alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum

U n it e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t

April 6,2010

L-2010-02

FORM G-11M (142)

r a il r o a d R e t ir e m e n t B o a r d

TO Pauline Coleman-Sutton, Supervisory Analyst 

Through: Ronald Russo 

Director of Policy and Systems

FROM : Steven A. Bai 

General Cou

SUBJECT : Effective Date of Full Retirement Age in Disability Work 

Deduction Cases

This is in reply to an inquiry d ated March 8,2010, where you asked this 

office to analyze the effect of Full Retirement Age (FRA) on Disability Work 

Deductions cases, specifically, does FRA still control those cases w here the 

em ployee w as entitled to a disability annuity prior to the year 2000.

You stated that Legal Opinion 97-15 originally explained the effect of the 

increased FRA from 65 incrementally to a g e 67. L-97-15 provided our 

analysis of the changes m ade by P.L. 98-21 (also known as the Social 

Security Amendments of 1983) a t section 201. P.L. 98-21 m ad e the 

am endm ent increasing full retirement a g e effective in the year 2000. FRA 

increases gradually over several years based upon the year an individual 

attains early retirement ag e. You also property pointed out that Section 

5(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act provides that individuals receiving 

disability annuities under sections 2(a)(l)(iv) an d 2(a)(1)(v) shall be 

d ee m ed to have applied for full a g e annuities to begin with the month he 

hr she attained full retirement ag e.

Our analysis in L-97-15 concluded that as full retirement a g e advances 

beyond a g e 65, employees initially aw arded disability annuities will 

continue to receive disability annuities beyond the month they attain a g e 

65 until the month they reach their own personal FRA. An individual's d a te 

of birth is the determining factor for any c h a n g e in an annuitant's status
from disability annuity to a g e and service annuity.

Your inquiry is based on the effective d a te of the ch an g e m ade by R.L. 

98-21. Since that change was effective beginning in 2000, you ask 

whether it only applies where entitlement to a disability annuity begins 

after the effective date. In this regard, you mention Social Security 

Administration's (SSA) Program Operation Manual System (POMS) section 

RS 00605.530 which differentiates PIA DIB recomputations betw een 

employees who were entitled before year 2000 and after year 2000.

Based on your review of the law, we continue to agree with the advice 

provided in L-97-15. We do not see any basis for not applying the 

increased FRA to cases where disability entitlement began before the 

effective d a te of section 201 of P.L. 98-21.

J:\OPINIONS\FRA For DIB Prior2000.10.Djb.Doc 

DJBartnicki:djb:scm
### SUBCHAPTER V—SPACE OPERATIONS
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Lancaster Northern Railway

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board 

regarding the status of Lancaster Northern Railway (LANO) as an

employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231 et sea.)

(RRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et

sea. ) (RUIA) . LANO has not previously been determined to be an

employer under the RRA and the RUIA.

Information about LANO was furnished by Mr. John C. Nolan, Chief

Executive Officer of LANO. According to information provided by

Mr. Nolan, LANO began operations on November 1, 1995, and has two

employees who were compensated from March 1, 1996. Mr. Nolan

stated that the railroad operates over 12 miles of track between 

Sinking Springs, Pennsylvania and Ephrata, Pennsylvania and

interchanges with Conrail. The Interstate Commerce Commission

approved the operation of this railroad. The annual volume of

traffic is 600 carloads for which LANO provides local switching 

service.

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 States 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

* * * e

Section 1(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§ 351(a)) provides a substantially identical definition.

BCD 1996-64

BA# 2368
2

Lancaster Northern Railway

The evidence establishes that LANO is a carrier by railroad.

Accordingly, it is determined that Lancaster Northern Railway 

became a rail carrier employer under the Railroad Retirement and

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts effective March 1, 1996, the

date on which it first compensated employees.

Glen L. Bower
§ 231.105 Joint research. ( a ) *Joint research* means any research and development activity that is jointly undertaken by two or more parties, including any research and development activities undertaken as part of a joint venture as defined at 15 U.S.C. 4301(a)(6).
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the following is not joint research: ( 1 ) A standards-related activity (as such term is defined in 15 CFR part 772);
( 2 ) Research and development conducted exclusively between and among employees of a covered entity or between and among entities that are related entities to the covered entity;
( 3 ) Research, development, or engineering related to a manufacturing process for an existing product solely to enable use of foundry, assembly, test, or packaging services for integrated circuits;
( 4 ) Research, development, or engineering involving two or more entities to establish or apply a drawing, design, or related specification for a product to be purchased and sold between or among such entities; and
( 5 ) Warranty, service, and customer support performed by a covered entity or an entity that is a related entity of a covered entity.
### **CHAPTER 17—FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE**
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 343 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 343

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2011

  Mr. Matheson (for himself, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Peters, Mr. Austria, Mr. 
  Coble, Mr. Quigley, and Ms. Kaptur) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) of such 
Act is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on December 31, 
2012.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 280.203 Administrative enforcement proceedings.

Sections 280.204 through 280.222 set forth the procedures for imposing administrative penalties for violations of the Act and this part.

[65 FR 39802, June 28, 2000]
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2299

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

John Edward Clark, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 1998

 Filed: December 15, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, MAGILL, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Edward Clark appeals the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw 1

his guilty plea and the sentence imposed by the district court. Clark pled guilty to one

count of possession of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 231 months in prison. After

careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 930.90 Objectives.

The provisions of this subpart are intended to ensure that federal assistance to applicant agencies for activities affecting any coastal use or resource is granted only when such activities are consistent with approved management programs. The provisions of subpart I of this part are intended to supplement the provisions of this subpart for federal assistance activities having interstate coastal effects.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2313

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an additional advance 

refunding of tax-exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance 

of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2003

Mr. SPRATT 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 allow an 

additional advance refunding of tax-exempt bonds issued 

for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, 

transmission, or distribution assets.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL ADVANCE REFUNDING OF ELEC4 TRICITY BONDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 149 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance 

7 refunding) is amended by redesignating paragraph (7) as 
2

•HR 2313 IH 

1 paragraph (8) and by inserting after paragraph (7) the 

2 following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(7) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN ELECTRICITY

4 BONDS.—

5 ‘‘(A) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a 

6 bond described in subparagraph (B), one addi7 tional advance refunding after the date of the 

8 enactment of this paragraph shall be allowed 

9 under paragraph (3)(A)(i) if the requirements 

10 of subparagraph (C) are met. 

11 ‘‘(B) BOND DESCRIBED.—A bond is de12 scribed in this subparagraph if such bond is 

13 issued as part of an issue the net proceeds of 

14 which are used to finance the costs of electric 

15 generation, transmission, or distribution assets 

16 owned by the issuer or by a consortium of State 

17 or local governments which includes the issuer 

18 and which jointly own such assets. 

19 ‘‘(C) REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements 

20 of this subparagraph are met with respect to 

21 any advance refunding of a bond described in 

22 subparagraph (B) if—

23 ‘‘(i) no advance refundings of such 

24 bond would be allowed under any provision 
3

•HR 2313 IH 

1 of law after the date of the enactment of 

2 this paragraph, 

3 ‘‘(ii) the advance refunding bond is 

4 the only other outstanding bond with re5 spect to the refunded bond, and 

6 ‘‘(iii) the requirements of section 148 

7 are met with respect to all bonds issued 

8 under this subsection. 

9 ‘‘(D) INAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN

10 BONDS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply 

11 with respect to a bond described in section 

12 1400L(e).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) shall apply to advance refunding bonds 

15 issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 Supplemental Financial Schedule II
 TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(amounts in thousands)
 Column A
    
    Column B
    
    
    Column C
    
    
    Column D
    
    
    Column EBalance
    
    
    Additions,Beginning
    
    
    Costs, and
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Balance EndDescription
    
    of Year
    
    
    Expenses
    
    
    Deductions
    
    
    of YearYear ended December 31, 2005Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    690
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    $
    (700
    )
    
    $
    233Year ended December 31, 2004Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    393
    
    
    $
    556
    
    
    $
    (259
    )
    
    $
    690Year ended December 31, 2003Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    361
    
    
    $
    357
    
    
    $
    (325
    )
    
    $
    393
No. I-13-023 May 8, 2013

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

NRC Issues Draft Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Report

on Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a draft supplement to an earlier environmental 

impact assessment prepared by the agency on a license renewal application for the Seabrook nuclear power 

plant.

Public comments are currently being accepted on the draft supplement, which does not alter the NRC 

preliminary recommendation contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) released in 

August 2011. In that report, which is a plant-specific supplement to the NRC’s Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, the agency stated that the adverse environmental 

impacts of a 20-year extension for the Seabrook, N.H. plant were not great enough to deny the option of 

license renewal. The recommendation is based on, among other things, the NRC’s environmental review; the 

environmental study submitted by the plant’s owner, NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC; consultation with 

federal, state and local agencies; and consideration of public comments.

The supplement to the DSEIS incorporates new information obtained by the NRC staff since the 

report was published. It includes the NRC staff evaluation of revised information provided by NextEra 

pertaining to the severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis for Seabrook. In addition, the supplement 

updates the uranium fuel cycle section in the DSEIS in light of a June 8, 2012 federal court decision vacating 

the agency’s Waste Confidence Decision Rule, and it provides information on an analysis of new National 

Environmental Policy Act issues and associated environmental impact findings for license renewal.

A copy of the draft supplement can be found in the NRC’s ADAMS electronic documents system via 

the agency’s website. The accession number for the document is ML13113A174. It will also be available at 

the Seabrook Library, at 25 Liberty St. in Seabrook and the Amesbury Public Library, at 149 Main St. in 

Amesbury, Mass.

The comment period on the draft supplement will conclude on June 30, 2013.

NextEra submitted the license renewal application for Seabrook on May 25, 2010. The NRC has 

made it clear that a final decision on the license renewal application will not be issued until concrete 

degradation issues identified at the plant are satisfactorily addressed.
### §2106. Reporting information believed to constitute evidence of offense

A person may not file a protest against the award or proposed award of a Federal agency procurement contract alleging a violation of section 2102, 2103, or 2104 of this title, and the Comptroller General may not consider that allegation in deciding a protest, unless the person, no later than 14 days after the person first discovered the possible violation, reported to the Federal agency responsible for the procurement the information that the person believed constitutes evidence of the offense.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3731.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2106 | 41:423(g). | Pub. L. 93–400, §27(g), as added Pub. L. 100–679, §6(a), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4063; Pub. L. 101–189, title VIII, §814(a)–(d)(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1495; Pub. L. 101–510, title XIV, §1484(l)(6), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1720; Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, §705(i), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 121; Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8301(e), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3397; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLIII, §4304(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 663. |

Section
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2567

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, as the ‘‘Paul Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2003

Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. FILNER, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. 

WATERS, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. SNYDER, and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Paul Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2567 IH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, 

3 MINNESOTA, AS THE PAUL WELLSTONE DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL 

5 CENTER. 

6 The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

7 located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, shall after the date of 

8 the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 

9 ‘‘Paul Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

10 Center’’. Any reference to such medical center in any law, 

11 regulation, map, document, or other paper of the United 

12 States shall be considered to be a reference to the Paul 

13 Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Æ
### SUBCHAPTER V—SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Exhibit
10.46


2007


AMPHENOL
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


I.                                         Purpose


The purpose of the Plan is to reward eligible key employees of Amphenol
Corporation and affiliated operations with cash bonus payments based on
contributions to overall results and specific accomplishments.


II.                                     Eligibility


Key management personnel and target bonuses are as recommended by the
Chairman and CEO. Generally, participation includes senior management
positions, corporate staff managers, general managers and their designated
direct reports. Participation, target bonuses and bonus payments are as
approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


III.                                 Plan Components


There are several key performance factors that are considered by
executive management and the Compensation Committee in arriving at bonus
recommendations and payments. These factors include, but are not limited to,
the following:


·                  Year-over-Year
Improvement


·                  Accomplishments
against Budget


·                  Balance
Sheet Management


·                  New
Market/New Product Positioning


·                  Unit
and Group Contribution to Total Amphenol Performance


·                  Overall
Amphenol Performance


·                  Customer
satisfaction, cost reductions and productivity improvement and quality
management


Financial performance for each unit is measured by revenues, operating
income, cash flow and ROI. Financial performance for total Group and Amphenol
includes these same factors and EPS.


IV.                                 Administration


·                  Payments
are based upon average base salary during the Plan year (new hires will be
prorated accordingly if hired after February 1st of
the plan year).


·                  The
maximum allowable payout under the Plan is 2x the target bonus as applied to
average base salary.


·                  To
be eligible for the bonus payment, a participant must be an active employee on
the payroll at the time when the bonus payment is issued. Exceptions must be
recommended by the Chairman and CEO and be approved by the Compensation
Committee.











·                  Payments
are made during the first 90 calendar days following the Plan year. All
payments are subject to the recommendation of the Chairman and CEO and the
approval of the Compensation Committee.