alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 838.912 Specifying an award of a former spouse survivor annuity. ( a ) To satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(2), a court order must specify that it is awarding a former spouse survivor annuity. The court order must contain language such as “survivor annuity,” “death benefits,” “former spouse survivor annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8341(h)(1),” etc.
( b ) ( 1 ) A court order that provides that the former spouse is to “continue as” or “be named as” the beneficiary of CSRS survivor benefits or similar language satisfies the requirements of § 838.804(b)(2).
( 2 ) A court order that requires an employee or retiree to maintain survivor benefits covering the former spouse satisfies the requirements of § 838.804(b)(2), if the former spouse was covered by a CSRS or FERS survivor annuity or the FERS basic employee death benefit as defined in § 843.102 of this chapter at the time of the divorce.
( c ) Two types of potential survivor annuities may be provided by retiring employees to cover former spouses. Under CSRS, section 8341(h) of title 5, United States Code, provides for “former spouse survivor annuities” and section 8339(k) of title 5, United States Code, provides for “insurable interest annuities.” These are distinct benefits, each with its own advantages. The corresponding FERS provisions are sections 8445 and 8444, respectively. ( 1 ) OPM will enforce court orders to provide section 8341(h) or section 8445 annuities. These annuities are less expensive and have fewer restrictions than insurable interest annuities but the former spouse's interest will automatically terminate upon remarriage before age 55. To provide a section 8341(h) or section 8445 annuity, the court order must use terms such as “former spouse survivor annuity,” “section 8341(h) annuity,” or “survivor annuity.”
( 2 ) OPM cannot enforce court orders to provide “insurable interest annuities” under section 8339(k) or section 8444. These annuities may only be elected at the time of retirement by a retiring employee who is not retiring under the disability provision of the law and who is in good health. The retirees may also elect to cancel the insurable interest annuity to provide a survivor annuity for a spouse acquired after retirement. The parties might seek to provide this type of annuity interest if the nonemployee spouse expects to remarry before age 55, if the employee expects to remarry a younger second spouse before retirement or if another former spouse has already been awarded a section 8341(h) annuity. However, the court will have to provide its own remedy if the employee is not eligible for or does not make the election. OPM cannot enforce the court order. Language including the words “insurable interest” or referring to section 8339(k) or section 8444 does not satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(2).
( 3 ) In court orders which contain internal contradictions about the type of annuity, such as “insurable interest annuity under section 8341(h),” the section reference will control.
[57 FR 33574, July 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 43493, Aug. 17, 1993]
FILED

October 2, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION

AT NASHVILLE

MICHAEL SCOTT EVANS, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9511-JV-00508

v. )

) Davidson Juvenile

KAREN MARIE BISSON STEELMAN, ) No. 9419-13267

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I fully concur in Judge Cantrell's opinion. I have read

with much interest Judge Koch's dissenting opinion. The matters

set forth in the dissenting opinion might make good public policy,

but the setting of public policy is not a matter for this court or

any court in Tennessee. 

"[It is generally recognized that the public policy

of a State is to be found in its Constitution and

statutes, and] only in the absence of any

declaration in [Constitution and statutes] may

[public policy] be determined from judicial

decisions. [In order to ascertain the public

policy of a State in respect to any matter, the

acts of the legislative department should be looked

to, because a legislative act, if constitutional,

declares in terms the policy of the State, and is

final so far as the courts are concerned.] All

questions of policy are for the legislature, and

not for the courts . . . [Hence the courts are not

at liberty to declare a law void as in violation of

public policy.] Where courts intrude into their

decrees their opinion on questions of public

policy, they in effect constitute the judicial

tribunal as law making bodies in usurpation of the

powers of the legislature." 

Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 902-03 (Tenn.

1992)(quoting Cavender v. Hewitt, 145 Tenn. 471, 475-76, 239 S.W.

767, 768 (1921))(alterations in original).

 "This court can know nothing of public policy

except from the Constitution and the laws, and the

course of administration and decision. It has no

legislative powers. It cannot amend or modify any

legislative acts. It cannot examine questions as

expedient or inexpedient, as politic or impolitic.

Considerations of that sort must, in general, be
addressed to the Legislature. Questions of policy

determined there are concluded here.["]

 "There are cases, it is true, in which arguments

drawn from public policy must have large influence;

but these are cases in which the course of

legislation and administration does not leave any

doubt upon the question what the public policy is,

and in which what would otherwise be obscure or a

doubtful interpretation, may be cleared and

resolved by reference to what is already received

and established.["]

Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Lawson, 144 Tenn. 78, 91, 229 S.W.

741, 744 (Tenn. 1921)(quoting License Tax Case, 5 Wall. 462, 469,

18 L. Ed. 497, 500 (1867)).

The statue in this case is clear and constitutional.

Therefore, I concur in Judge Cantrell's well-reasoned opinion.

________________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, J.
## NUMBER S 13

- 2 2

- 00 160

- CR & 13

- 2 2

- 00161

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

JUAN PABLO RESENDIZ
, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 77 th District Court of Limestone County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Order Per Curiam

Th ese causes are before the Court on the court reporter ’ s fifth request for an

extension of time to file the record until October 21, 2022

. 1 The reporter ’ s record in th ese

matter s was originally due on May 2, 2022 . The court reporter ’ s fifth request for extension

1 This case is before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals by transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001

.2 states that :

In conjunction with attending a four

- county court schedule, I have been working solely on completing the records in connection with these two causes. However, completing the records is taking longer than anticipated. Currently, as of September 30, 2022, three of the four volumes are in m y proofreader ’ s possession being proofread while I am finishing the editing of the fourth volume. My court is expected to be in a criminal jury trial starting the week of October 3rd and a second criminal jury trial starting October 11th. I respectfully re quest one last extension in these causes. I expect to have the records completed by October 21, 2022.

The Court, having fully examined the court reporter ’ s fifth request for an extension

of time to file the record , is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, it should be granted

by this order.

The Court grants the court reporter ’ s fifth request for an extension of time to file

the record. However, t he Court looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by the reporter ’ s

failure to have previously fil ed the record in th ese matters

. The Court orders the court

reporter, Ellen Earles, t o file the reporter ’ s record in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on

October 21, 2022 . NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE

ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT. The f ailure of the court reporter to file the record by the

date and time set forth in this order shall result in the referral of this matter to the Court

and may result in the issuance of an order to show cause.

The Clerk of this Court is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Ellen Earles by

certified mail, return receipt requested.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of October, 2022.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-68,498-02, -03, A ND -04

EX P ARTE BIL LY EARL GREER, Applicant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 17CR20355A, 17CR20356A, A ND 18CR20520A IN THE 123RD DIST RICT COURT F ROM SHELB Y COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for wr i t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pled g uilty to two offe nses of fr aud and one offe nse of f org ery . Applicant conte nds that his tria l c ounsel provided ineffe ctive and that the State eng ag ed in misconduct. There is no response from trial counsel, and there are no finding s from the trial court. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the t rial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fac t. The trial court shall o b t ain a response2

from trial co u n s el reg arding Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance and it shall resolve Applicant’s pr osecutoria l misconduct issue. To do so, the trial cour t may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n the appropr iate case , the trial court may rely on its persona l rec ollection. Id

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it sha ll de termine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr es en t ed by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in r eg ard to A pplicant’s claims. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t an d co n cl u s i o n s of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this orde r. A supplemental transcr ipt c ontaining all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Jul y

24, 2019 Do not publish
§ 370.105 Written agreements. Before the detail begins, the agency and private sector organization must enter into a written agreement with the individual(s) detailed. The written agreement must be a three-party agreement between the Federal agency (agency head or designee), the individual (private sector or Federal), and the private sector organization. The written agreement must include, but is not limited to, the following elements: ( a ) The duties to be performed, duration, and terms under which extensions to the detail may be granted;
( b ) An individual development plan describing the core IT competencies and technical skills that the detailee will be expected to enhance or acquire;
( c ) Whether the individual will be supervised by a Federal or private sector employee; and a description of the supervision;
( d ) The requirement for Federal employees to return to their employing agency upon completion of the detail for a period equal to the length of the detail including any extensions; and
( e ) The obligations and responsibilities of all parties as described in 5 U.S.C. 3702 through 3704.
Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 9701
Editorial Note: At 73 FR 58435, Oct. 7, 2008, the application of subpart C to part 9701 was rescinded.

§ 9701.371 General. ( a ) Sections 9701.371 through 9701.374 describe the transitional provisions that apply when DHS employees are converted to a pay system established under this subpart. An affected employee may convert from the GS system, a prevailing rate system, the SL/ST system, or the SES system, as provided in § 9701.302. For the purpose of this section and §§ 9701.372 through 9701.374, the terms “convert,” “converted,” “converting,” and “conversion” refer to employees who become covered by the pay system without a change in position (as a result of a coverage determination made under § 9701.102(b)) and exclude employees who are reassigned or transferred from a noncovered position to a position already covered by the DHS system.
( b ) DHS will issue implementing directives prescribing the policies and procedures necessary to implement these transitional provisions.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Owensville Terminal Company, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board regarding the status of

Owensville Terminal Company, Inc. (OTCO) as an employer under the Railroad

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

Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et seq.HRUIA).

Information about OTCO was furnished by Mr. Jack F. Conser, Vice President of

Operations for OTCO. According to Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket

No. 32899, dated May 17, 1 996, OTCO, a non-carrier, acquired 11.2 miles of rail

branch line from Poseyville & Owensville Railroad Company, Inc. (P&O), extending

from milepost 271.0 in Poseyville to milepost 282.2 in Owensville. The transaction

was completed on or about April 19, 1996. Pursuant to an operating agreement

with Huron and Eastern Railway Company, Inc. (HERCMBA No. 3267), OTCO

commenced operations on May 3, 1996. Mr. Conser reports that OTCO has no

employees, but the line is operated one or two days per. week by two persons

compensated by HERC. Surface Transportation Board Docket No. 32899 further

states that HERC has agreed to provide labor and equipment as needed to operate

the line.

Section 1(a)(1) of the RRA defines the term "employer" to include:

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

Surface Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of title 49,

United Stated Code;

(ii) any company which is directly or indirectly owned or

controlled by, or under common control with one or more employers

as defined in paragraph (i) of this subdivision, and which operates any

equipment or facility or performs any service (except trucking service,

casual service, and the casual operation of equipment or facilities) in 

connection with the transportation of passengers or property by

railroad, or the receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit,

refrigeration or icing, storage, or handling of property transported by

railroad * * *. [45 U.S.C. §231 (a)(1 )(i) and (iii)].

Section 1 (a) of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. §351 (a)) contains essentially the same

definition.

BCD 1996-71
-2-

Owensville Terminal Company, Inc.

In the opinion of the majority, the evidence establishes that OTCO is currently not

an employer covered by the Acts, as it is not actually operating the branch rail line

it acquired from P&O. OTCO has no employees or equipment. Rather, the line is

operated pursuant to an agreement with HERC, a covered employer under the Acts

That employer reports the employee service rendered to OTCO to the Board. This

determination would be reevaluated if OTCO hires its own employees or if it begins

utilizing a non-employer under the Acts to perform railroad service.

Glen L. Bower

Jerome F. Kever
### §3483. Approval of courses

An eligible veteran shall receive the benefits of this chapter while enrolled in a course of education offered by an educational institution only if such course is approved in accordance with the provisions of subchapter I 1 of chapter 36 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 89–358, §2, Mar. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 19, §1685; renumbered §1686, Pub. L. 90–77, title III, §304(a), Aug. 31, 1967, 81 Stat. 186; renumbered §1683, Pub. L. 92–540, title IV, §401(7), Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1090; renumbered §3483, Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter I of chapter 36 of this title, referred to in text, was redesignated subchapter II (§3670 et seq.) of chapter 36 of this title by Pub. L. 117–333, §2(a)(1), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6122.

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83 renumbered section 1683 of this title as this section.

1 See References in Text note below.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25381]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
November 15, 2004:
    A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 2 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
November 16, 2004, will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: November 9, 2004.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-25381 Filed 11-10-04; 11:00 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
|                                                         |                | Exhibit 99(d)
|-------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------
|Household Finance Corporation                            |                |              
|Household Receivables Funding, Inc. III                  |                |              
|Household Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2002-1 |               
|                                                         |                |              
|                                                         |                |              
|Original Class A Principal                               | 507,111,000.00 |              
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                          | 507,111.00     |              
|Original Class B Principal                               | 52,889,000.00  |              
|Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                          | 52,889.00      |              
|                                                         |                |              
|                                                         |                |              
|Distribution Date                                        |                | 2003 Totals  
|                                                         |                |              
|CLASS A                                                  |                |              
|Class A Principal Distributions                          |                | 0.00         
|Class A Interest                                         |                | 6,984,743.10 
|                                                         |                |              
|                                                         |                |              
|CLASS B                                                  |                |              
|Class B Principal Distributions                          |                | 0.00         
|Class B Interest                                         |                | 1,006,550.44
### Other Periods of War

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–25, title III, §333(c)(1), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 88, substituted "Other Periods of War" for "Mexican Border Period, World War I, World War II, The Korean Conflict, and The Vietnam Era" as subheading.

1970—Pub. L. 91–588, §9(d)(3), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1585, inserted reference to Mexican border period in subheading.

1967—Pub. L. 90–77, title III, §202(j), Aug. 31, 1967, 81 Stat. 183, inserted reference to Vietnam era in subheading.