alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020176EN.01000201.xml

| 26.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/2

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2020/C 176/02)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Latvia

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Latvia

Subject of commemoration: Latgalian ceramics

Description of the design: The coin is dedicated to the Latgalian pottery. The traditional pottery established itself for substantial periods of time in two districts, Latgale and Kurzeme, but only in Latgale it has survived throughout the times and passed over to the next generations. The Latgalian pottery is included also in the Latvian Culture Canon.

The design depicts a characteristic piece of Latgalian ceramics – a clay candelabrum. It bears an inscription ‘LATGALES KERAMIKA’ (Latgalian ceramics), the country name ‘LATVIJA’ as well as the year of issuance ‘2020’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 412 000

Date of issue: Second quarter of 2020

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
32.503-3 Initiation of progress payments and review of accounting system. ( a ) For contractors that the administrative contracting officer (ACO) has found by previous experience or recent audit review (within the last 12 months) to be ( 1 ) reliable, competent, and capable of satisfactory performance,
( 2 ) possessed of an adequate accounting system and controls, and
( 3 ) in sound financial condition, progress payments in amounts requested by the contractor should be approved as a matter of course.
( b ) For all other contractors, the ACO shall not approve progress payments before determining ( 1 ) that ( i ) the contractor will be capable of liquidating any progress payments or
( ii ) the Government is otherwise protected against loss by additional protective provisions, and
( 2 ) that the contractor's accounting system and controls are adequate for proper administration of progress payments. The services of the responsible audit agency or office should be used to the greatest extent practicable. However, if the auditor so advises, a complete audit may not be necessary.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 9061, Feb. 23, 1998]
# C_2020230EN.01000101.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2020/C 230/01)

Last publication

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

Past publications

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020

OJ C 191, 8.6.2020

OJ C 175, 25.5.2020

OJ C 162, 11.5.2020

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS R Er·· . c 1 v E 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION · . . 0 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION, 

Respondent. 

JAN 2 8 2013 

HEARir\lG DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011 GL030070 

Judge Sullivan 

CORRECTED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hereby provides notice to the Judge and 

opposing counsel that going forward the undersigned will be representing the FAA in this matter. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

facsimile: (404) 305-5223 

( 404) 305-5200 . . . 

chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

. 3~ . Respectfully submitted this'L_ day of January, 2013. 

TEVENSON 

Attorney . . ... 

Office of the R,egional Counsel ' ~ . 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Notice of Appearance was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via facsimile and certified mail to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Dated
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 17. Sediment-classification scheme from Shepard (1954),       as modified by Schlee (1973). 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig17.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:20:54 EDT
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 124 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 124

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
   Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Principles for Climate-
 Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2024

Mr. Donalds (for himself, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Weber of 
Texas, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Meuser, and Mr. Huizenga) submitted the following 
  joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
   Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Principles for Climate-
 Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 
relating to ``Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management 
for Large Financial Institutions'' (88 Fed. Reg. 74183; published 
October 30, 2023), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
3409.506 Procedures. ( a ) If the effects of a potential or actual conflict of interest cannot be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated before award, the prospective contractor is not eligible for that award. If a potential or actual conflict of interest is identified after award and the effects cannot be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated, ED will terminate the contract unless the HCA deems continued performance to be in the best interest of the Federal Government.
( b ) The HCA is designated as the official to conduct reviews and make final decisions under FAR 9.506(b) and (c).
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:207
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:208
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:209
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:210
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:211
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:212
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:213
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:214
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:215
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:216
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:217
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:218
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:219
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:220
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:221
Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56-3 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:222
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Potapchuk, Appellant, v. Kalda Construction Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying benefits on the grounds that no industrial accident had been established and that claimant’s disability was not causally related to any incident in his employment. Claimant, a doorman, testified that on or about May 20, 1961 while putting garbage away in an incinerator room a pipe fell on his left foot injuring his toes. He alleges this incident was not reported to his employer because he was afraid of losing his job. He also testified that subsequently he suffered another injury to the same foot when a visitor stepped on it as he held a door open for him. This incident claimant reported to his superior. In June of 1961 claimant was hospitalized and his left leg amputated. Claimant produced expert testimony to establish causation between the two alleged accidents and the amputation. Claimant initially urges that the -board’s denial of the happening of an industrial accident is not supported by substantial evidence. We cannot agree. The burden of proof was on claimant to establish that there was an accidental injury connected with employment *(Matter of Rothschild*v. *Flatbush Jewish Center,*18 A D 2d 1045). Here claimant’s ease depends solely on the acceptance of his account of what transpired as supported by the testimony of his superior. Questions of credibility are, of course, within the province of the board. “ The board was not bound as a matter of law to accept claimant's testimony.” *(Matter of Scarpullo*v. *Alba Barber Shop,*18 A D 2d 1122.) “ The disbelief by the board of an assertion of this kind is not an absence of substantial evidence in support of a negative finding.” *(Matter of Rothschild*v. *Flatbush Jewish Center, supra.)*The finding made in this case was within the fact-finding power of the board. Similarly there is substantial evidence on which the board could find that the condition was due to a pre-existing disease rather than to either or both of the alleged accidents. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS

GLOSSARY › FAQS ›

 View History: Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

U.S. Imports of Fuel Ethanol (Thousand Barrels)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

 1993 46 47 47 24 18 50 12

 1994 60 25 24 67 47 56

 1995 40 0 50 27 28 64 55 27 0 3 50 43

 1996 31 24 47 28 32 0 0 58 46 0 0 47

 1997 0 0 47 0 0 21 0 0 0 17 0 0

 1998 0 0 39 0 0 2 5 5 2 2 5 6

 1999 5 68 7 7 9 8 7 8 7 8 7

 2000 7 7 10 9 9 9 10 13 11 10 11 10

 2001 17 85 20 9 50 12 19 48 17 9 13 16

 2002 69 17 19 14 10 11 13 12 13 12 105 11

 2003 54 8 9 54 11 8 10 12 11 9 101 5

 2004 109 157 143 181 545 337 681 398 518 380 12 81

 2005 392 13 206 81 211 86 201 61 690 702 591

 2006 132 610 894 905 682 1,550 2,637 3,102 2,268 2,044 1,376 1,208

 2007 1,077 1,010 720 733 663 922 1,533 1,586 610 998 393 212

 2008 510 505 368 1,491 962 1,571 1,459 1,931 2,466 606 278 463

 2009 388 56 79 166 507 705 960 983 310 269 285 12

 2010 34 27 27 36 39 40 18 10 5 1 6

- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. 

Release Date: 3/30/2011

Next Release Date: Last Week of April 2011

Referring Pages: 

 Fuel Ethanol (Renewable) Imports from All Countries 

 Fuel Ethanol Imports by Area of Entry 

 Fuel Ethanol Supply and Disposition 

U.S. Imports of Fuel Ethanol (Thousand Barrels) Page 1 of 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MFEIMUS1&f=M 3/30/2011
#### 2825.1001 Waiver of right to examination of records.

The HCA, or designee at a level at or above the BPC, is the agency official authorized to make determinations under FAR 25.1001(a)(2)(iii).
36.303-2 Phase Two. ( a ) Phase Two of the solicitation(s) shall be prepared in accordance with part 15, and include phase-two evaluation factors, developed in accordance with 15.304. Examples of potential phase-two technical evaluation factors include design concepts, management approach, key personnel, and proposed technical solutions.
( b ) Phase Two of the solicitation(s) shall require submission of technical and price proposals, which shall be evaluated separately, in accordance with part 15.
[62 FR 272, Jan. 2, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997]
# PBI Competitive 2011 Awards
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 134 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 134

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
     relating to ``Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary 
            Agricultural Employment in the United States''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2024

Mr. Armstrong (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, and Mr. Bentz) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
     relating to ``Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary 
            Agricultural Employment in the United States''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Improving 
Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the 
United States'' (89 Fed. Reg. 33898 (April 29, 2024)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
## ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

Recipients of multi-year discretionary awards are required to submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) annually; the collection number is OMB 1840-0766. The annual report provides data on the status of the funded project that corresponds to the scope and objectives established in the approved application and any approved amendments. Under EDGAR §75.118, the report must provide the most current performance and financial information (including cost-share data, if applicable). ED program staff will analyze each report to ensure that the grantee has made substantial progress toward reaching the objectives included in the grantee’s approved application.

Annual Performance Reports are typically due 90 days after the performance period ends; however, grantees will be notified by their ED program officer if the submission deadline changes.

**Note:** If you are a project director and have responsibility for completing the annual report for your institution, please be sure you are designated on the official grant award notification and your e-mail and telephone number are listed correctly in the G5 database.

## FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

All recipients, in accordance with EDGAR §75.590, are required to submit a final performance report. ED Program Staff will review the final performance report and determine whether the grantee achieved the scope and objectives of the grant. The program staff will also determine if all applicable administrative actions and financial obligations have been completed by grantee.

Final Performance Reports are typically due 90 days after the performance period ends (September 30th); however, grantees will be notified by their ED program officer if the submission deadline changes.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 07/05/2011
|-------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 4203** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. PEDRO MALDONADO

- SANCHEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00072

- RLV

- DSC

- 3 )
Submitted : October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Pedro Maldonado

- Sanchez appeals the judgment imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent cocaine and money laundering conspiracy. On appeal, Maldonado

- Sanchez’s attorney has filed a brief pursua nt to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal , but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Maldonado

- Sanc he z was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not f iled a brief. We affirm. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Maldonado

- Sanchez. See United States v. Martinovich , 810 F.3d 232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of re view). We discern no procedural sentencing error, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Maldonado

- Sanchez has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Additionally, we have reviewed the guilty plea colloquy and find that Maldonado

- Sanchez’s plea was both knowing and voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. Sanya , 774 F.3d 812, 813 (4th Cir. 2014) ( no ting plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error where3 defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty plea ); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal. Accordi ngly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform Maldonado

- Sanchez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Maldonado

- Sanchez requests that the petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Maldonado

- Sanchez. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Bryant, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 10, 1976, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. On July 26, 1974, at or about 8:20 p.m., defendant entered a bar located at 2042 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, where he found the complainant (the bar owner) alone. According to the complainant, the defendant first requested a beer and then displayed what appeared to be a gun and ordered the bar owner to empty the cash register. Defendant took the money and fled, but the owner (a retired police officer) was able to fire several shots at him in the process, apparently striking the defendant at least once. A detective arrived on the scene shortly thereafter, took the complainant’s statement (including a description of the robber), found a substance resembling blood in the bar and on the street outside, and then proceeded to inquire whether any gunshot wounds were currently being treated at the local hospitals. Within about an hour and a half after the robbery, the defendant was identified by the bar owner at Brookdale Hospital where the former was being treated for a gunshot wound in the cheek. The complainant testified to most of the foregoing facts at a preliminary hearing in the Criminal Court, at which time he again identified the defendant as the man who had robbed him. Prior to trial, however, the bar owner died from causes unrelated to the robbery; after which it was determined, on motion, that his preliminary hearing testimony would be admissible in evidence pursuant to CPL 670.10, except to the extent that it related to his identification of the defendant at Brookdale Hospital. That testimony was excluded due to the lack of cross-examination on the issue at the preliminary hearing. At the trial, it was stipulated that the bullet removed from defendant’s cheek had been fired from the complainant’s gun and that the bar owner was a retired police officer. The deceased’s former testimony was read to the jury and a detective was permitted to testify, over objection, to the previously excluded hospital identification of the defendant by the decedent. Assuming, *arguendo,*that the court erred in permitting the detective to testify as stated above, the evidence remaining in the case overwhelmingly established the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged. It included the complainant’s identification of the defendant at the preliminary hearing, as well as his testimony at the same hearing that the defendant had displayed what appeared to be a gun during the course of the robbery. All of this testimony was properly admitted pursuant to CPL 670.10. Under these circumstances, there is no significant probability that the exclusion of the detective’s identification evidence would have altered the jury’s verdict (see *People v*
      *716
      *Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.