alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROWAN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11225.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 1, 1954.

Decided March 8, 1954.

Charles L. Casper, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Fahey & Casper, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Herman S. Greitzer, Washington, D. C. (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Julius Levy, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Paul A. Sweeney, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued as beneficiary of a National Service Life Insurance Policy. In her reply she admitted that the policy had lapsed for non-payment of premium ,and that an application by the assured for its reinstatement had been rejected. ¡The district court dismissed the action if or lack of jurisdiction.

The only authority in the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 as amended, to sue the United States is found in Section 617 thereof, 38 U.S.C.A. § 817. That section in turn expressly makes such suits subject to the provisions of Section 19 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 445. The latter allows an action only where the insurance contract or policy is in *238effect and as said in Meadows v. United States, 281 U.S. 271, 274, 50 S.Ct. 279, 280, 74 L.Ed. 852, “The right to reinstatement, when it exists flows from the statutory provision and not from any undertaking expressed in the contract of insurance.” See also Taft v. United States, 2 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 876; United States v. Fitch, 10 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 471; Ginelli v. United States, D.C.D.Mass. 1950, 94 F.Supp. 874.

Section 608 of the National Service Life Insurance Act, as amended in 1946, 36 U.S.C. Section 808, does not broaden the permission given by Section 455 to sue the United States so as to include an action on a lapsed policy. Mitchell v. United States, D.C.D.N.J. 1952, 111 F.Supp. 104, 107. The legislative history of the 1946 amendment confirms this conclusion. S.Rep. 1705, 79th Cong. 2nd Sess., pp. 9, 10; H.Rep. 2002, 79th Cong. 2nd Sess., pp. 10, 11.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
###### 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.

#### § 75.159 Records of certified and qualified persons.

The operator of each coal mine shall maintain a list of all certified and qualified persons designated to perform duties under this part 75.

[35 FR 17890, Nov. 20, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,863
<INVENTORY>                                      4,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,336
<PP&E>                                         820,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                 418,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,119
<BONDS>                                        101,433
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,442
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   474,817
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,644
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,398
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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.

§ 75.701-4 Grounding wires; capacity of wires. Where grounding wires are used to ground metallic sheaths, armors, conduits, frames, casings, and other metallic enclosures, such grounding wires will be approved if: ( a ) The cross-sectional area (size) of the grounding wire is at least one-half the cross-sectional area (size) of the power conductor where the power conductor used is No. 6 A.W.G., or larger.
( b ) Where the power conductor used is less than No. 6 A.W.G., the cross-sectional area (size) of the grounding wire is equal to the cross-sectional area (size) of the power conductor.
###### 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.

#### § 75.812-1 Qualified person.

A person who meets the requirements of § 75.153 is a qualified person within the meaning of § 75.812.
### §435d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 435d, comprising section 7 of the Reducing Over-Classification Act, Pub. L. 111–258, was editorially reclassified as section 3344 of this title.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 96 

To amend title 54, United States Code, to prohibit the extension or establishment of national monuments in Arizona except by express authorization 

of Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend title 54, United States Code, to prohibit the extension or establishment of national monuments in Arizona 

except by express authorization of Congress, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Arizona 

5 from Federal Land Grabs Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 96 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT 

2 OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN ARIZONA. 

3 Subsection (d) of section 320301 of title 54, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘OR ARIZONA’’ after ‘‘WYO6 MING’’; and 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘or Arizona’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2023226EN.01000401.xml

| 28.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11123 – SUMITOMO / VODAFONE / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 226/04)

On 21 June 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11123. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11123. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: CAROLINA MAYORGA,

 

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00158-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN HABEAS CORPUS

C O R R E C T E D

O R D E R

The Court has before it Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for 

temporary relief. Relator is currently confined in the El Paso County Jail pursuant to a contempt 

order issued by the 388th District Court of El Paso County, Texas in trial court cause number 

2012DCM01701. The motion for temporary relief is GRANTED. Pending this Court’s final 

resolution of Relator’s petition on the merits and until further order of this Court, it is ORDERED 

that Relator, Carolina Mayorga, be released from the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County 

only upon her posting a personal recognizance bond in the amount of $5,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Gina M. Palafox

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
### §3314. Report on national security systems

#### (a) Appropriate committees of Congress defined

In this section, the term "appropriate committees of Congress" means—

(1) the congressional intelligence committees;

(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and

(3) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

#### (b) Report

Not later than 120 days after May 5, 2017, and annually thereafter, the Director of the National Security Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on national security systems.

#### (c) Content

Each report submitted under subsection (b) shall include information related to—

(1) national security systems or components thereof that have been decertified and are still in operational use;

(2) extension requests and the current status of any national security systems still in use or components thereof that have been decertified and are still in use;

(3) national security systems known to not be in compliance with the policies, principles, standards, and guidelines issued by the Committee on National Security Systems established pursuant to National Security Directive 42, signed by the President on July 5, 1990; and

(4) organizations which have not provided access or information to the Director of the National Security Agency that is adequate to enable the Director to make a determination as to whether such organizations are in compliance with the policies, principles, standards, and guidelines issued by such Committee on National Security Systems.

(Pub. L. 115–31, div. N, title VI, §603, May 5, 2017, 131 Stat. 829.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definition of "congressional intelligence committees", referred to in text, see section 2 of div. N of Pub. L. 115–31, set out as a note under section 3003 of this title.
§ 843.20 Compliance conference. ( a ) A permittee may request an on-site compliance conference with an authorized representative to review the compliance status of any condition or practice proposed at any coal exploration or surface coal mining and reclamation operation. Any such conference shall not constitute an inspection within the meaning of section 517 of the Act and § 842.11.
( b ) The Office may accept or refuse any request to conduct a compliance conference under paragraph (a). Where the Office accepts such a request, reasonable notice of the scheduled date and time of the compliance conference shall be given to the permittee.
( c ) The authorized representative at any compliance conference shall review such proposed conditions and practices as the permittee may request in order to determine whether any such condition or practice may become a violation of any requirement of the Act of any applicable permit or exploration approval.
( d ) Neither the holding of a compliance conference under this section nor any opinion given by the authorized representative at such a conference shall affect: ( 1 ) Any rights or obligations of the Office or of the permittee with respect to any inspection, notice of violation or cessation order, whether prior or subsequent to such conference; or
( 2 ) The validity of any notice of violation or cessation order issued with respect to any condition or practice reviewed at the compliance conference.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                       PRIME REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                   [see Exhibit B to Prime Purchase Agreement]





                                                         REGISTRATION STATEMENT
                                                                         II-624
Exhibit 10.49




 




*

Confidential Treatment Requested Under




17

C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4), 200.83 and 240.24b-2




 




 




SON

SON Co., Ltd.




 




October 1, 2002




 




Mr. Tram Be




Son Son

Co., Ltd.




[...***...]




 




 




Re:          Agreement for purchase of a SureBeam

Electron Beam System between SureBeam Corporation and Son Son co., Ltd., dated

as March 27, 2002.




 




 




Mr. Tram Be:




 




Reference is made to the Agreement referenced above

(the “Agreement”), between SureBeam Corporation (“SureBeam”), and Son Son Co.,

Ltd. (“Buyer”).  All capitalized terms

used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to them

under the Agreement.




 




SureBeam and Buyer have executed and delivered this

letter for purposes of supplementing the term of Agreement, and hereby agree as

follows:




 




1.               Exhibit C1 to the Agreement is hereby amended

to include the following:




Buyer has the option to purchase a second

accelerator, for a price of  [...***...], to

be installed within this first Facility within [...***...] after the completion of

the Acceptance Test.  This price will

include any additional material handling equipment that may be necessary.  If the utilization of this first

Facility reaches 85% of its capacity during the first 12 months of

operation, then this option will become a binding commitment.




 




Except to the extent expressly amended by this letter, all of the

provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and shall continue in full force

and effect.




 




 






















* CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED




 





























 




Please confirm, by signing in the place indicated below, that the

foregoing reflects our mutual understanding and agreement.




 




Sincerely yours,




 




 




	

  SUREBEAM CORPORATION


  
	

   


  
	

   


  
	

  By: 


  	

  /s/ Martha M. Cashman


  	

   


  
	

   


  
	

  Name:


  	

  Martha M. Cashman


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Title:


  	

  Senior Vice President, International Business Development


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  SON SON CO., LTD.


  
	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By: 


  	

  /s/ Tram Be


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Name:


  	

  TRAM BE


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Title: 


  	

  Chairman of Management


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Date:


  	

  October 1, 2002


  	

   


  
				





 




2
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Porter D. Smith, as administrator, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Motion for rotaxation of costs granted by disallowing costs taxed by plaintiff upon and of the first appeal to this court, .with $10 costs of said motion; otherwise, said motion is denied. Held, that the decision and judgment of this court upon the first appeal, reducing plaintiff’s recovery, was not intended to, and did not, deprive him of the costs awarded for and upon the first trial; also held, that the decision and judgment of this court upon said first appeal that the judgment of the court below, as modified, be “affirmed, without costs,” was not intended to, and did not, deprive plaintiff of the costs awarded in the court below, but related simply to the costs upon said appeal to this court; also held, that the decision of the Court of Appeals that the judgment recovered upon the first trial be reversed, “with costs to abide the event,” entitled plaintiff to tax costs in said Court of Appeals, and also those recovered in Supreme Court upon the first trial, and that, under the circumstances, it must not be assumed that the Court of Appeals by said decision intended to award plaintiff, if successful upon a new trial, costs upon the first appeal to this court, which had been expressly withheld by the decision of this court upon said appeal.

STQVER, J., not voting.
#### BERWIND v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 11201.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1954.

Decided March 16, 1954.

Chester C. Hilinski, Philadelphia, Pa. (George Craven, George J. Hauptfuhrer, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner.

Walter Akerman, Jr., Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a director, depositor and shareholder in a trust company, loaned money to that company along with other “contracting stockholders” for the purpose of remedying an impairment to its capital. The loan became worthless in 1946. The trust company was affiliated with The Berwind-White Coal Mining Company. Petitioner was an officer and director in the latter corporation and in its other affiliated and subsidiary companies.

*576He claimed a deduction in 1946 for the worthless debt as a loan incurred in his trade or business of being an officer and director in Berwind-White, its subsidiaries and affiliates, under Section 23 (e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(e)(1), or as a business bad debt under Section 23(k)(l) or as a loss resulting from a transaction entered into for profit under Section 23 (e)(2).

We agree with the Tax Court that the transaction tax wise merely created a non-business creditor debtor relationship between petitioner and the trust company; that the resultant loss can only be deducted as a non-business bad debt under Section 23 (k) (4) of the Code and treated for tax purposes as a short term capital loss. Section 23(k)(l) covering business bad debts does not apply because petitioner as director or officer in the Berwind companies was an employee of those companies and cannot, as the Tax Court held, “* * * appropriate unto himself the business of the various corporations for which he works.”

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
#### § 56.5002 Exposure monitoring.

Dust, gas, mist, and fume surveys shall be conducted as frequently as necessary to determine the adequacy of control measures.
# C_2023105EN.01001101.xml

| 21.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/11

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entity to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/646 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/645 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply

(2023/C 105/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entity that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/646 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/645 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons and entity should be included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

The attention of the persons and entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entity concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 January 2024, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 80 I, 20.3.2023 p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 80 I, 20.3.2023 p. 1.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ASHLEY ANTHONY BANCROFT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-1839

November 15, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine A. 

Marlewski, Judge.

Jonah K. Dickstein of Dickstein Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.