alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 532.263 Special wage schedules for production facilitating positions.

(a) The lead agency in each FWS wage area shall establish special nonsupervisory and supervisory production facilitating wage schedules for employees properly allocable to production facilitating positions under applicable Federal Wage System job grading standards.

(b) Nonsupervisory schedules shall have 11 pay levels, and supervisory schedules shall have 9 pay levels.

(c) Pay levels and rates of pay for nonsupervisory (WD) schedules and supervisory (WN) schedules shall be identical to the pay levels and rates of pay for the corresponding grades on the local FWS regular supervisory wage schedule. Pay levels shall be determined in accordance with the following table:

| | WN supervisory level | WS grade |
| --- | --- | --- |
| WD nonsupervisory Level: | | |
| 1 | | 3 |
| 2 | | 4 |
| 3 | | 5 |
| 4 | | 6 |
| 5 | 1 | 7 |
| 6 | 2 | 8 |
| 7 | 3 | 9 |
| 8 | 4 | 10 |
| 9 | 5 | 11 |
| 10 | 6 | 12 |
| 11 | 7 | 13 |
| | 8 | 14 |
| | 9 | 15 |

(d) Special production facilitating wage schedules shall be effective on the same date as the regular wage schedules in the FWS wage area.

[55 FR 46144, Nov. 1, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-93-151)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth

Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion to compel the prosecutor in his criminal case to produce

certain documents. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Brown, No. CR-93-151 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
### §§867, 868. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(39), (60), 65 Stat. 702, 703

Section 867, act June 5, 1920, ch. 235, §1, 41 Stat. 930, related to transfer of instruments to institutions.

Section 868, act July 1, 1918, ch. 113, §1, 40 Stat. 688, related to purchase of supplies or procurement of services in the field.
#### Milton Maurer, an Infant, by Isidor Maurer, His Guardian ad Litem, and Isidor Maurer, Appellants, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

*1008Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1012.]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 30, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00672

- CV

John Dale Dunn and Patricia Louise Sommer, Appellant s

v.

Marriott Hotel Corp. d/b/a Renaissance Austin Hotel, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 200TH DIS TRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD
DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS ’ MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order sign ed by the district court on September 24, 2014. Appellants

have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the

appeal

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court

below.
§ 535.106 Treatment as rate of basic pay. A critical position pay rate is considered a rate of basic pay for all purposes, including any applicable premium pay, except— ( a ) Application of any saved pay or pay retention provisions (e.g., 5 U.S.C. 5363); or
( b ) Application of any adverse action provisions (e.g., 5 U.S.C. 7512).
Editorial Note on Subpart F of Part 531
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart F of part 531 appear at 70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005.

§ 531.608 Relationship of locality rates to other pay rates. ( a ) An employee must receive the greatest of the following rates of pay, as applicable— ( 1 ) The scheduled annual rate of pay payable to the employee;
( 2 ) A locality rate under this subpart;
( 3 ) A special rate under 5 CFR part 530, subpart C, or a similar rate under other legal authority (e.g., 38 U.S.C. 7455); or
( 4 ) A retained rate under 5 CFR part 536 or a similar rate under other legal authority.
( b ) A GS employee receiving a special rate is entitled to any applicable locality payment on the same basis as any other GS employee. The locality payment is computed based on the employee's scheduled annual rate of pay, which excludes any special rate. The employee is entitled to the higher of the locality rate or the corresponding special rate. As provided in 5 U.S.C. 5305(h) and 5 CFR 530.303(d), when an employee's locality rate exceeds a corresponding special rate, the employee's entitlement to the special rate is terminated.
[70 FR 31304, May 31, 2005]
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-07-033 September 6, 2007

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING IN GALLUP, N.M. ON GENERIC

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR URANIUM RECOVERY OPERATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment for a “generic

environmental impact statement” (GEIS) the agency intends to develop for uranium recovery

operations, including in situ leach recovery facilities and conventional mills.

The NRC is expecting numerous applications for new uranium recovery operations in the

next two to three years. This GEIS is intended to address the common issues associated with

environmental reviews of in situ leach and conventional milling facilities located in the western

United States. Because there are environmental issues common to both types of facilities, the

NRC staff will be addressing these common issues generically to aid in a more efficient

environmental review for each separate license application, if and when these applications are

submitted. 

Members of the NRC staff will hold a public meeting Sept. 27 in Gallup, N.M. to discuss

the scope of the GEIS. Members of the public are invited to comment on environmental issues

that will be addressed in the GEIS, including land use, public and occupational health, waste

management, water resources, air quality, historical resources and others. 

The meeting in Gallup will be held at the Best Western Inn and Suites, 3009 West Hwy.

66 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. NRC staff will hold an informal open house to meet members of

the public from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

The NRC held two public meetings on this topic last month in Albuquerque, N.M., and

Casper, Wyo.
Information about the GEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 24 and Aug.

31. The agency is accepting written comments on the scope of the GEIS. The deadline for

comments has been extended to Oct. 8. Comments should be addressed to Chief, Rules Review

and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C., 20555-0001; or by electronic mail to URLGeis@nrc.gov.

###

NRC 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1756 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1756

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the abatement of 
 interest on erroneous refund checks without regard to the size of the 
                                refund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2003

    Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
 Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Millender-McDonald, 
   Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Kind, Mr. 
Dooley of California, Mr. Moore, Mr. Olver, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Honda, Mr. 
   Crowley, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. 
   Holden, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. 
   Hobson) 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 require the abatement of 
 interest on erroneous refund checks without regard to the size of the 
                                refund.

    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 ``Erroneous Tax Refund Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. ABATEMENT OF INTEREST.

    (a) Abatement of Interest With Respect to Erroneous Refund Check 
Without Regard to Size of Refund.--Paragraph (2) of section 6404(e) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``unless--'' 
and all that follows and inserting ``unless the taxpayer (or a related 
party) has in any way caused such erroneous refund. Notwithstanding the 
preceding sentence, the Secretary is authorized in his discretion not 
to abate all or any part of such interest if the Secretary establishes 
that the taxpayer received notice of the erroneous refund before the 
date of demand and the taxpayer did not attempt to resolve the issue 
with the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days after receipt of such 
notice.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to interest accruing on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### §§ 2416.152-2416.159 [Reserved]
§ 293.101 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart sets forth basic policies governing the creation, development, maintenance, processing, use, dissemination, and safeguarding of personnel records which the Office of Personnel Management requires agencies to maintain in the personnel management or personnel policy setting process.
( b ) Agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government are subject to specific Office of Personnel Management recordkeeping requirements to varying degrees, pursuant to statute, Office regulation, or formal agreements between the Office and agencies. This subpart applies to any department or independent establishment in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, including a government corporation or Government controlled corporation, except those specifically excluded from Office recordkeeping requirements by statute, Office regulation, or formal agreement between the Office and that agency.
B.C.D. 01-46

Employer Status Determination

Fillmore Western Railway Company

JUN 0 4 2001

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the continuing status of Fillmore Western Railway Company (FWRC)

(B.A. No. 3670) as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45

U.S.C. § 231, et seep) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance

Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et seep) (RUIA). FWRC was ruled to be an

employer under the Acts effective November 27, 1996.

In a letter dated February 19, 2001, Mr. Wayne Meyer stated that

FWRC had ceased operations and officially abandoned its rail lines on 

January 22, 1999. Mr. Meyer indicated that employees were last

compensated on October 23, 1998; the track of FWRC has been

dismantled and sold; and the land is in the process of being sold.

Mr. Meyer also stated that, although FWRC has not been formally

dissolved, it can no longer be considered part of the railroad industry as

it lacks the capacity to conduct rail operations.

Based on the above information, it is the determination of the Board

that Fillmore Western Railway Company ceased to be an employer

under the RRA and RUIA on January 22, 1999, the date upon which it

ceased operations.

Cherry/T. Thomas

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

i'jerome F. Kever

BA# 3670
#### § 293.308 Removal of temporary records from OPFs.

The employing agency having possession of an OPF shall remove temporary records from the OPF before it is transferred to another agency. For these and also for temporary records of their current employees, maintenance of the records shall be in accordance with General Records Schedule 1, promulgated by the General Services Administration.
###### Editorial Note on Part 352

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

#### § 352.802 Definitions.

For the purposes of this subpart:

*Act* refers to Taiwan Relations Act (Pub. L. 96-8).

*Competitive area* is the same as defined in § 351.402 of this title;

*Institute* means the American Institute in Taiwan.

*Specified period of service* shall be a period of not more than 6 years.
#### § 734.201 Exclusion from coverage.

This subpart does not apply to employees in the agencies and positions described in subpart D of this part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7509
DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusUNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-177-2) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommen dation and granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which he alleged that the United States Drug Enforcement Agency violated his due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fleming v. United States , No. CA-94-177-2 (M.D.N.C. July 24, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1643

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 

teachers and principals who work in certain low income schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2003

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (for herself, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. SANDLIN, Ms. 

MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. 

CASE, Mr. FROST, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. HAYES, Mr. 

SOUDER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BERRY, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, 

Mr. SIMMONS, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. GREENWOOD, 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode 

Island, Mr. MOORE, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. UDALL of New 

Mexico, Mr. ETHERIDGE, and Mr. EHLERS) 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 provide 

a tax credit for teachers and principals who work in 

certain low income schools.

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 ‘‘Teacher Tax Credit 

5 Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 1643 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR EDUCATORS IN CERTAIN ELEMENTARY 

2 OR SECONDARY SCHOOLS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub4 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

5 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 

6 amended by inserting after section 25B the following new 

7 section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 25C. EDUCATORS IN CERTAIN ELEMENTARY AND 

9 SECONDARY SCHOOLS. 

10 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an eli11 gible educator, there shall be allowed as a credit against 

12 the tax imposed by this chapter for a taxable year an 

13 amount equal to $2,000. 

14 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

15 ‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE EDUCATOR.—The term ‘eligible 

16 educator’ means, with respect to any taxable year, 

17 an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 

18 12 teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide 

19 in an eligible elementary or secondary school for at 

20 least 900 hours during a school year. 

21 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY

22 SCHOOL.—The term ‘eligible elementary or sec23 ondary school’ means any school that is eligible for 

24 schoolwide assistance under part A of title I of the 

25 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
3

•HR 1643 IH 

1 (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2 2001 (Public Law 107–110)).’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

5 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relat6 ing to section 25B the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 25C. Educators in certain elementary and secondary 

schools.’’.

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

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 December 31, 2002.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 352

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

#### § 352.401 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 6(b) of the International Atomic Energy Agency Participation Act of 1957 and Executive Order 10774 as amended by Executive Order 10804 to protect the civil service rights and privileges, wherever appropriate, of Presidential appointees and elected officers who leave their positions and within 90 days enter employment with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
472 P.2d 384

#### E. H. WILLIAMS, Jr., District Attorney of the Third Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Richard A. STANLEY, District Judge of the Third Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, and The Honorable Kenneth Gilmore, Magistrate, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Respondents.

No. 9101.

*Supreme*Court of New Mexico.

July 28, 1970.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and TACK-ETT, WATSON, SISK and McKENNA, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that petition for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
# L_2015230EN.01005001.xml

| 3.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/50

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 242/2014

of 24 October 2014

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2015/1466]

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 538/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 538/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point 27c (Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| 1. | The following is added:

  ‘, as amended by:






  — | 32014 R 0538: Regulation (EU) No 538/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 113).’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The following is added:

‘, as amended by:

—

32014 R 0538: Regulation (EU) No 538/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 113).’

| 2. | Adaptations (a) and (b) are renumbered as adaptations (b) and (c), respectively. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Adaptations (a) and (b) are renumbered as adaptations (b) and (c), respectively.

| 3. | The following adaptation is inserted:






  ‘(a) | In Article 8(2), the words “17 September 2014” are replaced by the words “3 months after the entry into force of EEA Joint Committee Decision No 242/2014 of 24 October 2014” as regards the EFTA States.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The following adaptation is inserted:

‘(a)

In Article 8(2), the words “17 September 2014” are replaced by the words “3 months after the entry into force of EEA Joint Committee Decision No 242/2014 of 24 October 2014” as regards the EFTA States.’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) No 538/2014 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 1 November 2014, 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, 24 October 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 113.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### Kevin McKENZIE a/k/a Keith Barrett *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 03-775

146 S.W.3d 892

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 12, 2004

*Charles E. Waldman,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

The procedural background of this matter is set out in *McKenzie v. State,*355 Ark. 259, 134 S.W.3d. 5 (2003) *(per curiam).*Mr. Charles E. Waldman appeared before this court on January 15, 2004, to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the terms of our previous *per curiam*orders. Mr. Waldman, represented by Mr. JefFRosenzweig, denied that he should be held in contempt for noncompliance with our orders.

*123Given the circumstances of this case, we hereby appoint a special master, The Honorable John Cole, to conduct a hearing on the matter. Upon receipt of the master’s findings, we will render a decision on the matter.