alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(November 14, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Donald Long, Sr., Respondent, v Overhead Door Co. of New York et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion by respondent Workers’ Compensation Board to dismiss appeal from board decision filed April 25,1980. The papers indicate that by decision dated November 8,1978 the referee dismissed the instant claim for contact dermatitis on the ground it had not been timely filed pursuant to section 28 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Claimant, who was represented by counsel, did not seek board review of this determination. Thereafter, by letter dated July 16, 1979, claimant’s new attorney applied to the board for “re-opening and reconsideration” of the case on the ground claimant was unaware that his former attorney had failed to apply for review of the referee’s determination dismissing the claim. Following a hearing, the board rendered a decision dated April 25,1980 which rescinded the referee’s determination “without prejudice” and directed that the case be “reopened and restored to the trial calendar for further development on the issue of claim filing under section 28 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and causally related disability * * * Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to decide on the completed record.” The employer and its carrier have appealed this decision and the board now moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground the decision is nonfinal and thus not appealable as a matter of law. Appellants oppose the motion contending that the board’s action was error since claimant failed to seek board review of the referee’s determination within the 30-day period prescribed by section 23 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. It is therefore submitted by appellants that a “threshold legal issue” is presented for review by this court pursuant to our holding in *Matter ofMcDowell v La Voy*(59 AD2d 995). The board’s motion should be granted and the appeal dismissed since appellant’s proposed ground for review is without merit. Claimant’s July 16, 1979 application to the board was not an “application for review” under section 23 of the statute but rather an explicit request for “re-opening and reconsideration” of the referee’s November 8, 1978 decision dismissing the claim. It is well established that the board has broad continuing jurisdiction over claims and that its plenary power to reopen may be exercised even where the aggrieved party has failed to seek review within the time limit specified by section 23 of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123; 12 NYCRR 300.14; *Matter ofSpaminato v Bay Transp. Corp.,*32 AD2d 345, 347; *Matter of Clifford v Larkin Rest.,*31 AD2d 866, 867). Accordingly, appellants’ reliance on section 23 of the statute is misplaced and no valid threshold legal issue, within the meaning of *Matter of McDowell (supra),*is presented. Appeal dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
§ 51.1350 Application of standards. ( a ) Tolerances shall not apply in the application of the standards to determine the percentages of U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 quality, culls and off-size in a lot of pears; for example, when determining compliance with a grower-processor contract.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The following tolerances, by weight, shall apply when a lot of pears has been sorted to meet a specific grade, such as a shipment to a processor which is intended to meet the requirements of the U.S. No. 1 grade: ( 1 ) *For defects.* 10 percent for pears which fail to meet the requirements of the grade: *Provided,* That included in this amount not more than the following percentages shall be allowed for the defects listed: ( i ) 2 percent for pears which are affected by decay.
( ii ) 5 percent for pears which are infested by worms or have worm holes.
( 2 ) *For off-size.* 5 percent for pears which are smaller than any specified minimum size, and 10 percent for pears larger than any specified maximum size.
§ 5001.515 Default by borrower. When there is a default by a borrower, the lender must act prudently and expeditiously in working with the borrower to bring the account current or cure the default through restructuring if a realistic plan can be developed, or to accelerate the account and conduct a liquidation in accordance with § 5001.517 and in a manner that will minimize any potential loss. ( a ) *Default notification and meetings.* The lender must notify the Agency within the timeframe as provided in § 5001.502(a)(3)(i). ( 1 ) The lender will provide this notification by submitting the guaranteed loan borrower default status report in the Agency's electronic reporting system. The lender must update the loan's status each month until such time as the loan is no longer in default.
( 2 ) If a monetary default exceeds 30 calendar days, the lender must meet with the borrower and, if necessary, the Agency within 45 calendar days of the date of the default to discuss the situation. The lender must provide the Agency with a written summary of the meeting, including any decisions and actions agreed upon within 10 calendar days of the meeting.
( b ) *Curative options.* In considering curative actions, providing a permanent cure without adversely affecting the risk to the Agency and the lender is the paramount objective. The lender may consider temporary curative actions (*e.g.,* payment deferments or collateral subordination) provided they strengthen the loan and are in the best financial interest of the lender and the Agency. ( 1 ) Curative actions (subject to the rights of any holder and Agency concurrence) include, but are not limited to, the following options: ( i ) Deferment of principal and/or interest payments;
( ii ) An additional unguaranteed temporary loan by the lender to bring the account current;
( iii ) Re-amortization of or rescheduling the payments on the loan excluding capitalization of accrued interest;
( iv ) Transfer and assumption of the loan in accordance with § 5001.506;
( v ) Reorganization;
( vi ) Liquidation;
( vii ) Changes in interest rates in accordance with § 5001.513. Any interest payments must be adjusted proportionately between the guaranteed and unguaranteed portion of the loan; and
( viii ) Troubled debt restructure.
( 2 ) The term of any deferment, rescheduling, re-amortization, or moratorium cannot exceed the lesser of the remaining useful life of the collateral or remaining term of the loan as set forth in § 5001.402(b) of this part. ( i ) During a period of deferment or moratorium on the guaranteed loan, the lender's non-guaranteed loan(s) and any stockholder or affiliate loans must also be under deferment or moratorium.
( ii ) Balloon payments are permitted as a loan servicing option as long as there is a reasonable prospect for successful repayment of the guaranteed loan and the remaining life of the collateral supports the action.
[85 FR 42518, July 14, 2020, as amended at 85 FR 62199, Oct. 2, 2020]
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-59 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2729

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown 25.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2006

 Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Chafee) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown 25.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT BROWN 25.

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

``      9902.09.82      Pigment Brown 25    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 6992-11-                                                  31/2009
                         6) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.17.04)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 760.23 Other requirements for manufacturers. An indemnity payment may be made under this subpart to an affected manufacturer only under the following conditions: ( a ) If the pesticide contaminating the product was used by the affected manufacturer, he establishes each of the following: ( 1 ) That the pesticide, when used, was registered and recommended for such use as provided in § 760.2(f);
( 2 ) that the contamination of his product was not the result of his failure to use the pesticide in accordance with the directions and limitations stated on the label of the pesticide; and
( 3 ) that the contamination of his product was not otherwise his fault.
( b ) If the pesticide contaminating the product was not used by the affected manufacturer: ( 1 ) He did not know or have reason to believe that the milk from which the product was processed contained a harmful level of pesticide residue, and
( 2 ) the contamination of his product was not otherwise his fault.
( c ) In the event that a manufacturer receives an indemnity payment under this subpart, and such manufacturer is later compensated for the same loss by the person (or the representative or successor in interest of such person) responsible for such loss, the indemnity payment shall be refunded by the manufacturer to the Department of Agriculture: *Provided,* That the amount of such refund shall not exceed the amount of other compensation received by the manufacturer.
[43 FR 10535, Mar. 14, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 24689, June 8, 1982; 51 FR 12987, Apr. 17, 1986; 52 FR 17935, May 13, 1987]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SHELDON LEE HUTCHINS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-5952/MCR/ZCB

DAVID MICHAEL ROWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS PATRICK CAMBELL, AARON NOWLIN, 

ERIC HAYS, DAVID ROWELL, KURT SHULTZ, AND JOHN PENDLETON’S 

RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Defendants PATRICK CAMBELL, AARON 

NOWLIN, ERIC HAYS, DAVID ROWELL, KURT SHULTZ, and JOHN PENDLETON

have served their Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Pro Se Plaintiff on this 21st day 

of October 2024 via regular U.S. Mail as follows:

SHELDON LEE HUTCHINS

N71051

SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

5850 EAST MILTON ROAD

MILTON, FL 32583

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of October 2024.
2

WARNER LAW FIRM, P.A. 

/s/ Timothy M. Warner 

TIMOTHY M. WARNER 

Florida Bar No. 0642363 

ALYSSA M. YARBROUGH 

Florida Bar No. 0103407 

501 West 11th Street, Suite A 

Panama City, Florida 32401 

Telephone No.: (850) 784-7772 

pleadings@warnerlaw.us 

Counsel for Defendants Hays, Rowell, 

Schultz, Nowlin, and Campbell 

COPPINS MONROE, P.A. 

/s/ Zackery A. Scharlepp 

ZACKERY A. SCHARLEPP 

Florida Bar No. 0085374 

2316 Killearn Center Blvd., Suite 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

Telephone No.: (850) 422-2420 

zascharlepp@coppinsmonroe.com 

bmiller@coppinsmonroe.com 

cmarchena@coppinsmonroe.com 

 

Counsel for Defendant Pendleton

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(3) and N.D. Florida Local 

Rule 5.1, this document is being filed electronically and service shall be through 

the Court's transmission facilities on all persons appearing before this Court. 

Additionally, a copy of the above document has been provided this 21st day of 

October 2024 to Plaintiff, pro se, via regular U.S. Mail at the following address:

SHELDON LEE HUTCHINS

N71051

SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

5850 EAST MILTON ROAD

MILTON, FL 32583

/s/ Zackery A. Scharlepp 

Attorney
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2790 

To repeal the fossil fuel energy tax incentives contained in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2006 

Mr. BIDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the fossil fuel energy tax incentives contained 

in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 2005 ENERGY ACT FOSSIL FUEL EN4 ERGY TAX INCENTIVES. 

5 (a) REPEAL.—The provisions of, and the amend6 ments made by, subtitle B of title XIII of the Energy Pol7 icy Act of 2005 are repealed and the Internal Revenue 

8 Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if such 

9 provisions and amendments had never been enacted. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2790 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

2 as if the provisions described in subsection (a) had never 

3 been included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Part 206 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

Part 207 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

Part 208 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

Part 209 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

Part 210 - MARKET RESEARCH

Part 211 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

Part 212 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

Parent topic: Subchapter B - ACQUISITION PLANNING
01521712.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No.: 3:06-cv-618-MEF 

 ) 

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

REPORT OF RULE 26 CONFERENCE

This Court’s Order of July 18, 2007 required the parties to submit proposed changes to 

the existing Amended Scheduling Order relating to deadlines for discovery, expert witnesses, 

dispositive motions and the trial date. Accordingly, a conference call was held on July 25, 2007

attended by: C. Lance Gould on behalf of the plaintiff and Thomas W. Thagard III and W. Scott 

Simpson on behalf of defendant. During that conference call, the parties agreed on the following 

remaining scheduling deadlines for this case: 

 a) Reports from retained experts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26)(a)(2) due: 

• from plaintiff by September 1, 2007. 

• from defendants by November 17, 2007. 

b) Supplementations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) due no later than 30 days 

before the close of discovery. 

 c) Discovery will be closed on January 21, 2008. 

d) All potentially dispositive motions should be filed on February 21, 2008. 

 e) The Parties request a final pretrial conference 30 days before trial. 

 f) Final lists of trial evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) should be due 

pursuant to the terms of the pretrial order. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
 2 

01521712.1 

 g) The case should be ready for trial by May 5, 2008. 

Respectfully Submitted: July 27, 2007. 

s/Thomas W. Thagard III 

Lee E. Bains, Jr. (BAI005) 

Thomas W. Thagard, III (THA006) 

Edward S. Sledge IV (SLE008) 

Attorneys for Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

(205) 254-1000 (Telephone) 

(205) 254-1999 (Facsimile) 

lbains@maynardcooper.com

tthagard@maynardcooper.com

sledge@maynardcooper.com 

W. Scott Simpson 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, Alabama 35216-3084 

205.876.1600 (Telephone) 

205.876.1616 (Facsimile) 

wssimpson@ritcheysimpson.com

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
 3 

01521712.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on July 27, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

• Carter Gibson Vance, Esq. 

• Charles Lance Gould, Esq. 

 s/Edward S. Sledge IV 

 Of Counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
# L_2014367EN.01009601.xml

| 23.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 367/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 367/96

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 17 December 2014

appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2014/942/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Göke FRERICHS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Göke FRERICHS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Gerhard HANDKE, Generaldirektor des Bundesverbandes Großhandel, Außenhandel, Dienstleistungen — BGA, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2014.

For the Council

The President

G. L. GALLETI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.

1

---
#### § 52.3764 Score sheet.

| Number, size and kind of container | | | |
| Label (including size declaration) | | | |
| Container mark or identification | | | |
| Net weight (ounces) | | | |
| Vacuum (inches) | | | |
| Drained weight (ounces) | | | |
| Size | | | |
| Style | | | |
| Average count per pound (whole style) | | | |
| Factors | | | |
| | Score points | | |
| Color | 30 | (A) | 27-30 |
| | | | |
| | | (B) | 24-26 |
| | | | |
| | | (C) | 1 21-23 |
| | | | |
| | | (SStd.) | 1 0-20 |
| Absence of defects | 40 | (A) (B) | 36-40 1 32-35 |
| | | | |
| | | (C) | 1 28-31 |
| | | | |
| | | (SStd.) | 1 0-27 |
| Character | 30 | (A) | 27-30 |
| | | | |
| | | (B) | 1 24-26 |
| | | | |
| | | (C) | 1 21-23 |
| | | | |
| | | (SStd.) | 1 0-20 |
| Total Score | 100 | | |
| Flavor: ( ) Good ( ) Reasonably good ( ) | | | |
| Off | | | |
| Grade | | | −−s0 |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Indicates limiting rule. | | | |
§ 52.54 Debarment of services. ( a ) The following acts or practices, or the causing thereof, may be deemed sufficient cause for the debarment, by the Administrator, of any person, including any agents, officers, subsidiaries, or affiliates of such person, from any or all benefits of the Act for a specified period. The Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes set forth in §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this title and the Supplemental Rules of Practice in part 50 of this chapter shall be applicable to such debarment action. ( 1 ) *Fraud or misrepresentation.* Any misrepresentation or deceptive or fraudulent practice or act found to be made or committed in connection with: ( i ) The making or filing of an application for any inspection service;
( ii ) The submission of samples for inspection;
( iii ) The use of any inspection report or any inspection certificate, or appeal inspection certificate issued under the regulations in this part;
( iv ) The use of the words “Packed under continuous inspection of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” any legend signifying that the product has been officially inspected, any statement of grade or words of similar import in the labeling or advertising of any processed product;
( v ) The use of a facsimile form which simulates in whole or in part any official U.S. certificate for the purpose of purporting to evidence the U.S. grade of any processed product.
( 2 ) *Willful violation of the regulations in this subpart.* Willful violation of the provisions of this part of the Act. ( i ) Country of origin labeling for packed honey. The use of a label or advertising material on, or in conjunction with, packaged honey that bears any official certificate of quality, grade mark or statement, continuous inspection mark or statement, sampling mark or statement, or any combination of the certificates, marks, or statements of the Department of Agriculture is hereby prohibited unless there appears legibly and permanently in close proximity (such as on the same side(s) or surface(s)) to the certificate, mark, or statement, and in at least a comparable size, the one or more names of the one or more countries of origin of the lot or container of honey, preceded by the words ‘Product of’ or other words of similar meaning. ( A ) A violation of the requirements of this section may be deemed by the Secretary to be sufficient cause for debarment from the benefits of the regulations governing inspection and certification only with respect to honey.
( 3 ) *Interfering with an inspector, inspector's aid, or licensed sampler.* Any interference with, obstruction of, or attempted interference with, or attempted obstruction of any inspector, inspector's aide, or licensed sampler in the performance of his duties by intimidation, threat, assault, bribery, or any other means—real or imagined.
[76 FR 253, Jan. 4, 2011]