alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William F. Mehlenbeck, Appellant, v. John Steitz, Appellee.

Gen. No. 5,867.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Nicholas E. Worthington, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by William F. Mehlenbeck against John Steitz to recover fifty dollars claimed to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant. Suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace where plaintiff recovered a judgment. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court where defendant had verdict and judgment. From the judgment of the Circuit Court, plaintiff appeals.

Clarence W. Heyl, for appellant.

C. E. McNemar, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Assumpsit, action op, § *89*
      ***
      *—when evidence insufficient to establish loan.*In an action for money loaned, where the defense was that the money was not loaned to defendant but that he received it from a third party who had received it from the plaintiff, and that defendant had repaid such third party, *held*that a verdict for defendant was not against the weight of the evidence.

2. Appeal and error, § *613*
      ***
      *—when errors not urged in motion for new trial waived.*Errors in instructions given not mentioned in written grounds for motion for new trial are waived. Section 81 of the Practice Act, J. & A. ¶ 8618, obviating the necessity of an exception, does not affect the rule.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vote. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### John Guildford, Appellant, v. George Backer Construction Company and Others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, withcosts. Noopinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### § 591.310 Effect of regulations in this subpart on allowances established under previous statutes.

Regulations in this subpart do not require a reduction in the allowance rates authorized under previous statutes unless an adjustment is determined to be warranted on the basis of a change in facts and circumstances on which that previous allowance was established.
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-05-035 September 12, 2005

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO MEET WITH THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS

RESULTS OF HUMBOLDT BAY NUCLEAR PLANT SPECIAL INSPECTION 

Officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with the public Sept. 15

to discuss results of a special inspection regarding the circumstances of the company’s reported

loss of nuclear material from the Humboldt Bay nuclear plant near Eureka, Calif. 

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Humboldt Bay Yacht Club, Wharfinger

Building, One Marina Way, in Eureka. NRC staff will brief the public on the results of its

inspection and invite questions and comments from the public. Executives from Pacific Gas &

Electric Co., which owns the plant that shut down in 1976, also will participate.

PG&E officials notified the NRC on Aug. 17, 2004, that they have been unable to locate 

three sections of a spent nuclear fuel rod that records show was removed from the reactor in

1968. In addition to the fuel rod segments, PG&E has informed the NRC that it cannot account

for several small detectors removed from the reactor core, which contain small amounts of

nuclear material. The special inspection reviewed PG&E’s search activities and its radioactive

material control and accountability program. 

 It is considered highly unlikely that the material is in an area to which the public would

have access, and is most likely either in the spent fuel pool or has been sent to a licensed disposal

facility.

###
#### Rose Z. Safie, Respondent, v. Elias A. Safie, Defendant. Alejandro Safie, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— In an action for separation, order denying motion of defendant-husband’s father, who is the record owner of certain real property affeeted by a sequestration order under review, to vacate and annul the order of sequestration, modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the words "in all respects denied” and inserting in place thereof the following: “ granted to the extent of striking from the second ordering paragraph of the sequestration order the words *‘*particularly the real property consisting of a single family residence located at Park Drive South, in the Town of Harrison, Westchester County, State of New York’; striking out the last ordering paragraph, and striking from the' ordering paragraph immediately preceding the last ordering paragraph the words *‘*and it is further.’ ” As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Whether the defendant or the appellant," his father, is the true owner of the dwelling in Harrison may not be determined summarily upon the affidavits on this motion. *(Rosenberg*v. *Rosenberg,*259 N. Y. 338.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p; 967.]
Editorial Note on Part 352
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

§ 352.204 Basic eligibility for reemployment rights. ( a ) *Employees eligible.* The following employees in the executive branch of the Government are eligible to be granted reemployment rights when they are hired by another executive agency without break in service of a full workday by transfer or reinstatement, or by excepted appointment, in a position which the agency is currently authorized to fill with reemployment rights: ( 1 ) An employee serving in a competitive position under a career or career-conditional appointment;
( 2 ) An employee serving under a career appointment in the Senior Executive Service (SES); or
( 3 ) A nontemporary excepted employee.
( b ) *Employees not eligible.* The following employees are not eligible to be granted reemployment rights: ( 1 ) An employee who is serving a probationary or trial period under an appointment to a position in the excepted or competitive service or the SES.
( 2 ) An employee serving in an obligated position;
( 3 ) An employee serving with reemployment rights granted under this subpart;
( 4 ) An employee who has received a notice of involuntary separation because of reduction in force or otherwise; or
( 5 ) An employee who has already submitted a resignation.
[33 FR 12433, Sept. 4, 1968, as amended at 51 FR 25187, July 11, 1986]
### §141. Thomas Jefferson's birthday

The President shall issue each year a proclamation—

(1) calling on officials of the United States Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on April 13; and

(2) inviting the people of the United States to observe April 13 in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies in commemoration of Thomas Jefferson's birthday.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1262.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 141 | 36:149. | Aug. 16, 1937, ch. 666, 50 Stat. 668. |

Section
# L_2016129EN.01004601.xml

| 19.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 129/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 129/46

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 62/2015

of 20 March 2015

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2016/745]

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) | Directive 2012/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Directive 2012/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers (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 is added in point 56j (Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32012 L 0035: Directive 2012/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 78).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32012 L 0035: Directive 2012/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 78).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2012/35/EU 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 21 March 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, 20 March 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 78.

1

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### § 550.901 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes the regulations required by sections 5545(d) and 5548(b) of title 5, United States Code, for the payment of differentials for duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard to employees.

[56 FR 20344, May 3, 1991]
#### In the Matter of Expert Textile Corp., Respondent. Frank Nelson, as President of Local 164, Building Service Employees International Union, A. F. of L., an Unincorporated Association, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
B.C.D. 03-17

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Inc.

FEB 1 4 2003

This is the determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status of

the Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Inc. (SCS) as an employer under the Railroad

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231, et seq.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment 

Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et seq.) (RUIA). SCS has not heretofore been

ruled to be an employer under the RRA and RUIA.

Squaw' Creek Southern Railroad, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary ofRespondek

Railroad Corporation, an employer under the RRA and RUIA whose B.A. No. is

2882. On July 11, 2002, SCS filed a verified notice of exemption before the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) for its operation, under a non-exclusive

trackage rights use agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) of

21.3 miles oftrackage in Warwick County, Indiana, interchanging with NS at

Boonville, Indiana. SCS operations began on August 17, 2002. SCS operations

are completely run by covered employees ofits parent company, Respondek

Railroad Corporation. Authority for SCS operations is set forth in STB Finance

Docket No. 34230, decided August 1, 2002.

Section 1(a)(1) ofthe Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction ofthe

Surface Transportation Board under Part A ofsubtitle IV of Title 49

[45 U.S.C. §231(a)(l)(i)].

Sections 1(a) and 1(b) ofthe Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. §§ 351(a) and (b)) contain substantially the same definition as does

section 3231 ofthe Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. § 3231).

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that Squaw Creek 

Southern Railroad, Inc. became an employer covered under the Railroad

BA#2395
-2-

Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Inc.

Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act on August 17,

2002, the date it began operations.

Cherryl V. Thomas

V. M. Speakman, Jr.
#### Florence Sorgen, Respondent, v. Isaac Sorgen, Appellant.

Ho opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant judgment of separation to the defendant under *Mirizio*v. *Mirizio*(242 N. Y. 74). Settle order on notice.
#### § 838.223 OPM action on receipt of a court order not acceptable for processing.

If OPM receives an application from a former spouse not based on a court order acceptable for processing, OPM will inform the former spouse that OPM cannot approve the application and provide the specific reason(s) for disapproving the application. Examples of reasons for disapproving an application include that the court order does not meet the definition of court order in § 838.103 or does not meet one or more of the requirements of subpart C of this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2041 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2041

To provide for grants to States for enacting statewide laws regulating 
    public playgrounds consistent with playground safety guidelines 
         established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2003

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for grants to States for enacting statewide laws regulating 
    public playgrounds consistent with playground safety guidelines 
         established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    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 referred to as the ``Safe Playgrounds Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT FOR ENACTING PLAYGROUND SAFETY STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of appropriations for 
this purpose, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall provide a 
grant in the amount of $1,000,000 to any State which meets the 
requirements of subsection (b).
    (b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible for a grant under subsection 
(a) if, not more than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
such State has enacted a statewide law regulating public playgrounds 
consistent with the guidelines contained in the Handbook for Public 
Playground Safety, published by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
or other playground safety guidelines established by the Commission.
    (c) Use of Grant Funds.--A State receiving a grant under this Act 
shall use the grant to upgrade public playgrounds in accordance with 
the guidelines described in subsection (b).

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission for carrying out this Act $50,000,000 for the period 
encompassing fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
                                 <all>
```
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov 

No. II-08-011 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 

 Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

March 24, 2008 

E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS 2007 PERFORMANCE AT ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with Florida Power & 

Light officials April 1 to discuss the NRC=s annual assessment of safety performance for 2007 at 

the St. Lucie nuclear power plant, located at Jensen Beach, Fla, near Ft. Pierce. 

The 1:00 p.m. meeting at the St. Lucie Energy Encounter Building, located at 6501 S. 

A1A at Jensen Beach, is open to public observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff will be 

available to answer public questions on the plant=s safety performance, as well as the agency=s 

role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. 

AThe NRC continually inspects and reviews the performance of St. Lucie and all 

commercial nuclear power plants, issuing inspection reports throughout the year and an overall 

assessment at year’s end,” NRC Acting Region II Administrator Victor McCree said. “This 

meeting is an opportunity to discuss that annual assessment with the company, with local 

officials and people near the plant, and to answer any questions they may have.” 

 The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess 

performance. The colors start with Agreen@ and increase to Awhite,@ Ayellow@ or Ared,@

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

The NRC said the St. Lucie plant operated safely during the 2007 assessment period, 

from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, with all inspection findings being of very low safety significance 

and all performance indicators indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC 

oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct routine baseline inspections at the plant during 

2008. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2007 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stl_2007q4.pdf . 
Current performance information for North Anna Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site 

at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL1/stl1_chart.html . Current performance 

information for Unit 2 is at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL2/stl2_chart.html . 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv 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.
### §597. Acquisition of lands for water resource development projects; information as to probable timing for acquisition; public meetings; regulations

Within six months after the date that Congress authorizes construction of a water resource development project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, the Corps of Engineers shall make reasonable effort to advise owners and occupants in and adjacent to the project area as to the probable timing for the acquisition of lands for the project and for incidental rights-of-way, relocations, and any other requirements affecting owners and occupants. Within a reasonable time after initial appropriations are made for land acquisition or construction, including relocations, the Corps of Engineers shall conduct public meetings at locations convenient to owners and tenants to be displaced by the project in order to advise them of the proposed plans for acquisition and to afford them an opportunity to comment. To carry out the provisions of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall issue regulations to provide, among other things, dissemination of the following information to those affected: (1) factors considered in making the appraisals; (2) desire to purchase property without going to court; (3) legal right to submit to condemnation proceedings; (4) payments for moving expenses or other losses not covered by appraised market value; (5) occupancy during construction; (6) removal of improvements; (7) payments required from occupants of Government acquired land; (8) withdrawals by owners of deposits made in court by Government, and (9) use of land by owner when easement is acquired. The provisions of this section shall not subject the United States to any liability nor affect the validity of any acquisitions by purchase or condemnation and shall be exempt from the operations of subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5.

(Pub. L. 86–645, title III, §302, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 502.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5" substituted in text for "the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, as amended" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 86–645, title III, §303, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 503, provided that: "Title III of this Act [enacting this section and section 596 of this title] may be cited as the 'Land Acquisition Policy Act of 1960'."
### §59t. Burnham Canal, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The portion of the Burnham Canal, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is underneath and west of a point one hundred feet east of South Eleventh Street is declared to be not a navigable water of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved.

(Pub. L. 97–468, title V, §503, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2552.)
#### § 531.244 Adjusting a GM employee's rate at the time of an annual pay adjustment.

(a) On the effective date of an annual pay adjustment under 5 U.S.C. 5303 or similar authority, an agency must set the new GS rate for a GM employee as follows:

(1) For a GM employee whose GS rate equals a regular GS step rate, set the employee's rate at the new step rate in the adjusted General Schedule that corresponds to the employee's grade and step as in effect immediately before the effective date of the pay adjustment.

(2) For a GM employee whose GS rate is below the minimum rate of the GS rate range for the employee's grade, increase the existing GS rate by the same percentage as the annual pay adjustment for the GS rate range applicable to the employee's grade, with the result rounded to the nearest dollar (not to exceed the minimum rate of the range).

(3) For a GM employee whose GS rate is between GS step rates, apply the following method:

| |
| --- |
| Step A | Using the rates and ranges in effect immediately *before* the annual pay adjustment, find the difference between the GM employee's GS rate and the minimum rate of the GS rate range for the employee's grade. |
| Step B | Find the difference between the maximum rate and minimum rate of the GS rate range in effect immediately before the annual pay adjustment. (If the GS maximum rate was not payable because of the EX level V pay limitation in 5 U.S.C. 5303(f), use the uncapped maximum rate.) |
| Step C | Divide the result from step A by the result from step B. Carry this result to the seventh decimal place and truncate, rather than round, the result. This decimal factor represents the employee's relative position in the rate range. |
| Step D | Using rates and ranges in effect *after* the annual pay adjustment, find the difference between the maximum rate and minimum rate of the new GS rate range for the employee's grade. (If the GS maximum rate was not payable because of the EX level V pay limitation, use the uncapped maximum rate.) |
| Step E | Multiply the result from step D by the factor derived from step C. |
| Step F | Add the result from step E to the minimum rate of the employee's current GS rate range and round to the next higher whole dollar. The resulting rate is the GM employee's new GS rate (subject to the EX level V pay limitation). |

(b) [Reserved]

[70 FR 31291, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66153, Nov. 7, 2008]