alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10822-10823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5170]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 10-03]

Notice of the March 24, 2010 Millennium Challenge Corporation 
Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Time and Date:  10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Wednesday, March 24, 2010.

Place:  Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Romell Cummings via e-mail at [email protected] or by 
telephone at (202) 521-3600.

Status:  Meeting will be closed to the public.

Matters to be Considered:  The Board of Directors (the ``Board'') of 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (``MCC'') will hold a meeting to 
discuss approval of the Philippines Compact; compact implementation; 
and certain administrative matters. The agenda

[[Page 10823]]

items are expected to involve the consideration of classified 
information and the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: March 5, 2010.
Henry C. Pitney,
Acting Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge 
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010-5170 Filed 3-5-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JTK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE RODRIGUEZ-ALONSO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70025

Agency No. A093-322-411

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Rodriguez-Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due

FILED

DEC 07 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JTK/Research 2 07-70025

process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

To the extent Rodriguez-Alonso challenges the BIA’s June 29, 2006, order

dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for

review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th

Cir. 2003).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Rodriguez-Alonso’s

motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his United

States citizen children. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.

2006) (“Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) . . . bars jurisdiction where the question presented

is essentially the same discretionary issue originally decided.”). It follows that we

lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA failed to

explain adequately its reasons for denying the motion to reopen. See id. at 603-04.

Rodriguez-Alonso’s contention that the BIA violated due process by

mischaracterizing the immigration judge’s weighing of the evidence is unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
#### § 1.312-3 Liabilities.

The amount of any reductions in earnings and profits described in section 312 (a) or (b) shall be (a) reduced by the amount of any liability to which the property distributed was subject and by the amount of any other liability of the corporation assumed by the shareholder in connection with such distribution, and (b) increased by the amount of gain recognized to the corporation under section 311 (b), (c), or (d), or under section 341(f), 617(d), 1245(a), 1250(a), 1251(c), 1252(a), or 1254(a).

[T.D. 7209, 37 FR 20804, Oct. 5, 1972, as amended by T.D. 8586, 60 FR 2500, Jan. 10, 1995]
#### § 1.1202-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the major captions that appear in the regulations under § 1.1202-2.

## § 1.1202-2 Qualified small business stock; effect of redemptions.

(a) Redemptions from taxpayer or related person.

(1) In general.

(2) De minimis amount.

(b) Significant redemptions.

(1) In general.

(2) De minimis amount.

(c) Transfers by shareholders in connection with the performance of services not treated as purchases.

(d) Exceptions for termination of services, death, disability or mental incompetency, or divorce.

(1) Termination of services.

(2) Death.

(3) Disability or mental incompetency.

(4) Divorce.

(e) Effective date.

[T.D. 8749, 62 FR 68166, Dec. 31, 1997]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 85 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 85

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning May 2, 1993, as ``National Mental Health 
                           Counselors Week''.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 85

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Designating the week beginning May 2, 1993, as ``National Mental Health 
                           Counselors Week''.

Whereas mental health counselors provide services along a full continuum of 
        care, including developmental and preventive services;
Whereas mental health counselors utilize individual and group counseling 
        techniques oriented toward assisting individuals with methods of problem 
        solving, personal and social development decision making, and the 
        complex process of developing self-understanding and making life 
        decisions;
Whereas mental health counselors work in conjunction with other helping 
        professionals, such a psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, 
        to determine the most appropriate counseling for each client;
Whereas mental health counselors work in psychiatric hospitals, community mental 
        health agencies, private clinics, college campuses, rehabilitation 
        centers, and private practice;
Whereas mental health counselors are individuals upon whom, by virtue of their 
        education and extensive training, heave been conferred masters or doctor 
        of philosophy degrees in mental health counseling or community mental 
        health counseling, or similar degree titles having a focus on mental 
        health; and
Whereas mental health counselors, after having earned such degrees, have 
        performed at least 2 years of supervised clinical counseling, and are 
        licensed or certified in the State of their residence, or are certified 
        by the Academy of Clinical Mental Health Counselors: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week beginning May 2, 
1993, is designated ``National Mental Health Counselors Week''. The 
President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon all 
Government agencies and the people of the United States to observe the 
week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

            Passed the Senate April 27 (legislative day, April 19), 
      1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
§ 1.263A-14 Rules for related persons. Taxpayers must account for average excess expenditures allocated to related persons under applicable administrative pronouncements interpreting section 263A(f). See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter. [T.D. 8584, 59 FR 67215, Dec. 29, 1994]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10956 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT LYNN BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:93-CR-302-T

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Lynn Bell appeals from the district court's decision to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines. He contends that the district court erred by imposing his 240-month sentence to run consecutively to his state sentences. Bell argues that U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3, p.s. requires a finding by the district court that the victim suffered psychological injury much more serious than that normally resulting from the commission of the offense and that the evidence in the record did not support such aNo. 95-10956 -2- finding. Because the Government produced unrebutted evidence that the victim had suffered a substantial impairment of her psychological and behavioral functioning that was likely to be of an extended duration and that was manifested by psychological symptoms or by changes in behavior patterns, see § 5K2.3, p.s., the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward pursuant to § 5K2.3. See United States v. Anderson , 5 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1118 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
RECEIVED 

U.S. IH:PARTMlcNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVtATION AD!\UNISTRATlON 

JUN 1 3 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL.-\ VIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

Cntnplain~mt, 

\'S 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION. 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011GL030070 

Judge Sullivan 

JOINT PROPOSE[) WRITTEN CLOSING ARGliMENT SCHJ<:Dl/LE 

Pursu~mt to the- Judg\.~'s insll'uctions at the clLISC of hearing in this matter, the parties 

hereby submit the f~1llov .. ·ing proposeJ schedule l'(lr wriHen closing arguments: 

Compbinunr"s Closing .:\rgum~m: Submiued un or hcfon.!' June 30.2014. 

Complainant's Rebuttal Closin.~ Argument: ~ubmitted on rir befol·e September 8, 2014. 

Nn closing argum~nt submi~~sions b~:.·; (Jfl.d the thre~ .1!:-:tcd abo\'_e \V(Jllid he permitt~d without 

prior !~ave of rhe C()urt. 

Respectfully wbmitkd lhi& 6~ June. 2014. 

Christoph~r Sk•vcn~(m 

FAA Office of the Regional Counsel 

1701 Columbia ,\,em>c 

Co.! lege Park. (i-\ _10337 

Couttsel :for the Cnmplainam 

,~i-~tf;::_. ___ _ Stuan /\. Ooldstem ' 

\tuart A. Goldstein, P,A. 

7300 Nonh Kendall (Jrive. Suite 380 

\·liami. FL 331.56 

C mmsd f(Jr the Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Proposed Written Closing Argument Schedule 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 2Wl000 

One copy via 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 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P .A. 

7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Dated 

I
131 STAT. 134 PUBLIC LAW 115–30—APR. 28, 2017 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 99: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Apr. 28, considered and passed House and Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–30 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (division C of Public Law 114– 

223) is further amended by— 

(1) striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 

inserting ‘‘May 5, 2017’’; and 

(2) inserting after section 201 the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 202. (a) This section may be cited as the ‘Further Continued Health Benefits for Miners Act’. 

‘‘(b) Section 402(h)(2)(C)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)(C)(ii)) is amended— 

‘‘(1) in subclause (II), by striking ‘April 30, 2017’ and 

inserting ‘May 5, 2017’; 

‘‘(2) in subclause (II)(aa), by striking ‘the Continued Health 

Benefits for Miners Act’ and inserting ‘the Further Continued 

Health Benefits for Miners Act’; and 

‘‘(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘For purposes 

of subclause (II)(aa), a beneficiary enrolled in the Plan as 

of the date of the enactment of the Further Continued Health 

Benefits for Miners Act shall be deemed to have been eligible 

to receive health benefits under the Plan on January 1, 2017.’. 

‘‘(c) The provisions of section 167(d) of Public Law 114–223 

(as added by Public Law 114–254) shall apply to this section.’’. 

Approved April 28, 2017. 

Applicability. 

30 USC 1201 

note. 

Ante, p. 910. 

Apr. 28, 2017 

[H.J. Res. 99] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
# C_2014372EN.01001101.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-394/14)

2014/C 372/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

1

| 2. | If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

| 3. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Safari Cayman L.P. (the “Partnership”) for the year ended November 1, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Anthony E. Maslowski, Chief Financial Officer of Pavonia Limited, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.




Date:December 23, 2015/s/ Anthony E. MaslowskiAnthony E. MaslowskiChief Financial Officer of Pavonia Limited, the Registrant’s sole general partner





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8133 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary concerned 

to furnish mortuary services in the case of certain citizens of the United 

States who die outside of the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2024 

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

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary concerned to furnish mortuary services in the case 

of certain citizens of the United States who die outside 

of the United States, 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. MILITARY MORTUARY SERVICES FOR CIVIL4 IANS. 

5 (a) MILITARY MORTUARY SERVICES.—Section 

6 1486(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘or if the individual arranging 

8 for mortuary services and supplies for a decedent beVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:43 May 15, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8133.IH H8133

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8133 IH

1 lieves the local commercial mortuary services and 

2 supplies are undesirable,’’ after ‘‘prohibitive,’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘this section’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (1) through (5)’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(7) Any person not otherwise covered by this 

7 section if a mortuary facility under the jurisdiction 

8 of the Secretary concerned has the capacity and per9 sonnel to provide such services and supplies.’’. 

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

11 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

12 of this Act and shall apply with respect to a death occur13 ring on or after such date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 1.1347-1 Tax on certain amounts received from the United States. ( a ) In the case of an amount (other than interest) received from the United States by an individual under a claim involving acquisition of property and remaining unpaid for more than 15 years, the tax (or, in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 1971, the surtax) imposed by section 1 attributable to such amount shall not exceed 33 percent of the amount (other than interest) so received (30 percent for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1971). For the purpose of section 1347 and this section, such amount shall not include any amount received from the United States which constitutes interest, whether such interest was included in the claim or in any judgment thereon or has accrued on such judgment. Section 1347 and this section shall only apply with respect to amounts received under a claim filed with the United States before January 1, 1958.
( b ) To determine the application of section 1347 and this section to a particular amount, the taxpayer shall first compute the tax (or, in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 1971, the surtax) imposed by section 1 upon his entire taxable income, including the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section, without regard to the limitation on tax provided in section 1347. The proportion of the tax (or surtax), so computed, indicated by the ratio which the taxpayer's taxable income attributable to the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section, computed as prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, bears to his total taxable income, is the portion of the tax (or surtax) attributable to such amount. If this portion of the tax (or surtax) exceeds 33 percent (30 percent for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1971) of the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section, that portion of the tax (or surtax) shall be reduced to 33 percent (or 30 percent) of such amount.
( c ) In determining the portion of the taxable income attributable to any amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the taxpayer shall allocate to such amount received and to the gross income derived from all other sources, the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly attributable thereto, and shall apply any general expenses, losses, and other deductions (which cannot be properly apportioned otherwise) ratably to the gross income from all sources. The amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section, less the deductions properly attributable thereto and less its proportion of any general deductions, shall be the taxable income attributable to such amount. The taxpayer shall submit with his return a statement fully explaining the manner in which such expenses, losses, and deductions are allocated or apportioned.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12052, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7117, 36 FR 9422, May 25, 1971; 36 FR 11434, June 12, 1971]