alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 723.20 Final assessment and payment of penalty. ( a ) If the person to whom a notice of violation or cessation order is issued fails to request a hearing as provided in 30 CFR 723.19, the proposed assessment shall become a final order of the Secretary and the penalty assessed shall become due and payable upon expiration of the time allowed to request a hearing.
( b ) If any party requests judicial review of a final order of the Secretary, the proposed penalty shall continue to be held in escrow until completion of the review. Otherwise, subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the escrowed funds shall be transferred to the Office in payment of the penalty, and the escrow shall end.
( c ) If the final decision in the administrative and judicial review results in an order or eliminating the proposed penalty assessed under this part, the Office shall within 30 days of receipt of the order refund to the person assessed all or part of the escrowed account, with interest from the date of payment into escrow to the date of the refund at the rate of 6 percent or at the prevailing Department of the Treasury rate, whichever is greater.
( d ) If the review results in an order increasing the penalty, the person to whom the notice or order was issued shall pay the difference to the Office within 15 days after the order is mailed to such person.
#### § 77.903 Disconnecting devices.

Disconnecting devices shall be installed in circuits supplying power to portable or mobile equipment and shall provide visual evidence that the power is disconnected.
Editorial Note on Part 700
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54924, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 700 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93319, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 700.12 Petitions to initiate rulemaking. ( a ) Any person may petition the Director to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under the Act. The petition shall be submitted to the Office of the Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
( b ) The petition shall be a concise statement of the facts, technical justification, and law which require issuance, amendment, or repeal of a regulation under the Act and shall indicate whether the petitioner desires a public hearing.
( c ) Upon receipt of the petition, the Director shall determine if the petition sets forth facts, technical justification and law which may provide a reasonable basis for issuance, amendment or repeal of a regulation. Facts, technical justification or law previously considered in a petition or rulemaking on the same issue shall not provide a reasonable basis. If the Director determines that the petition has a reasonable basis, a notice shall be published in the Federal Register seeking comments from the public on the proposed change. The Director may hold a public hearing, may conduct an investigation or take other action to determine whether the petition should be granted.
( d ) Within 90 days from receipt of the petition, the Director shall issue a written decision either granting or denying the petition. The Director's decision shall constitute the final decision for the Department. ( 1 ) If the petition is granted, the Director shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding.
( 2 ) If the petition is denied, the Director shall notify the petitioner in writing, setting forth the reasons for denial.
#### §§ 585.511-585.515 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      12,775,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  431,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      61,366,742
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,240,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,626,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,825,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,626,311
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,694,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,743,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,766,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,298,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,298,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,298,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    47.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of James Harten, Deceased.

— Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before May 1, 1962, with notice of argument for the June 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached, and on the further condition that the appellants file an undertaking as required by section 298 of the Surrogate’s Court Act within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Brady, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 9, 1977, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The repetition of questions propounded by the prosecutor after the Trial Judge directed him to desist was improper and should not be repeated. Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
# C_2023249EN.01001201.xml

| 14.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11202 – FORTUM MARKETS / TELGE ENERGI)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 249/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Fortum Markets AB (‘Fortum Markets,’ Sweden), |
| --- | --- |

—

Fortum Markets AB (‘Fortum Markets,’ Sweden),

| — | Telge Energi AB (‘Telge Energi,’ Sweden). |
| --- | --- |

—

Telge Energi AB (‘Telge Energi,’ Sweden).

Fortum will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Telge Energi.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Fortum Markets is part of the Finland-based energy group Fortum, solely controlled by the Finnish state, that is active in power generation, in the retail sale of energy to consumers and enterprises, and in the circular solutions business, |
| --- | --- |

—

Fortum Markets is part of the Finland-based energy group Fortum, solely controlled by the Finnish state, that is active in power generation, in the retail sale of energy to consumers and enterprises, and in the circular solutions business,

| — | Telge Energi is a part of the Swedish Telge group currently owned by Södertälje municipality, and is active in the retail sale of electricity generated from renewable sources to small industrial and commercial customers and households. |
| --- | --- |

—

Telge Energi is a part of the Swedish Telge group currently owned by Södertälje municipality, and is active in the retail sale of electricity generated from renewable sources to small industrial and commercial customers and households.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11202 – FORTUM / TELGE ENERGI

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

September 27, 2017

d0920 

# Order

Clerk September 27, 2017

151416

AMBER DUDLEY, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF JAMES DUDLEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151416

COA: 317202

St. Clair CC: 12

- 001027

- NO

ST. CLAIR COUNTY OFFICE OF DRAIN

COMMISSIONER, COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR,

TIMOTHY R. CHARRON, ROBERT WILEY,

CHARLES WOOD, and EDWARD H. FAHLEY

as Trustee of EDWARD H. FAHLEY TRUST,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


         Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Techdyne, Inc., a
Florida corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints Barry J. Pardon and David
L. Watts as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, or either one of them
individually with power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf, and in any and
all capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and any and all amendments thereto,
hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any
and all such capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in
and about the premises as fully as each of the undersigned could or might do in
person, hereby granting to each such attorney full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney or his substitute
may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of
Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 27, 2002.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  Signature                                          Title

<S>                                              <C>
/s/ Samuel Russell                               Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
------------------------------------             Executive Officer
Samuel Russell

/s/ Barry J. Pardon                              President and Director
------------------------------------             (principal executive officer)
Barry J. Pardon

/s/ John Ian Durie                               Vice President - Finance and Director
------------------------------------
John Ian Durie

/s/ David L. Watts                               Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
------------------------------------             (principal financial and principal accounting
David L. Watts                                   officer)

/s/ Lytton Crossley                              Director
------------------------------------
Lytton Crossley

/s/ Christina Margaret Janet Russell             Director
------------------------------------
Christina Margaret Janet Russell

/s/ Thomas Foggo                                 Director
------------------------------------
Thomas Foggo

/s/ Kenneth Greenhalgh                           Director
------------------------------------
Kenneth Greenhalgh
</TABLE>
#### § 56.19070 Closing cage doors or gates.

Cage doors or gates shall be closed while persons are being hoisted; they shall not be opened until the cage has come to a stop.
### §51324. Unfilled vacancies

(a) In General.—In the event of an unfilled vacancy for any critical position at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, the Secretary of Transportation may appoint, without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, other than sections 3303 and 3328 of that title, a qualified candidate for the purposes of filling up to 20 of such positions.

(b) Critical Position Defined.—In this section, the term "critical position" means a position that contributes to the improvement of—

(1) the culture or infrastructure of the Academy;

(2) student health and well being;

(3) Academy governance; or

(4) any other priority areas identified by the Council.

(Added Pub. L. 117–81, div. C, title XXXV, §3501(c)(1), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2238.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.404 Exemption of anthracite mines.

[Statutory Provision]

Sections 75.401, 75.402, and 75.403 shall not apply to underground anthracite mines.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

INTRAWEST CORPORATION
Earnings Coverage Ratio

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                     ADD         LESS
                                                               12 MONTHS   12 MONTHS   12 MONTHS   3 MONTHS    3 MONTHS    12 MONTHS
                                                               30-JUN-02   30-SEP-02   30-JUN-02   30-SEP-02   30-SEP-01   30-SEP-02
                                                               ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                                            <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
EBIT Calculation

   Net income before income taxes                                68,029      66,996      68,029     (13,431)    (12,398)     66,996

   Add:
     Interest expense                                            71,075      71,978      71,075      12,023      11,120      71,978
                                                                -------     -------     -------                             -------
                                                                139,104     138,974     139,104                             138,974
                                                                =======     =======     =======                             =======
Interest Calculation

   Interest incurred (including capitalized interest)            83,439      85,397      83,439      21,994      20,036      85,397
   Interest on new debenture issue                               14,385      14,385      14,385                              14,385
   Interest saving on repayment of debt with debenture proceeds  (8,150)     (8,150)     (8,150)                             (8,150)
   Interest on additional debt since balance sheet date           4,319           0           0                                   0
                                                                -------     -------     -------                             -------
                                                                 93,993      91,632      89,674                              91,632
                                                                =======     =======     =======                             =======
Ratio                                                              1.48        1.52
                                                                =======     =======
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jean Ruck Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Leon M. Ruck, Deceased, Appellant, against Regent Brand Clothes, Incorporated, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the receiver-respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9788 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard veteran disability 

compensation or pension payments in determining income for purposes 

of the low income housing tax credit and qualified residential rental 

project bonds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 

Ms. SA ́NCHEZ (for herself, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. 

TAKANO, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. LIEU) 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 disregard 

veteran disability compensation or pension payments in 

determining income for purposes of the low income housing tax credit and qualified residential rental project 

bonds. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9788 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF VETERAN DISABILITY COM2 PENSATION OR PENSION PAYMENTS FOR 

3 PURPOSES OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX 

4 CREDIT AND RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROJECT 

5 BONDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 142(d)(2)(B) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(v) VETERAN DISABILITY COMPENSA10 TION OR PENSION.—For purposes of deter11 mining income under this subparagraph, 

12 payments of disability compensation or 

13 pension under chapter 11 or 15 of title 38, 

14 United States Code, shall be disregarded.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to determinations made after the 

17 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.705-8 Protective equipment; testing and storage. ( a ) All rubber protective equipment used on work on energized high-voltage surface lines shall be electrically tested by the operator in accordance with ASTM standards, Part 28, published February 1968, and such testing shall be conducted in accordance with the following schedule: ( 1 ) Rubber gloves, once each month;
( 2 ) Rubber sleeves, once every 3 months;
( 3 ) Rubber blankets, once every 6 months;
( 4 ) Insulator hoods and line hose, once a year; and
( 5 ) Other electric protective equipment, once a year.
( b ) Rubber gloves shall not be stored wrong side out. Blankets shall be rolled when not in use, and line hose and insulator hoods shall be stored in their natural position and shape.
#### § 57.19091 Signaling instructions to hoist operator.

Hoist operators shall accept hoisting instructions only by the regular signaling system unless it is out of order. In such an event, and during other emergencies, the hoist operator shall accept instructions to direct movement of the conveyances only from authorized persons.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

h0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

144555

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144555

COA: 305397

Otsego CC: 07-003810-FC

TROY WILLIAM CARPENTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL

MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 1499-02-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III

OCTOBER 14, 2003

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY

William L. Wellons, Judge

Michael J. Brickhill (Michael J. Brickhill, P.C., on brief), for

appellant.

Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

A jury convicted Leon Parrish Marshall of rape and two counts of aggravated sexual

battery. He contends the evidence is insufficient because the victim's testimony was incredible

as a matter of law. Concluding the defendant did not raise this issue at trial, we affirm. 

"[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence is waived if not raised

with some specificity in the trial court." Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435, 357

S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). When the defendant made a motion to set aside the jury verdict, he

simply stated, "we would make a motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law." "A mere

statement that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient to

constitute a question to be ruled upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18. 

The ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 does not apply to this case. The victim was

fourteen years old and testified about the defendant's actions. The testimony established each

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

element of each charge. While her testimony contained conflicts and inconsistencies, nothing

suggested it was incredible as a matter of law. The jury resolved the differences and found the

victim credible. That finding was not clearly erroneous. Rule 5A:18 prevents our review of this

issue. See Parrish v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 607, 616, 567 S.E.2d 576, 580 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

Affirmed.