alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donna A. Wilkinson, Respondent, v Bendix Friction Corporation et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 188]

*637Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 4, 2004, which ruled that the employer’s application for review was untimely.

After being diagnosed with a lung condition, claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In a decision filed August 8, 2003, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) determined, among other things, that claimant suffers from an occupational disease which is causally related to her 1969 exposure to asbestos while working for the employer, but that she is not currently disabled due to that condition. Claimant subsequently filed an application for review. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator, as well as other potentially liable parties, filed rebuttals to claimant’s application for review before the Workers’ Compensation Board. By decision filed January 29, 2004, the Board affirmed, finding that, to the extent the rebuttals sought review of the August 2003 decision, they were untimely and that the WCLJ’s factual findings were otherwise proper. Thereafter, in February 2004, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review of the August 2003 WCLJ decision. By decision filed October 4, 2004 the Board denied the employer’s application as untimely, and the employer now appeals.*

The Board has broad discretion to accept or reject applications for review filed after the expiration of the 30-day period set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 *(see Matter of Backus v Wesley Health Care Ctr., Inc.,*26 AD3d 664, 665 [2006]; *Matter of Doner v Nassau County Police Dept.,*24 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2005]). We are not convinced that the Board abused that discretion in this case and, accordingly, we will not disturb its determination *(see Matter of Backus v Wesley Health Care Ctr., Inc., supra*at 665; *Matter of Doner v Nassau County Police Dept., supra*at 979). While the employer’s third-party adminis*638trator apparently did not receive notice of the WCLJ decision, such an omission may be overlooked as the employer is the real party in interest and did, in fact, receive such notice *(see Matter of Wilson v Chicago Bridge & Iron,*2 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2003]; *see also*Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 [2]; *Matter of Conway v CBI Servs., 1*AD3d 739, 741-742 [2003]). Moreover, both the employer and its third-party administrator received notice of claimant’s application for review in September 2003 and, indeed, filed a rebuttal thereto. However, neither the employer nor its third-party administrator filed an application for review until February 2004 and have provided no explanation for this delay.

Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Although the employer appealed from both the January 2004 and the October 2004 Board decisions, the appeal from the January 2004 decision was dismissed by order of this Court entered September 23, 2005.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 72212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27194]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of the BLM-administered public lands on 
Friday, January 7, 2005, from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and meet in formal 
session on Saturday, January 8, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Saturday 
meeting will be held in the Pinnacles Room in the Kerr McGee Community 
Center, located at 100 W. California Avenue, Ridgecrest, California.
    The Council and interested members of the public will depart for a 
field tour at 7:30 a.m. from the parking lot of the Heritage Inn Hotel, 
which is located at 1050 North Norma in Ridgecrest, California. The 
public is welcome to participate in the tour, but should plan on 
providing their own transportation, drinks, and lunch.
    Agenda items tentatively scheduled for the Saturday Council meeting 
will include reports by Advisory Council members, the District Manager 
and the five District field office managers. Additional briefings to be 
scheduled.
    The Advisory Council also confirmed meetings on the following 
dates:

--April 1-2
--June 24-25
--September 23-24

    Each meeting will include a field tour on Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 
5 p.m. and a public meeting on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Once 
finalized, the locations and agenda topics will be published in the 
Federal Register and posted on BLM's California State Web page at 
http://www.ca.blm.gov/news. Click on Advisory Councils and scroll down 
to the California Desert District Advisory Council.
    All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the 
public. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, Public Affairs Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, 
Moreno Valley, California 92553. Written comments also are accepted at 
the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, 
will be incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doran Sanchez, BLM California Desert 
District Public Affairs Specialist (951) 697-5220.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Alan Stein,
Assistant District Manager.
[FR Doc. 04-27194 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook     
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Vice President and Cashier
#### § 46.10 Required data standards.

In reporting data for a pre-enactment or a transition swap to a swap data repository as required by this part 46, each reporting counterparty shall use the facilities, methods, or data standards provided or required by the swap data repository to which counterparty reports the data. In reporting required swap continuation data as required by this part, each reporting counterparty shall comply with the required data standards set forth in part 45 of this chapter, including those set forth in § 45.13(a) of this chapter.

[77 FR 35226, June 12, 2012, as amended at 85 FR 75594, Nov. 25, 2020]
### §§2861 to 2865. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–568, §8(a)(2), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2428

Section 2861, Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §311, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 525; Pub. L. 89–253, §23, Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 977; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §105(e), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 709, set forth Congressional statement of purpose for financial assistance programs for migrant and other seasonally employed farmworkers and their families.

Section 2862, Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §312, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §105(e), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 709; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §18, Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 93–644, §6(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2298, set forth requirements for financial assistance programs.

Section 2863, Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §313, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §105(e), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 710, set forth limitations on program assistance.

Section 2864, Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §314, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §105(e), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 710; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §27(b)(1), (3), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 705, set forth authorization for technical assistance and training for programs.

Section 2865, Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §315, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §6(b), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2298, set forth requirements for coordination, monitoring, and review of programs.
Editorial Note on Part 248
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 248 appear at 74 FR 40431, Aug. 11, 2009.

§ 248.14 Exceptions to notice and opt out requirements for processing and servicing transactions. ( a ) *Exceptions for processing and servicing transactions at consumer's request.* The requirements for initial notice in § 248.4(a)(2), for the opt out in §§ 248.7 and 248.10, and for initial notice in § 248.13 in connection with service providers and joint marketing, do not apply if you disclose nonpublic personal information as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction that a consumer requests or authorizes, or in connection with: ( 1 ) Processing or servicing a financial product or service that a consumer requests or authorizes;
( 2 ) Maintaining or servicing the consumer's account with you, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity; or
( 3 ) A proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale (including sales of servicing rights), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer.
( b ) *Necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction* means that the disclosure is: ( 1 ) Required, or is one of the lawful or appropriate methods, to enforce your rights or the rights of other persons engaged in carrying out the financial transaction or providing the product or service; or
( 2 ) Required, or is a usual, appropriate, or acceptable method: ( i ) To carry out the transaction or the product or service business of which the transaction is a part, and record, service, or maintain the consumer's account in the ordinary course of providing the financial service or financial product;
( ii ) To administer or service benefits or claims relating to the transaction or the product or service business of which it is a part;
( iii ) To provide a confirmation, statement, or other record of the transaction, or information on the status or value of the financial service or financial product to the consumer or the consumer's agent or broker;
( iv ) To accrue or recognize incentives or bonuses associated with the transaction that are provided by you or any other party;
( v ) To underwrite insurance at the consumer's request or for reinsurance purposes, or for any of the following purposes as they relate to a consumer's insurance: Account administration, reporting, investigating, or preventing fraud or material misrepresentation, processing premium payments, processing insurance claims, administering insurance benefits (including utilization review activities), participating in research projects, or as otherwise required or specifically permitted by federal or State law; or
( vi ) In connection with: ( A ) The authorization, settlement, billing, processing, clearing, transferring, reconciling or collection of amounts charged, debited, or otherwise paid using a debit, credit, or other payment card, check, or account number, or by other payment means;
( B ) The transfer of receivables, accounts, or interests therein; or
( C ) The audit of debit, credit, or other payment information.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4246 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4246

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the expansion of 
eligibility for veteran reimbursement for emergency treatment provided 
           in non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2012

 Mr. DeFazio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the expansion of 
eligibility for veteran reimbursement for emergency treatment provided 
           in non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

    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 ``VA Enrollment Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VETERAN REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
              EMERGENCY TREATMENT PROVIDED IN A NON-DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 1725(b)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' and inserting 
        ``or''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``received care'' and 
        all that follows through the period and inserting ``enrolls in 
        such health care system not later than 30 days after receiving 
        the emergency treatment.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to emergency treatment furnishes on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §2000h–1. Double jeopardy; specific crimes and criminal contempts

No person should be put twice in jeopardy under the laws of the United States for the same act or omission. For this reason, an acquittal or conviction in a prosecution for a specific crime under the laws of the United States shall bar a proceeding for criminal contempt, which is based upon the same act or omission and which arises under the provisions of this Act; and an acquittal or conviction in a proceeding for criminal contempt, which arises under the provisions of this Act, shall bar a prosecution for a specific crime under the laws of the United States based upon the same act or omission.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title XI, §1102, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 268.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is classified principally to subchapters II to IX of this chapter (§2000a et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.
EX-10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2




[BR Letterhead]



[Date]



[Name and Address]



Dear [ ]:



At the meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on [     ], you were
awarded [     ] restricted shares of Burlington Resources common stock under the Company’s 2002
Stock Incentive Plan. This award is in recognition of your contribution to the continued success of
Burlington Resources.



The restrictions on the stock will lapse automatically on [ ] if you are still employed with
BR, or earlier if you die or incur a Permanent Disability (as defined in the Plan). If your
employment is terminated without Cause (as defined in the Plan) or for Good Reason (as defined by
the Plan) the restrictions will also lapse. During the restriction period these shares may not be
sold, assigned, transferred, pledged or otherwise encumbered or disposed of. However, you may vote
the shares and receive any dividends during the restricted period. Dividends will be paid directly
to you.



Under current tax laws, no tax is due on the shares during the restriction period, except that
dividends paid are taxed in the year received as ordinary income. When the restrictions lapse,
ordinary income tax is due on the current market value of the shares. If you prefer, you may make a
section 83(b) election to be taxed on the value of the stock at the time of grant, provided such
election is made within 30 days of the grant date in accordance with IRS regulations. If such an
election is made, dividends received during the restriction period will not be subject to
withholding.



This grant is subject to all terms and conditions of the Plan.



Again, thank you for your efforts. If you have any questions, please contact [ ] in Human
Resources.



Sincerely,



[ ]
### Part C—Redevelopment Areas
#### Ann Atwell et al., Appellants, v Rye Playland Commission, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 26, 1977, which denied their motion to strike the affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations asserted by defendant Westchester County Playland Commission, sued herein as the Rye Playland Commission. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Westchester County Playland Commission is a separate and distinct public benefit corporation created by the Legislature of the State of New York (see L 1941, ch 777). By statute, an action in tort against the commission must be commenced within six months after its accrual (L 1941, ch 777, § 10). It is also provided that a notice of claim must be served within 30 days after the accident and that the commencement of any action thereunder is stayed for a period of three months after the accrual of the cause of action. Thus the total time within which an action against the commission must be commenced is a period of nine months from the date of the accident. Section 50-i of the General Municipal Law is limited by its specific language to actions or proceedings against a "city, county, town, village, fire district or school district”. The Westchester County Playland Commission, is none of these. This deliberate choice of language, which excludes other types of public corporations, requires that we uphold the special limitations of time for the commencement of actions against the Westchester County Playland Commission. Accordingly, since this action was commenced more than nine months after the happening of the accident, we are constrained to affirm the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to strike the affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations (see *Percudani v Westchester County Playland Comm.,*226 NYS2d 517; *Oraczewski v Westchester County,*32 Mise 2d 217). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur. [86 Misc 2d 13.]
§ 1006.215 Which nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions? The following types of nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions: ( a ) A direct award to— ( 1 ) A foreign government or foreign governmental entity;
( 2 ) A public international organization;
( 3 ) An entity owned (in whole or in part) or controlled by a foreign government; or
( 4 ) Any other entity consisting wholly or partially of one or more foreign governments or foreign governmental entities.
( b ) A benefit to an individual as a personal entitlement without regard to the individual's present responsibility (but benefits received in an individual's business capacity are not excepted). For example, if a person receives social security benefits under the Supplemental Security Income provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1301 *et seq.,* those benefits are not covered transactions and, therefore, are not affected if the person is excluded.
( c ) Federal employment.
( d ) A transaction that the Inter-American Foundation needs to respond to a national or agency-recognized emergency or disaster.
( e ) A permit, license, certificate, or similar instrument issued as a means to regulate public health, safety, or the environment, unless the Inter-American Foundation specifically designates it to be a covered transaction.
( f ) An incidental benefit that results from ordinary governmental operations.
( g ) Any other transaction if the application of an exclusion to the transaction is prohibited by law.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130310 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES D. AZZAR, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

and 

PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LIMITED, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 130310 

 COA: 260438 

Kent CC: 03-011760-NZ 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

BERNARD C. SCHAEFER, and

ROBERT J. KRUIS, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue 

whether the Grand Rapids Building Maintenance Code is preempted by the StilleDeRossett-Hale single state construction code act, MCL 125.1501, et seq., as amended by 

Pub Acts 1999, No. 245. 

The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Townships Association, the 

Michigan Association of Counties, and the Public Corporation Law Section of the State 

Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. 

s0427 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 4, 2006 

Clerk