alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2017085EN.01004801.xml

| 30.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 85/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 85/48

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 224/2015

of 25 September 2015

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2017/531]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/302 of 25 February 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/302 of 25 February 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 37dj (Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32015 R 0302: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/302 of 25 February 2015 (OJ L 55, 26.2.2015, p. 2).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32015 R 0302: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/302 of 25 February 2015 (OJ L 55, 26.2.2015, p. 2).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) 2015/302 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Ingrid SCHULERUD

---

(1)  
  OJ L 55, 26.2.2015, p. 2.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# L_2015202EN.01005401.xml

| 30.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/54

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 200/2014

of 25 September 2014

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2015/1268]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (1) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 58/2014 of 8 April 2014 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (1) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 58/2014 of 8 April 2014 (2).

| (2) | The deadline for presenting a duly justified request for derogations to the competent surveillance authority no later than 17 October 2013 set out in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 should therefore be adapted, in order to allow the EFTA States to request derogations pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The deadline for presenting a duly justified request for derogations to the competent surveillance authority no later than 17 October 2013 set out in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 should therefore be adapted, in order to allow the EFTA States to request derogations pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2).

| (3) | Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point 19z (Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| (1) | adaptations (b) and (c) are renumbered as adaptations (c) and (d); |
| --- | --- |

(1)

adaptations (b) and (c) are renumbered as adaptations (c) and (d);

| (2) | the following adaptation is inserted:






  ‘(b) | In Article 6(3), the words “17 October 2013” are replaced by the words “3 months after the entry into force of EEA Joint Committee Decision No 200/2014 of 25 September 2014” as regards the EFTA States.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

the following adaptation is inserted:

‘(b)

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 174, 26.6.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 256, 28.8.2014, p. 35.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
§ 2422.7 Will an activity or agency post a notice of filing of a petition? ( a ) *Posting notice of petition.* After you file a petition, when appropriate, the Regional Director will direct the agency or activity to post copies of a notice to all employees in places where notices are normally posted for the employees affected by issues raised in the petition and/or distribute copies of a notice in a manner by which notices are normally distributed.
( b ) *Contents of notice.* The notice must advise affected employees about the petition.
( c ) *Duration of notice.* The notice must be conspicuously posted for a period of ten (10) days and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
### §702. Mississippi River

[Authorization of flood-control work.] For controlling the floods of the Mississippi River and continuing its improvement from the Head of the Passes to the mouth of the Ohio River the Secretary of the Army is empowered, authorized, and directed to carry on continuously, by hired labor or otherwise, the plans of the Mississippi River Commission, prior to March 3, 1923, or thereafter adopted, to be paid for as appropriations may from time to time be made by law.

[Allotments for improvement of watercourses connected with Mississippi River.] The watercourses connected with the Mississippi River to such extent as may be necessary to exclude the flood waters from the upper limits of any delta basin, together with the Ohio River from its mouth to the mouth of the Cache River, may, in the discretion of said commission, receive allotments for improvements under way March 1, 1917, or thereafter to be undertaken.

[Maintenance of levees constructed for flood control.] Upon the completion of any levee constructed for flood control under authority of this section, said levee shall be turned over to the levee district protected thereby for maintenance thereafter; but for all other purposes the United States shall retain such control over the same as it may have the right to exercise upon such completion.

(Mar. 1, 1917, ch. 144, §1, 39 Stat. 948; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 277, 42 Stat. 1505; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Last clause of first paragraph was originally limited to appropriations made for a period of six years beginning July 1, 1924.

The portion of the first paragraph providing "and a sum not to exceed $10,000,000 annually is hereby authorized to be appropriated for that purpose, for a period of six years beginning July 1, 1924" together with the fourth paragraph, relating to expenditures for improvements between Head of Passes and Rock Island, were from act Mar. 4, 1923, which superseded provisions on the same subjects contained in act Mar. 1, 1917, from which the rest of the section was derived, and were omitted as executed.

Sections 2 and 3 of act Mar. 1, 1917, are classified to sections 703 and 701, respectively, of this title, and section 4 of act Mar. 1, 1917, amended section 643 of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.
LETTER



 


Exhibit 10.25


151 Farmington Avenue

Hartford, CT 06156


John W. Rowe, M.D.

Chairman & CEO

860-273-4455

Fax: 860-273-6872

December 5, 2003


Ronald A. Williams


Re: Specified Entities


Dear Ron:



In connection with the execution of
your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement of even date (the
“Agreement”), the names of the four Specified Entities, as
defined in the Agreement, currently are as follows:



	 	1.	 	Anthem Inc.
	 	2.	 	CIGNA Corporation
	 	3.	 	UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
	 	4.	 	Wellpoint Health Networks Inc.



Sincerely,


Aetna Inc.



	By:	 	/s/ John W. Rowe
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL F.; SHAN O.; GEOFFREY F.,

individually and as representatives of the

class of similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA;

OGDEMLI/FELDMAN DESIGN GROUP

BENEFIT PLAN, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15574

D.C. No. 4:09-cv-02037-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 13, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and LEITMAN,** District Judge.

FILED

JUN 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Matthew Frederick Leitman, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Daniel F., Shan O., and Gregory F. appeal the district

court’s denial of class certification and denial of leave to file a renewed motion for

class certification. The parties are familiar with the facts and proceedings, and we

will not restate them here. 

We doubt that the district court abused its discretion in denying class

certification. Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to submit with their motion important

deposition testimony upon which some of their central contentions depended, and

their proposed class definition was plagued with uncertainty. Likewise, it seems

that the district court appropriately declined to permit Plaintiffs-Appellants to file a

renewed motion for class certification. It does not appear that the proposed

renewed motion sufficiently cured the flaws that led the court to deny certification

in the first instance.

But we cannot decide this appeal on the merits because it is moot. When a

named plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot after class certification is denied,

we sometimes permit that plaintiff to appeal the adverse class certification ruling,

provided that he retains a stake in the appeal. See Campion v. Old Republic Prot.

Co., Inc., 775 F.3d 1144, 1145-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). This stake may be

financial, or it may be a private-attorney-general-like interest in class certification. 

See id. On the particular facts presented here, we are not persuaded that Plaintiffs2
Appellants retain a stake in the outcome of their appeal of the district court’s order

denying class certification. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

3
§ 304.108 Compliance. ( a ) Each agency using 5 U.S.C. 3109 must establish and maintain a system of controls and oversight necessary to assure compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3109 and these regulations. The system must include— ( 1 ) Appropriate training and information procedures to ensure that officials and employees using the authority understand the statutory and regulatory requirements; and
( 2 ) Appropriate provision for review of expert and consultant appointments.
( b ) OPM will, as necessary— ( 1 ) Review agency employment of experts and consultants and agency controls and oversight to determine compliance; and
( 2 ) Issue instructions and guidance to agencies on employing experts and consultants and on reporting procedures.
#### Godfrey Knoche, Appellant, v. Bohemian American Workingmen’s Gymnastic Association (Sokol), Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Laughlin, J., dissented.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23399-CIV-UNGARO/O’SULLIVAN

CAROL LARA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner for Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

WITH REMAND OF THE CAUSE TO THE DEFENDANT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Enter a Judgment 

with a Reversal and Remand to the Commissioner (D.E 17) and Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s 

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion be granted (D.E. 18).

THE COURT has considered the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Pursuant to the power of this Court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing 

the Commissioner’s decision with remand in Social Security actions under sentence four of section 

205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and in light of the Government’s request to 

remand this action for further development of the record by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), it 

is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Unopposed Motion, D.E. 17, is GRANTED and this 

case is hereby remanded. The Report and Recommendation, D.E. 18, is ADOPTED AND 

AFFIRMED in all respects. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to obtain 

medical and psychological or psychiatric expert evidence; reconsider the opinion evidence; further 

Case 1:20-cv-23399-UU Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2021 Page 1 of 2
evaluate claimant’s alleged symptoms; re-evaluate the claimant’s residual functional capacity; and 

obtain vocational expert evidence. Therefore, this Court hereby reverses the Commissioner’s 

decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner 

for further proceedings. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 

U.S. 89 (1991). It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court SHALL administratively close this 

case. All future hearings and deadlines are CANCELLED, and all pending motions are DENIED 

AS MOOT. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of the Court will enter a separate judgment 

pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this __19th__day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Judge Magistrate John J. O’Sullivan

Case 1:20-cv-23399-UU Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2021 Page 2 of 2
No. 07-090 July 25, 2007

LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANTAVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewalof the operating licenses for the Vogtle nuclear power plant, Units 1 and 2, is available for publicreview.

Vogtle Units 1 and 2 are pressurized water reactors located about 26 miles southeast ofAugusta, Ga. The current operating licenses expire Jan. 16, 2027, for Unit 1 and Feb. 9, 2029, for Unit2.

Vogtle’s operator, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the license renewal applicationJune 29. The application is available on the NRC Web site at this address:http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html. The application is alsoavailable at the Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South, Waynesboro, Ga. 30830.

The NRC staff is currently conducting its initial reviews of the application to determinewhether it contains sufficient information required for the formal safety and environmental reviews. Ifthe application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally “docket,” or file it and will announcean opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on the renewal request. Additionalinformation about the NRC’s review of reactor license renewal applications is available on the NRCWeb site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.

NRC NEWSU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   

Office of Public Affairs         Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001       E-mail: opa@nrc.gov   Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 65362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27491]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Integrated Photonics Institute for 
Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American 
Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 13, 2018, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Integrated Photonics 
Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the 
American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (``AIM 
Photonics'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Phase Sensitive Innovations, Inc., Newark, DE; Synopsys, 
Inc., Mountain View, CA; Service Support Specialties, Inc., Montville, 
NJ; SRICO, Inc., Columbus, OH; The State University of New York at 
Binghamton, Binghamton, NY; Rockwell Collins, Inc., Cedar Rapids, IA; 
The Cornell Center for Materials Research of Cornell University, 
Ithaca, NY; CPS Recruitment, Inc., Liverpool, NY; Eastman Kodak 
Company, Rochester, NY; VPIphotonics, Inc., Norwood, MA; Princeton 
Instruments, Trenton, NJ; COTSWORKS LLC, Highland Heights, OH; Freedom 
Photonics, Santa Barbara, CA; Physical Sciences, Inc., Andover, MA; 
Syntec Technologies, Inc., Rochester, NY; The Optical Society, 
Washington, DC; and Optiwave Systems, Inc., Ontario, CANADA, have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 23, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38324).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-27491 Filed 12-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
§ 302.401 Selection and appointment. ( a ) *Selection.* When making an appointment from a priority reemployment, reemployment, or regular list on which candidates have not received numerical scores, an agency must make its selection from the highest available preference category, as long as at least three candidates remain in that group. When fewer than three candidates remain in the highest category, consideration may be expanded to include the next category. When making an appointment from a list on which candidates have received numerical scores, the agency must make its selection for each vacancy from not more than the highest three names available for appointment in the order provided in § 302.304. Under either method, an agency is not required to— ( 1 ) Accord an applicant on its priority reemployment or reemployment list the preference consideration required by § 302.304 if the list on which the applicant's name appears does not contain the names of at least three preference eligibles; or
( 2 ) Consider an applicant who has previously been considered three times or a preference eligible if consideration of his/her name has been discontinued for the position as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Passing over a preference applicant.* When an agency, in making an appointment as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, passes over the name of a preference eligible, it shall follow the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 3318(c) and 3319(c) as described in the *Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.* An agency may discontinue consideration of the name of a preference eligible for a position as described in 5 U.S.C. 3318(c).
[55 FR 9407, Mar. 14, 1990, as amended at 85 FR 63191, Oct. 7, 2020]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 2, 2014

NO. 03-13-00727-CV

Alvin Heratio Harper, Appellant

v.

Leslie Marie Harper, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the record, the 

Court holds that Alvin Heratio Harper has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with a 

notice from the clerk of this court. The appeal is thus subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. Alvin Heratio Harper shall pay all costs relating to 

this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### § 214.403 Change of position type.

An agency may not change the designation of an established position from career reserved to general, or from general to career reserved, without the prior approval of the Office of Personnel Management.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. New York Dock Company, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Close, P, J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.