alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SERVED JANUAR Y 11,201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I NTH EMATTE RO F FEDERA LEXPRES S CORPORATIO N FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09AL000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-009 9 

### AMENDE D PROCEDURA L ORDE R Paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

i s amende da s follows : WHEREFORE , th e partie s b e an dar e hereb y ORDERE D t o adher e t o th e followin g procedura l schedule :

.. . O no r before Jun e 15 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , but no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r

interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t

resolv e adiscovery dispute the y shal l submi t

th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfo r resolutio ni natimel y manner.. .

Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09AL000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Courtne y E
. Felts , Staf

f Attorne y I I Federal Expres s Corporatio n Regulatory Affairs , Lega l Departmen t 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , 3rdFloo r Memphis , T N3812 5 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Glen nH
. Brown , Senio r

Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 22 2 W
. 7t hAvenu e #1 4 Anchorage , A K

9951 3 TEL : 907-271-521 7 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwdn , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
(No. 00136

#### In Re Application of Roberta Rusnak

*Opinion filed May 4, 1978*

Per 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 on April 19, 1978, the Court finds that:

1. The Claimant, Roberta Rusnak, is the widow of the decedent and is the beneficiary who was designated by him as stated in the application for benefits.

*3892. The decedent, John A. Rusnak, age 34, was employed as an investigator, Intelligence and Investigative Support Section, of the Cook County Sheriff s Police Department and engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, on August 3,1977.

3. On said date, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Deputy Rusnak, age 34, began his regular duty assignment as part of a continuing investigation of stolen automobiles. As he drove his Cook County Sheriffs automobile, his auto was struck by a truck, pinned against a guardrail, and burst into flames, trapping Rusnak. He died in the squad car, and the death certificate presented recites the cause of death as “burns, severe with multiple internal injuries.”

4. Deputy Rusnak 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 Roberta Rusnak, as widow and designated beneficiary of the deceased policeman, John A. Rusnak.
**Exhibit 24** **POWER OF    ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature    appears below constitutes and appoints William R. Johnson,    Arthur B. Winkleblack and Theodore N. Bobby, and each of them,    such person’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent,    with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for such    person and in such person’s name, place and stead, in any    and all capacities, to sign H. J. Heinz Company’s Annual    Report on    Form 10-K    for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2007 and to sign any and    all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with    all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection    therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting    unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full    power and authority to do and perform each and every act and    thing requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all    intents and purposes as such person might or could do in person,    hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact    and agents or any of them, or such persons’ or    person’s substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or    cause to be done by virtue hereof.     This Power of Attorney has been signed below as of the    13th day of June, 2007 by the following persons in the    capacities indicated.    *Signature* *Title* /s/  William    R. Johnson
###### Editorial Note on Part 1241

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1241 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### §§ 1241.21-1241.29 [Reserved]
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4745 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 

motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 18, 2019 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself, Mrs. WAGNER, and Mr. COSTA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used 

in mobile mammography vehicles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mobile Mammography 

5 Promotion Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES 

7 FOR FUEL USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY 

8 VEHICLES. 

9 (a) REFUNDS.—Section 6427 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 (relating to fuels not used for taxable 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4745 IH

1 purposes) is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the 

2 following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(f) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI4 CLES.—Except as provided in subsection (k), if any fuel 

5 on which tax was imposed by section 4041 or 4081 is used 

6 in any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mo7 bile mammography services to patients within such vehi8 cle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the ulti9 mate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggre10 gate amount of the tax imposed on such fuel.’’. 

11 (b) EXEMPTION FROM RETAIL TAX.—Section 4041 

12 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(n) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI15 CLES.—No tax shall be imposed under this section on any 

16 liquid sold for use in, or used in, any highway vehicle de17 signed exclusively to provide mobile mammography serv18 ices to patients within such vehicle.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### § 322.4 Interview.

The U.S. citizen parent and the child must appear in person before a USCIS officer for examination on the application under this section. If the U.S. citizen parent is deceased, the child's U.S. citizen grandparent or U.S. citizen legal guardian who filed the application on the child's behalf must appear.

[76 FR 53799, Aug. 29, 2011]
### §460lll–1. Purposes

The purposes of this subchapter are—

(1) to transfer without consideration administrative jurisdiction over the Recreation Area from the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Secretary so that the Recreation Area may be managed as a unit of the National Forest System;

(2) to protect and manage the resources of the Recreation Area for optimum yield of outdoor recreation and environmental education through multiple use management by the Forest Service;

(3) to authorize, research, test, and demonstrate innovative programs and cost-effective management of the Recreation Area;

(4) to authorize the Secretary to cooperate between and among the States, Federal agencies, private organizations, and corporations, and individuals, as appropriate, in the management of the Recreation Area and to help stimulate the development of the surrounding region and extend the beneficial results as widely as practicable; and

(5) to provide for the smooth and equitable transfer of jurisdiction from the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(e) [title V, §503], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–231, 2681–311.)
#### John C. ROY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ACOSTA, Respondent-Appellee.

Docket No. 99-2729.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2002.

Frank P. Cannatelli, Ansonia, CT, for Appellant.

James A. Killen, Supv. Ass’t State’s Att’y, Rocky Hill, CT, for Appellee.

*33Present FEINBERG, KEARSE, and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was argued by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Arterton’s Ruling on Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated September 11, 1998, and her Ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Summary Judgment, dated September 28, 1999. The adjudication by the state courts did not misapply federal law, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and was not “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). We see no error in the rulings of the district court. *See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez,*79 F.3d 298, 304-05 (2d Cir.), *cert. denied,*519 U.S. 850, 117 S.Ct. 140, 136 L.Ed.2d 87 (1996).

We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
§ 76.27 The hearing and burden of proof. ( a ) The Judge shall conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the respondent is liable for a civil penalty under 28 CFR 76.3 and, if so, the appropriate amount of any such civil penalty, considering the income and net assets of the respondent.
( b ) The United States Attorney shall prove respondent's liability and appropriateness of the amount of the penalty by a preponderance of the evidence.
( c ) The respondent shall prove any affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing shall be open to the public unless otherwise closed by the Judge for good cause shown.
#### Chateaugay Agricultural Society, Respondent, v. James Farley, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except Smith, P. J., dissenting.
#### In the Matter of Cory Costner, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 722]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County [Paula L. Feroleto, J.], entered November 28, 2005) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present—Scudder, J.P, Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine. JJ.
# L_2013197EN.01S00301.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 197/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 197/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
Docket Index

- EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2016

- 0669

- Mariposa

A. Notices

1. Direct Final Rule

- Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Mariposa County, CA (pre

- publication)

2. Proposed Rule

- Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Mariposa County, CA (pre

- publication)

3. Docket index

- EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2016

- 0669

- Mariposa

B. FR Notices

1. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008 )

2. 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012)

3. 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015)

4. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015)

5. 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016)

C. Other Documents

1. Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Suppor t Division, CARB, dated March 7, 2014

.

2. L etter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, dated January 27, 2015

3. L etter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, dated November 13, 2015

.

4. Letter from El izabeth J. Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated August 31, 2016, transmitting findings of the EPA’s 2015 TSA of the CARB's ambient air monitoring program.

5. L etter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, certifying calendar year 2015 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, May 10, 2016.

6. L etter from Barkley Sive , Air Resources Division Progra m Manager, National Park Service, to

Lew Wein s tock, EPA Office of Air Quality Policy and Standards, certifying calendar year 2015 ambient air quality data and quality assurance

, dated April 27, 2016

.

7. CARB Annual Monitoring Network Report for Twenty

- five D istricts in California, Volume 1,

June 2015.

8. CARB Annual Monitoring Network Report for Twenty

- five Districts in California, Volume 1,

June 2015

9. EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, July 25, 2016.10. EPA AQS Quick Look Report (AMP450), August 10, 2 016.

11. November 8, 2016 Ozone Watch report.

12. 2014 Annual Network Plan.

13. 2013 Annual Network Report.
### Regulatory Evaluation
Docket No. FAA- Direct o rate I dentifier: -AD



### If

you mak e c h anges t o t he va lues i n the ta b l e be l ow, you m ust e n s ur e t h e t o ta ls u pdate accord i ng l y. 

### If t hey do not, cli ck (or Tab) into and t h e n out of t he changed ce ll. E s timated Costs: A

ction Cos ts pe r Product ( e.g. , airc raft, eng ine, (e.g., Inspection , propel ler, appliance)

replacement) Wo rk- ho urs Labor P art s C o s t Total Co s t s Num be r o f T otal Cost D o not include on- ( in c lude cost ( labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet
co ndition c osts here acc ess, te s ting , (@$85 /h parts) Registered and close -up) our) Products In s p e ction 

### 27. 7 417

'



# .

Th e kn ow n numb e r o f produ c t s in co mpli a n ce : T ota l Costs o f co mplian c e f or U.S. fl eet: S9 81 ,827 Cos t s cove re d under w arra n ty 

### (ilknow n ) $ On-Condition Costs: 

# G Action Work -hours Labor cos t Parts Cost C o s t per Product ( e . g . , Inspection , (includ e access , ( @ $85 / hour)

r e placement) tes ting, a nd closeup) R e p a ir of 

### BS 328 fra m e; hours do not in cl ud e a cce s s and close -up , s ince 

### 25 .0 th ese would be concurrent with the above inspection

### Modification ofBS 360 frame; h ours do not include access and close

- up , s in ce these would be co ncurrent with the 4.4 

### a bo ve insp ect ion; hours are 4.45

- this temp lat e w ill not allow display of more than one decimal plac e Specia l con s iderations for Economic Ana lysis (Use thisfield to e xplain an y thing in th e E s timated Costs table that was assum e d o r might not b e ob vio us. Thisfield can al s o be used to ex plain warrant y co s t

s) : 

### Executive Order 12866: Could th e AD be co n s id ered a " significant regula tory act ion "? 

# . G YE S* 0

**NO~** *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Po li cies and Procedures: I s t he AD s i g nificant? 

# G YES*0

**NO~** *Ex plana tio n : 

### Reg ul ato ry F lexib ili ty Act: Will the 

### AD hav e a significant eco no mi c impa ct o n a s ub stanti a l numb e r of s mall e ntit ies? Explain for e ither a Y es or No answer.



# ~ YESD

**NO~** Explan ation: 

### I ntrastate Aviatio n i n Al aska: This AD co uld affect intrastat e av i ation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific r e quirements for aircraft operated in A laska where aviation might be the only mode of t ra n sportati on? 

## @ YES*0

**NO~** *Ex planati o n :
##### 



Exhibit 12
 CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Millions of dollars)
 Year Ended December 31,2002
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    547
    
    
    $
    432
    
    
    $
    282
    
    
    $
    223
    
    
    $
    271Income taxes for continuing operations
    
    
    286
    
    
    
    230
    
    
    
    137
    
    
    
    108
    
    
    
    132Capitalized interest
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (4
    )830
    
    
    
    659
    
    
    
    417
    
    
    
    328
    
    
    
    399Fixed charges, as defined:Interest
    
    
    285
    
    
    
    361
    
    
    
    345
    
    
    
    328
    
    
    
    240Capitalized interest
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    4Interest component of rentals
charged to
operating expense
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2Total fixed charges
    
    
    290
    
    
    
    366
    
    
    
    348
    
    
    
    332
    
    
    
    246Earnings, as defined
    
    $
    1,120
    
    
    $
    1,025
    
    
    $
    765
    
    
    $
    660
    
    
    $
    645Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    3.86
    
    
    
    2.80
    
    
    
    2.20
    
    
    
    1.99
    
    
    
    2.62
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In re: 

Lishan W Godana 

Debtor.

 Case No. 16-13430-KHK

 (Chapter 13) 

ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED HEARING

THIS CASE came before the Court on the Debtor’s Motion to Expedite Hearing (Docket 

No. 55) on his Motion to Approve Sale of Property (Docket No. 54). Upon consideration, it is 

ORDERED:

1. The motion to expedite hearing is granted, and a hearing on the Debtor’s Motion to 

Approve Sale of Property (Docket No. 54) will be held on January 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom III, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 200 South 

Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 

2. The movant shall immediately give notice by the quickest means to all affected 

parties. Notice may be electronic, by facsimile, telephonic, hand-delivery, or other means 

reasonable calculated to give actual notice to the affected parties. 

3. Any objections may be made orally at the hearing. 

4. The Clerk shall mail copies of this Order or give electronic notice of its entry, to the 

parties listed below. 

_________________ 

Date Klinette H. Kindred 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

Jan 15 2019 /s/ Klinette Kindred

E.O.D. Jan 15 2019

Case 16-13430-KHK Doc 58 Filed 01/15/19 Entered 01/15/19 17:28:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Copy electronically to: 

Tommy Andrews, Jr. 

Thomas P. Gorman 

John P. Fitzgerald, III. 

Case 16-13430-KHK Doc 58 Filed 01/15/19 Entered 01/15/19 17:28:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 128840 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### SARAH SAUNDERS f/k/a SARAH ELROD, Stephen J. Markman, 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices


### v SC: 128840 COA: 260607 Livingston CC: 97-025956-DM DOUGLAS J. ELROD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the May 10, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
### §673e. Cooperation of Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and Defense with State of California

The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Defense shall cooperate with the State of California in making the lands under their respective jurisdictions reasonably available for the preservation and grazing of Tule elk in such manner and to such extent as may be consistent with Federal law.

(Pub. L. 94–389, §2, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1190.)