alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71055-71056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26990]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuance

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as 
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) 
and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of 
Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        License No.            Name/address          Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
018415N....................  Global Link      October 23, 2004.
                              Logistics,
                              Inc., 1990
                              Lakeside
                              Parkway, Suite
                              300, Tucker,
                              GA 30084.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 71056]]

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 04-26990 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
§ 1300.3 Functions. ( a ) MCC provides United States assistance for global development; and
( b ) Provides such assistance in a manner that promotes economic growth and the elimination of extreme poverty and strengthens good governance, economic freedom, and investments in people.
#### Lisa Jakuc, Respondent, v Markos Fokas, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 886]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered May 5, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

*996In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her expert failed to allege that the defendant’s actions were a departure from the requisite standard of care *(see Stancavage v Mirman,*309 AD2d 918 [2003]; *Prete v Rafla-Demetrious,*224 AD2d 674 [1996]). The plaintiffs expert also failed to address in any way the issue of informed consent *(see Stancavage v Mirman, supra; Astuto v Hogan,*219 AD2d 692 [1995]). Finally, in response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff offered no opposition *(see Clarke v Mikail,*238 AD2d 538 [1997]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted in its entirety. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
### §3143. Termination of work on failure to pay agreed wages

Every contract within the scope of this subchapter shall contain a provision that if the contracting officer finds that any laborer or mechanic employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly on the site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being paid a rate of wages less than the rate of wages required by the contract to be paid, the Federal Government by written notice to the contractor may terminate the contractor's right to proceed with the work or the part of the work as to which there has been a failure to pay the required wages. The Government may have the work completed, by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and the contractor's sureties shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs the Government incurs.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1151.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3143 | 40:276a–1. | Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 411, §2, 46 Stat. 1494; Aug. 30, 1935, ch. 825, 49 Stat. 1012. |

Section

The words "The Government may have the work completed" are substituted for "and to prosecute the work to completion . . . thereby" for clarity.
#### Sharome A. POWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FINK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-3867.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 2007.*

Decided July 20, 2007.

Sharome A. Powell, Waupun, WI, pro se.

Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Office of the Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, and Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Wisconsin inmate Sharome Powell sued several corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they used excessive force when they pushed his head into a shower door during a strip search. The evidence at trial showed that Powell was verbally abusive and physically aggressive during the strip search, and that the defendants pushed his head against the door in an effort to subdue him. Powell received a small cut above his eye in the process. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the officers’ use of force was not excessive under the circum*352stances, and the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

In this appeal Powell first asserts that he is entitled to a new trial or to judgment as a matter of law because, according to him, the evidence does not support the verdict. But because Powell did not move the district court for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law, he cannot pursue that relief in this court. *See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.,*546 U.S. 394, 400-02, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006); *Pearson v. Welborn,*471 F.3d 732, 738-39 (7th Cir. 2006). Powell asserts in his reply brief that he moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of evidence, but even the most liberal construction of his statements at trial reveals no such motion.

Powell also asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because he believes the defendants withheld an “illustrative section” of a training manual which, according to Powell, they were required to produce. But Powell admits that he never alerted the district court to his allegations, and he cannot raise them for the first time here. *See Schoenfeld v. Apfel,*237 F.3d 788, 793 (7th Cir.2001). We recognize that Powell did not have the benefit of counsel, but even pro se litigants are subject to the rules of waiver. *Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich,*71 F.3d 696, 700-01 (7th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 290.3 Reports with respect to proposed distribution of obligations.

The EBRD shall file with the Commission, on or prior to the date on which it sells any of its primary obligations in connection with a distribution of such obligations in the United States, a report containing the information and documents specified in Schedule A of this part. The term “sell” as used in this section and in Schedule A of this part means a completed sale, or a firm committment to sell to an underwriter.
§ 444.5 State exemptions. ( a ) If, upon application to the Federal Trade Commission by an appropriate State agency, the Federal Trade Commission determines that: ( 1 ) There is a State requirement or prohibition in effect that applies to any transaction to which a provision of this rule applies; and
( 2 ) The State requirement or prohibition affords a level of protection to consumers that is substantially equivalent to, or greater than, the protection afforded by this rule; Then that provision of the rule will not be in effect in that State to the extent specified by the Federal Trade Commission in its determination, for as long as the State administers and enforces the State requirement or prohibition effectively.
( b ) [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.3b-5 Non-exempt securities issued under governmental obligations. ( a ) Any part of an obligation evidenced by any bond, note, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness issued by any governmental unit specified in section 3(a)(12) of the Act which is payable from payments to be made in respect of property or money which is or will be used, under a lease, sale, or loan arrangement, by or for industrial or commercial enterprise, shall be deemed to be a separate “security” within the meaning of section 3(a)(10) of the Act, issued by the lessee or obligor under the lease, sale or loan arrangement.
( b ) An obligation shall not be deemed a separate “security” as defined in paragraph (a) of this section if, ( 1 ) the obligation is payable from the general revenues of a governmental unit, specified in section 3(a)(12) of the Act, having other resources which may be used for the payment of the obligation, or
( 2 ) the obligation relates to a public project or facility owned and operated by or on behalf of and under the control of a governmental unit specified in such section, or
( 3 ) the obligation relates to a facility which is leased to and under the control of an industrial or commercial enterprise but is a part of a public project which, as a whole, is owned by and under the general control of a governmental unit specified in such section, or an instrumentality thereof.
( c ) This rule shall apply to transactions of the character described in paragraph (a) of this section only with respect to bonds, notes, debentures or other evidences of indebtedness sold after December 31, 1968.
(Sec. 3, 48 Stat. 882; 15 U.S.C. 78c, 77s)
[33 FR 12648, Sept. 6, 1968, as amended at 35 FR 6000, Apr. 11, 1970]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>                     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                             EXTRACTED FROM COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY FORM
                             10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER
                             31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
                             REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  109
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       327,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           8,666
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    371,663
<PP&E>                                            1,364,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                      711,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,116,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               188,566
<BONDS>                                             279,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             27,561
<OTHER-SE>                                          468,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,116,267
<SALES>                                             380,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    396,006
<CGS>                                                62,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       253,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   23,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     118,578
<INCOME-TAX>                                         40,873
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  77,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         77,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3510 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3510

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
                     Stamp, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2011

Mr. Grimm (for himself, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. George 
Miller of California, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Towns, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 
  Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Moran, Mr. 
   Crenshaw, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Markey, Mr. Hanna, Mr. 
 Serrano, Mr. Posey, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Turner of New York, Ms. 
McCollum, Mr. Dold, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Norton, Ms. 
 Tsongas, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Faleomavaega, 
and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to 
  the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
                     Stamp, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 2(c) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-241; 39 U.S.C. 416 note) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2 years'' and inserting 
        ``6 years''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Stamp depictions.--Members of the public shall be 
        offered a choice of 5 stamps under this Act, depicting an 
        African elephant or an Asian elephant, a rhinoceros, a tiger, a 
        marine turtle, and a great ape, respectively.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §247d–7c. Supplies and services in lieu of award funds

#### (a) In general

Upon the request of a recipient of an award under any of sections 247d through 247d–7b of this title or section 247d–7d of this title, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (b), provide supplies, equipment, and services for the purpose of aiding the recipient in carrying out the purposes for which the award is made and, for such purposes, may detail to the recipient any officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services.

#### (b) Corresponding reduction in payments

With respect to a request described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall reduce the amount of payments under the award involved by an amount equal to the costs of detailing personnel and the fair market value of any supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Secretary. The Secretary shall, for the payment of expenses incurred in complying with such request, expend the amounts withheld.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §319J, as added Pub. L. 107–188, title I, §110, June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 611.)
| **Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) - (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions** | 3 Months Ended | 9 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|
||
| **Income Statement [Abstract]**                                                                           |           |           |   |   |
| Insurance claims and policyholders benefits, including policyholders' dividends, remeasurement impact     | $ (41)         | $ (211)        | $ (75) | $ (205) |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Insurance Claims And Policyholders Benefits, Including Policyholders' Dividends, Remeasurement Impact
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_InsuranceClaimsAndPolicyholdersBenefitsIncludingPolicyholdersDividendsRemeasurementImpact**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_IncomeStatementAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A049
#### Djoni CHAIDIR, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.

No. 06-2682.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Sept. 18, 2007.

Filed Sept. 24, 2007.

*872Eleanor H. Chen, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Margaret L. Hutchinson, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, Edward J. Duffy, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SLOVITER, SMITH and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION*

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Indonesia and an ethnic Chinese Buddhist. He overstayed his authorization to remain in the United States on a non-immigrant visa. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

The IJ and the BIA found the request for asylum untimely and held that petitioner did not show extraordinary circumstances or changed circumstances that excused the delay. We lack jurisdiction to review that finding because it does not present a constitutional claim or a question of law. *See Jarbough v. Attorney General,*483 F.3d 184, 188-89 (3d Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)).

The IJ and BIA also found that petitioner had not suffered past persecution or shown a clear probability of future persecution or a likelihood that he would be tortured if he returned to Indonesia.

Petitioner testified that he had a motorcycle helmet manufacturing business that went bankrupt as a result of economic conditions following the May 1998 riots in Indonesia. The business, however, was not physically damaged during the riots. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that he was personally harassed or subjected to instances of discrimination or violence while he was in Indonesia.

Petitioner also testified that his parents and two siblings remained in Indonesia with little trouble. His parents continue to operate separate businesses. Petitioner described only one incident where his mother was punched after an altercation *873with a clothes salesperson, which he speculated may have been motivated by race.

In sum, petitioner has not provided any evidence of past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution or torture. Our review of the record persuades us that the IJ and the BIA did not err in ordering the petitioner’s removal.

Accordingly, the petition for review will be denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3942 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3942

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Direct Red 84.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2012

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Direct Red 84.

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

SECTION 1. DIRECT RED 84.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Direct Red 84, (2-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Naphthalenesulfon                                                  31/2014.......
                        ic acid, 5,5'-
                        [carbonyl
                        bis(imino-4,1-
                        phenylene-2,1-
                        diazenediyl)]bis[
                        8-[2-(4-
                        sulfophenyl)
                        diazenyl]-,
                        sodium salt
                        (1:4)) (CAS No.
                        6409-83-2)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.14.50)......

    (b) Effectuve Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 38.600 Core Principle 11. The board of trade shall establish and enforce: ( a ) Rules and procedures for ensuring the financial integrity of transactions entered into on or through the facilities of the contract market (including the clearance and settlement of the transactions with a derivatives clearing organization); and
( b ) Rules to ensure: ( 1 ) The financial integrity of any: ( i ) Futures commission merchant, and
( ii ) Introducing broker; and
( 2 ) The protection of customer funds.