alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.11 How will Commerce entities use tax refund offset to collect a Commerce debt? ( a ) *Tax refund offset.* In most cases, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service uses the Treasury Offset Program to collect Commerce debts by the offset of tax refunds and other Federal payments. *See* § 19.9(c) of this part. If not already transferred to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service under § 19.9 of this part, Commerce entities will refer to the Treasury Offset Program any past-due, legally enforceable Commerce debt for collection by tax refund offset. *See* 26 U.S.C. 6402(d), 31 U.S.C. 3720A and 31 CFR 285.2.
( b ) *Notice.* At least sixty (60) days prior to referring a Commerce debt to the Treasury Offset Program, Commerce entities will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 19.4 of this part. Commerce entities will certify to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Treasury Offset Program, in writing, that the Commerce debt is past due and legally enforceable in the amount submitted and that the Commerce entities have made reasonable efforts to obtain payment of the Commerce debt as described in 31 CFR 285.2(d). In addition, Commerce entities will certify their compliance with all applicable due process and other requirements described in this part and other Federal laws. *See* 31 U.S.C. 3720A(b) and 31 CFR 285.2.
( c ) *Administrative review.* The notice described in § 19.4 of this part shall provide the debtor with at least 60 days prior to the initiation of tax refund offset to request an administrative review as described in § 19.10(c) of this part. Commerce entities may suspend collection through tax refund offset and/or other collection actions pending the resolution of the debtor's dispute.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. (the 'Company"), hereby
certify, that to the best of my knowledge, the financial statements on
Form 10QSB of the Company for the nine months ended September 30, 2003
and 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/Alan R. Woinski,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 950.505 Sanctions compliance certification.

Each federation, federation member and independent organization applying for participation in the CFC must, as a condition of participation, complete a certification that it is in compliance with all statutes, Executive orders, and regulations restricting or prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in transactions and dealings with countries, entities or individuals subject to economic sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Should any change in circumstances pertaining to this certification occur at any time, the organization must notify OPM's Office of CFC immediately. OPM will take such steps as it deems appropriate under the circumstances, including, but not limited to, notifying OFAC and/or other enforcement authorities of such change, suspending disbursement of CFC funds not yet disbursed, retracting (to the extent practicable) CFC funds already disbursed, and suspending or expelling the organization from the CFC.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65555-65556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Chapter I

[USCG-2004-19615]


Exclusion Zones for Marine LNG Spills

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for public comments; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register 
on November 3, 2004, requesting comments on a petition for rulemaking 
from the City of Fall River. That document contained an incorrect 
docket number for the submission of comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
please call Commander John Cushing at 202-267-1043, or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105a53656378797e7750737f7d74643e656373773e7d797c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86ccc5f3f5eeefe8e1c6e5e9ebe2f2a8f3f5e5e1a8ebefea">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, please call Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-0271.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 3, 2004, in FR Doc. 04-24454, 
on page

[[Page 65556]]

63979, the docket number is incorrect. The docket number is corrected 
to read (USCG-2004-19615) each place that it appears.

    Dated: November 8, 2004.
David L. Nichols,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Regulations, and 
Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 04-25254 Filed 11-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 1500.3 Board.

*Board* means the “Concrete Masonry Products Board” established under § 1500.40 of this Order.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 3752

_____________________________
R OBERT J AMES P OOLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. August 2, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6285
MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-6350
MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:02-cv-00575) Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007- 2 - Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. - 3 - PER CURIAM: Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) proceeding and the order denying the first Rule 60(b) motion. *The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keselica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and- 4 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 894.309 I am a TEI-D or TEI-V. Am I eligible to enroll in FEDVIP, and cover my TEI family members? ( a ) *FEDVIP dental plan.* ( 1 ) A *sponsor* who is a *TEI-D* is eligible to enroll and cover *TEI-D family members* under the enrollment.
( 2 ) A *sponsor* who is a *TEI-D* but who does not enroll even though eligible, is not an *enrollee* and cannot enroll or cover *TEI family members.*
( 3 ) A *TEI certifying family member* who is a *TEI-D* is eligible to enroll and to cover *TEI-D family members* under the enrollment when: ( i ) The *sponsor* is not a *TEI-D;*
( ii ) The *sponsor* is deceased; or
( iii ) The *sponsor* is a *TEI-D* described at § 894.804(b)(1) or (2) who does not enroll (therefore is not an *enrollee* and cannot cover *TEI family members*) and the *sponsor:* ( A ) Receives dental services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA);
( B ) Has employer-sponsored dental coverage without a family coverage option; or
( C ) Has a medical or dental condition that prevents him or her from obtaining dental benefits.
( b ) *FEDVIP vision plan.* ( 1 ) A *sponsor* who is a *TEI-V* is eligible to enroll and cover *TEI-V family members.*
( 2 ) A *TEI certifying family member* who is a *TEI-V* is eligible to enroll and cover *TEI-V family members* under the enrollment when: ( i ) The *sponsor* is not a *TEI-V;* or
( ii ) The *sponsor* is deceased.
( 3 ) A *TEI former spouse* is eligible to enroll for self only, but may not elect a self plus one or self and family *type of enrollment* and may not cover *family members,* even if they are *TEI family members.*
[83 FR 58178, Nov. 19, 2018]
CLEANING UP IN AZERBAIJAN

----
Board Coverage Decision

1995-11

The Great Western Railway Company of Iowa, Limited Liability

Company

Name Change - Effective July 1, 1994

Great Western Railway Company of Iowa, Inc.

has changed its name to

The Great Western Railway Company of Iowa, Limited Liability

Company

No Decision Published

BA # 3779
### [§411k. Renumbered §481k]
LICENSING BOARD TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT NOV. 30 IN PORTSMOUTH, 

N.H., ON SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL 

An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hear oral argument on requests for a 

hearing in the Seabrook nuclear power plant license renewal proceeding on Nov. 30 in 

Portsmouth, N.H. The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings 

where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions. 

Oral arguments will begin at 9 a.m. EST on Tuesday, Nov. 30, in the Levenson 

Community Room of the Portsmouth Library, 175 Parrott Lane in Portsmouth. The session is 

expected to conclude in the early afternoon. The session is open for public observation, but 

participation will be limited to the parties to the proceeding (several public interest groups, the 

applicant – NextEra Energy Seabrook – and NRC staff involved in the proceeding). Early arrival 

is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. 

NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room. 

NextEra submitted a license renewal application June 1, seeking permission to renew 

Seabrook’s operating license for an additional 20 years. The ASLB is considering whether to 

grant intervenor status in the proceeding to two sets of public interest groups: Beyond Nuclear, 

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the New Hampshire Sierra Club; and Friends of the Coast – 

Opposing Nuclear Proliferation and the New England Coalition. The groups have submitted 

several objections, or contentions, against NextEra’s application. The ASLB will hear oral 

argument on several points, including whether the groups satisfy requirements for participating 

in a hearing and whether the groups’ contentions are admissible under the NRC’s regulations. 

Documents related to the Seabrook license renewal application are available on the NRC 

website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/seabrook.html. 

Documents pertaining to the ASLB proceeding are available in the agency’s electronic hearing 

docket at: http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD. 

More information about the ASLB can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html. 

### 

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand. 

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.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-206 November 10, 2010
# L_2020068EN.01005901.xml

| 5.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 68/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/59

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 307/2019

of 13 December 2019

amending Annex IX (Financial Services) to the EEA Agreement [2020/325]

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 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1619 of 12 July 2018 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/438 as regards safe-keeping duties of depositaries (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1619 of 12 July 2018 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/438 as regards safe-keeping duties of depositaries (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 30g (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/438) of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32018 R 1619: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1619 of 12 July 2018 (OJ L 271, 30.10.2018, p. 6).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32018 R 1619: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1619 of 12 July 2018 (OJ L 271, 30.10.2018, p. 6).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1619 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 14 December 2019, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 63/2018 of 23 March 2018 (2), whichever is the later.

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, 13 December 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gunnar PÁLSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 271, 30.10.2018, p. 6.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  
  OJ L 26, 30.1.2020, p. 58.

2

---
```

CAPITAL MARKETS UPDATE
by Paul J. Norton

Share registration has been one of the most critical bottlenecks in the development
of Russian equity markets.  Recently, a $10 million share registry project was
launched with equity participation by the Bank of New York, the  International
Finance Corporation (IFC), and the  European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD).  The new registry, under a technical services agreement with
the Bank of New York, will provide large Russian enterprises with an independent
share registry which meets the requirements of both local and international
investors.  The Russian registry company will be based in Moscow and is expected
to establish branches in 15-20 key locations nationwide. 

A joint-venture company will manage the registry.  Two Russian companies, Nikoil
and United Export Import Bank, will invest $2 million and together will hold a 40
percent stake.  The Bank of New York will be the principal shareholder with a $3
million investment, and will provide management and technical support. The IFC
will make a $1.5 million equity investment for the project, and the EBRD will invest
another $1.5 million.  Also participating is the Russian Federal Commission for
Securities and Capital Markets.  The U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) is providing technical assistance support. 

In a related matter, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently
opened the door for more U.S. investors to participate in Russian securities
markets.  The SEC has allowed Franklin Resources Inc. to launch a $300 million
Templeton Russia Fund.  In response to Franklin Resources' request to establish
the fund, the SEC issued a "no-action letter,  which states that the procedures to
be employed by the fund and Chase Manhattan Bank, its custodian, will provide
reasonable protection against the risks of loss present in the Russian securities
market.  The decision has the effect of allowing U.S. mutual funds to invest freely
in certain Russian stocks.  

Because of the stock custody and registration problems in Russia, U.S. mutual
funds had been prohibited from launching funds for Russia.  The Templeton fund,
and any other funds, must invest in companies listed with registrars that have
contracts with Chase Manhattan or other eligible custodians.  While there are no
guarantees against loss, this arrangement provides better security against stock
and registry manipulation. 

Representatives of leading Russian and Western financial institutions will discuss
Russia's capital markets July 26-27 conference in New York.  The Depository
Clearing Company, Troika Dialog Investment Company, Rinaco Plus, the Paine
Webber Russia Partners Fund, the Bank of New York and other participants in
Russian securities markets will explore current issues at Emerging Capital Markets
in Russia: Mid-Year Update, sponsored by the Geonomics Institute.  Officials of the
Russian Federal Commission on Securities and the Stock Market, the Templeton
Russia Fund, and other organizations have also been invited.   For more information
on Russian capital markets, contact BISNIS at (202) 482- 4655.
```
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-09-0114 - Section 274b Agreement with State of New Jersey

Accession Number: ML091940200

Date Released: Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML091940381 - SECY-09-0114 - Section 274b Agreement with State of New Jersey (8 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091940395 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 1 - Proposed Agreement Between the NRC and the State of New Jersey (5 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091950400 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 2 - Staff Analysis of Public Comments (13 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091940410 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 3 - NRC Staff Assessment of the New Jersey Program (20 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091950447 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 4 - P. Baldauf Ltr. and NRC Response re:  Section 274b Agreement with the State of New Jersey (4 page(s), 5/26/2009)
    - ML091940441 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 5 - NARM Waiver Expiration (4 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091940448 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 6 - Milestone Schedule (2 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091940449 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 7 - Draft Letter from Chairman to Governor (2 page(s), 8/18/2009)
    - ML091940454 - SECY-09-0114 - Enclosure 8 - Draft Federal Register Notice of Agreement Signing (8 page(s), 8/18/2009)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### William L. Taub, Respondent, v. Yolanda Montez, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ.
§ 870.105 Initial decision and reconsideration. ( a ) An individual may ask his or her agency or retirement system to reconsider its initial decision denying: ( 1 ) Life insurance coverage;
( 2 ) The opportunity to change coverage;
( 3 ) The opportunity to designate a beneficiary; or
( 4 ) The opportunity to assign insurance.
( b ) An employing office's decision is an initial decision when the employing office gives it in writing and informs the individual of the right to an independent level of review (reconsideration) by the appropriate agency or retirement system.
( c ) A request for reconsideration must be made in writing and must include the following: ( 1 ) The employee's (or annuitant's) name, address, date of birth;
( 2 ) The reason(s) for the request; and
( 3 ) The retirement claim number (Civil Service Annuity Claim Number) or compensation number, if applicable.
( d ) A request for reconsideration must be made within 31 calendar days from the date of the initial decision (60 calendar days if overseas). This time limit may be extended when the individual shows that he or she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it or that he or she was unable, due to reasons beyond the individual's control, to make the request within the time limit.
( e ) The reconsideration must take place at or above the level at which the initial decision was made.
( f ) After reconsideration, the agency or retirement system must issue a final decision to the insured individual. This decision must be in writing and must fully state the findings.
[75 FR 60576, Oct. 1, 2010]
#### § 841.307 Final decisions without reconsideration.

OPM may issue a final decision providing the opportunity to appeal under § 841.308 rather than an opportunity to request reconsideration under § 841.306. Such a decision must be in writing and state the right to appeal under § 841.308.
§ 630.309 Time limit for use of restored annual leave—extended exigency of the public business. ( a ) Annual leave restored under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(1)(B) because of an extended exigency, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, must be scheduled and used within a time period that equals twice the number of full calendar years, or parts thereof, that the exigency existed. This time period begins at the beginning of the leave year following the leave year in which the exigency is declared to be ended.
( b ) An *extended exigency* means an exigency of such significance as to— ( 1 ) Threaten the national security, safety, or welfare;
( 2 ) Last more than 3 calendar years;
( 3 ) Affect a segment of an agency or occupational class; and
( 4 ) Preclude subsequent use of both restored and accrued annual leave within the time limit specified in § 630.306.
[50 FR 29937, July 23, 1985]