a decree of foreclosure was struck off for more than two-thirds of its gross value, the wrongful deduction by the appraisers of' one of the liens in suit will afford no ground for vacating the sale.

2. Judicial Sale: Appraisers: Error of Judgment. A judicial sale will not be set aside on the ground that the appraisers, through an error of judgment, underestimated the value of the property sold.

3. “At the Court House.” The south door of a court house is “at the court house,” within the meaning of section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeal from the district court for Sherman county. Heard below before Sullivan, J.,

*Affirmed.*

*Richard G.*Nightingale, for appellant.

*W. B. Mellor, contra.*

Sullivan, C. J.

Appellants contend that the order of the district court confirming a sale of real estate made by the sheriff of Sherman county under a decree of foreclosure should be reversed for the reason that certain taxes which had been paid by the plaintiff and included in the decree were deducted from the gross value of the land as fixed by the appraisers. It appears that the land sold for more than two‘thirds of the gross valuation. This being so, the error in the appraisement was not prejudicial. *La Selle v.*Nicholls, 56 Nebr., 458; *Bernheimer v.*Hamer, 59 Nebr., 733.

Another ground upon which it is claimed the order of confirmation should be reversed is iiat the appraised value of the property was so low as to afford an inference of fraud or mistake in the appraisement. The appraisers and *342the witnesses who testified for appellant differed greatly in their estimates of the value of the property, but the most that can be said against the apprais'einent is that it may have been the result of an honest mistake; there is nothing whatever in the record to indicate that it was fraudulent. The fact that witnesses differ from the appraisers in their estimate of the value of property about to be offered at judicial sale affords no reason for holding the appraisement to be illegal. *Wood v. Clark,*58 Nebr., 115; *Brown v. Fitzpatrick,*56 Nebr., 61; *Michigan Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Richter,*58 Nebr., 463.

A further reason urged against the sale is that it was advertised to take place, and did in fact occur, at the south door of the court house, which is not the door by which access to the court room is gained. The statute provides (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 503) that all sales of lands or tenements under execution or order of sale shall be held “at the court house,” if there be one in the county where such lands or tenements are situate. The south door of the court house must, it seems to us, be “at the court house.” The reasoning by which counsel has undertaken to show that it is not, is, we must confess, too subtle and elusive for our comprehension.

The order of confirmation is

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael L. MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7961.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2002.

Decided May 17, 2002.

Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Moore petitions for rehearing of our decision dismissing his appeal of the district court’s order denying of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration, which we construed as a motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Our decision found that Moore timely appealed only from the order denying reconsideration, and accordingly dismissed his appeal from the underlying order as untimely. Giving Moore every benefit of the doubt as to when he delivered his motion for reconsideration to prison officials, however, we will assume that his motion for reconsideration was timely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). *See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

Because a timely appeal from an order denying a Rule 59 motion brings both the Rule 59 order and the underlying order within the jurisdiction of the appeals court, *see In re Burnley,*988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1992), we grant rehearing to consider the merits of Moore’s appeal from the underlying order in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find Moore’s appeal is lacking in merit. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United*
      *149
      *States v. Moore,*Nos. CR-97-362-A; CA-00-1776-AM (E.D.Va. July 23, 2001). We deny Moore’s request for rehearing en banc. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Lewis Johnson, Appellant, v. Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. There was evidence from which the jury could find that defendant’s ear was permitted to approach a street crossing at a high rate of speed, without giving any warning, and that the car was not under control of the motorman. Plaintiff was not the driver of the piano van with which the car came into collision, but was employed as a helper thereon. There was evidence that just before the van reached the intersecting streets, plaintiff saw the driver look up and down the street which he was about to cross, and then proceed, and that plaintiff, after looking and seeing no car approaching, went to the rear of the van, the sides of which were inclosed, to hold a piano while the van was crossing the car tracks. It was a question of fact for the jury whether under such circumstances plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to observe the approaching car and warn the driver. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4825 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4825

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the secure 
  storage of a licensed firearm possessed by a Federal judge, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2019

  Mr. Cole (for himself, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Mr. 
McHenry, Mr. Carter of Texas, and Mr. Hudson) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the secure 
  storage of a licensed firearm possessed by a Federal judge, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Firearm Lockbox Protection Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF SECURE FIREARMS STORAGE FOR FEDERAL JUDGES.

    Section 462 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g) Upon request of the Director, the Administrator of General 
Services is authorized and directed to provide, at the official duty 
station of each judge or justice, a secure firearms storage facility 
for any firearm lawfully possessed by that judge or justice.''.

SEC. 3. PROVISION OF SECURE FIREARMS STORAGE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES.

    Each agency that employs an administrative judge (including any 
administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of title 5, 
United States Code) shall provide, at the principal duty station of 
that judge, a secure firearms facility for any firearm lawfully 
possessed by that judge.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1342

GABRIEL MINTZ, a minor, by his parents and

next friends; EMILY MINTZ; DANIEL MINTZ,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

NORMAN CORREA, a minor, by his parents and

next friends; FRANCISCO CORREA; LUCY CORREA,

Plaintiffs,

versus

PAUL VANCE, (Officially as) Superintendent;

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA94-1738-DKC)

Argued: December 4, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

ARGUED: Michael Jeffrey Eig, BOGIN & EIG, P.C., Washington, D.C.,

for Appellants. David Charles Hjortsberg, REESE & CARNEY, L.L.P.,

Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Judith S. Bresler,

REESE & CARNEY, L.L.P., Columbia, Maryland; Zvi Greismann, Senior

Attorney, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Rockville, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Mintz and his parents, Daniel and Emily Mintz, appeal

an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the

defendants, a county school board and its superintendent, in the

Mintzes' suit to recover attorney's fees under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. We have considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, and we affirm the

judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by that court

in its memorandum opinion. Correa v. Vance, No. DKC 94-1738 (D.

Md. Feb. 9, 1996).

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Harris, Appellant.

Motion denied. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ.
# Official Journal C 91/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 91 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5818 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 91

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5818 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 091/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2015/C 091/02 | Summary of Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 091/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2015/C 091/02

Summary of Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

1

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 091/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7547 — Varo/GEKOL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2015/C 091/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7528 — Cheung Kong Holdings/Eversholt) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 091/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7547 — Varo/GEKOL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2015/C 091/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7528 — Cheung Kong Holdings/Eversholt) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2015/C 091/05 | Corrigendum to new national side of euro coins intended for circulation ( OJ C 84, 12.3.2015 ) | 5 |
| 2015/C 091/06 | Corrigendum to new national side of euro coins intended for circulation ( OJ C 86, 13.3.2015 ) | 5 |

Corrigenda

2015/C 091/05

Corrigendum to new national side of euro coins intended for circulation ( OJ C 84, 12.3.2015 )

5

2015/C 091/06

Corrigendum to new national side of euro coins intended for circulation ( OJ C 86, 13.3.2015 )

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 315.4 Exemption treaties. ( a ) The following countries currently have effective treaties providing reciprocal exemption of aliens from military service: Argentina (Art. X, 10 Stat. 1005, 1009, effective 1853) Austria (Art. VI, 47 Stat. 1876, 1880, effective 1928) China (Art. XIV, 63 Stat. 1299, 1311, effective 1946) Costa Rica (Art. IX, 10 Stat. 916, 921, effective 1851) Estonia (Art. VI, 44 Stat. 2379, 2381, effective 1925) Honduras (Art. VI, 45 Stat. 2618, 2622, effective 1927) Ireland (Art. III, 1 US 785, 789, effective 1950) Italy (Art. XIII, 63 Stat. 2255, 2272, effective 1948) Latvia (Art. VI, 45 Stat. 2641, 2643, effective 1928) Liberia (Art. VI, 54 Stat. 1739, 1742, effective 1938) Norway (Art. VI, 47 Stat. 2135, 2139, effective 1928) Paraguay (Art. XI, 12 Stat. 1091, 1096, effective 1859) Spain (Art. V, 33 Stat. 2105, 2108, effective 1902) Switzerland (Art. II, 11 Stat. 587, 589, effective 1850) Yugoslavia (Serbia) (Art. IV, 22 Stat. 963, 964, effective 1881)
( b ) The following countries previously had treaties providing for reciprocal exemption of aliens from military service:
El Salvador (Art. VI, 46 Stat. 2817, 2821, effective 1926 to February 8, 1958) Germany (Art. VI, 44 Stat. 2132, 2136, effective 1923 to June 2, 1954) Hungary (Art. VI, 44 Stat, 2441, 2445, effective 1925 to July 5, 1952) Thailand (Siam) (Art. 1, 53 Stat. 1731, 1732, effective 1937 to June 8, 1968)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                                HANDY & HARMAN


                     SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997


Alloy Ring Service, Inc.
Camdel Metals Corporation
Continental Industries, Inc.
Daniel Radiator Corporation
Ele Corporation
H&H Ltd.
H&H Productions, Inc. (Formerly Greenback Industries, Inc.)
Handy & Harman Automotive Group, Inc.
(Handy & Harman Radiator Corporation and Handy & Harman
Automotive Group, Inc. merger)
Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation
Handy & Harman Europe Ltd.
Handy & Harman of Canada, Limited
Handy & Harman International, Ltd.
Handy & Harman Peru, Inc.
Handy & Harman Tube Company, Inc.
Handy & Harman UK Holdings Limited
Indiana Tube Corporation
Indiana Tube Danmark A/S
KJ-VMI Realty, Inc. (Formerly Valley Metals Inc.)
Lucas-Milhaupt, Inc.
Maryland Specialty Wire, Inc.
Micro-Tube Fabricators, Inc.
Olympic Manufacturing Group, Inc.
Pal-Rath Realty, Inc. (Formerly Rathbone Corporation)
Platina Labortories, Inc.
Rigby-Maryland (Stainless), Ltd.
Sheffield Street Corporation
(Formerly American Chemical & Refining Company, Incorporated)
Sumco Inc.
SWM, Inc.
(Formerly South Windsor Metallurgical, Inc.)
Willing B Wire Corporation

      In addition to the wholly-owned subsidiaries listed above, the Company
has a 5% interest in Mizuno Handy Harman, Ltd. and a 50% interest in Handy &
Harman (Asia), S.A. Handy & Harman (Asia), S.A. owns 100% of Handy & Harman 
(HK) Limited and 75% of Handy & Harman Manufacturing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The
Company owns 12 1/2% of Handy & Harman Manufacturing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

       The Company, through Handy & Harman Peru, has a 70% interest in the
Electro-Connection Finishers joint venture.