alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Animal Welfare Act and animalwelfare regulations.**
 
2013 | 2017 | 2019
2020
 
SuDoc Number:
Item Number:
CGP systemNumber:
 
September 27, 2018
427 A.2d 1229

#### Commonwealth v. Price, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Arthur J. King, Assistant Public De*638fender, for appellant;

John J. Burfete, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, HESTER and CAVANAUGH, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 808 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the assignment of patient 

advocates at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Mr. MOOLENAAR (for himself, Mrs. DINGELL, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Ms. SLOTKIN, 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. WALBERG, Ms. 

TLAIB, and Mr. HUIZENGA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

assignment of patient advocates at medical facilities of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Patient Advo5 cacy Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PATIENT ADVOCATES AT MEDICAL FACILITIES OF 

7 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7309A of title 38, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 808 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as 

2 subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol4 lowing new subsection (e): 

5 ‘‘(e) NUMBER OF PATIENT ADVOCATES.—Beginning 

6 on the date that is one year after the date of the enact7 ment of this subsection, the Director shall ensure that— 

8 ‘‘(1) there is not fewer than one patient advo9 cate for every 13,500 veterans enrolled in the system 

10 of annual patient enrollment established and oper11 ated under section 1705 of this title; and 

12 ‘‘(2) highly rural veterans may access the serv13 ices of patient advocates, including, to the extent 

14 practicable, with respect to assigning patient advo15 cates to rural community-based outpatient clinics.’’. 

16 (b) GAO REPORT.—Not later than two years after 

17 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

18 General of the United States shall submit to the Commit19 tees on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives 

20 and the Senate a report evaluating the implementation by 

21 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of section 7309A of title 

22 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 12, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 12, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0087. DIANA MCMANUS v. MICHAEL TODD MCMANUS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17105369
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1497

KENNETH SEATON; MARGARET SEATON, as individuals doing business as Hi-Tech Hygiene,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SCIENTIFIC HYGIENE, INCORPORATED, a Nevada

Corporation; KENNETH KROLL, individually;

ROBERT WARMINGTON, individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-127)

Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: September 9, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Seaton, Margaret Seaton, Appellants Pro Se. Hugo Nathan

Gerstl, LAW OFFICE OF HUGO N. GERSTL, Monterey, California, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth and Margaret Seaton appeal the district court's order

deferring to the judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County,

California, under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994), and dismissing their

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Seaton v. Scientific Hygiene,

Inc., No. CA-95-127 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 27, 1996). We deny Appellants'

motion to partially remand this case and to stay the appeal, and

their motions to submit new evidence and to show an Infomercial. We

also deny Appellants' motion to submit further evidence to show

that the arbitrator acted fraudulently. We grant Appellees' motion

requesting that we take judicial notice, but deny their motions to

strike, to dismiss, and to impose sanctions. We deny Appellants'

motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable D. C. cireer 

State Ffighway Engineer 

Austin, Texas 

Bear Sir2 

Oplnion,No. C-S%5 

A Ret Rtglstrrtion of . 

February f? 1 

t a8 folio A+ . ’ 

lng the Randolph 

oonriot8 ot a ma 

and Randolph F’iel 

the ee operation8 

or through mo 

verbally adrl 

read that the 

*tnQe8 18 operrtompany, whloh 

betweea nan Atitonio 

camp Bulllr. In 

crate between 

,,e’i&F 

) 

or E&rough 

He has, therefore, in 

with prrneng~r lioense 

anee with advloe, aeooordee6 of thl8 otiioe and other 

o these operation8 HP. Nln&es4 

6, the United States and 

to &n&a$.ph FIuld and Camp BuJ.l!ie 18 oouoerned, but we are 

not ~oertain acI to the oorreotneer bf their raglstratlon 

with passenger oar Uoense plates when they make chartered 

trips. Therefore, pleaee sbrlse u6 whether or not the burr8 

used br thle oarnap- in trannportlng person8 ior bfre on 

ohaatereb trips wherein the trip would be between or through 

two or mope lnoorporated oltirr they should be rvf%ateret¶ 

with paseengepr Iloenee plate6 OF with bus plate8. 

241 
142 

Honorable D. c. Ckeer, pa$e l? 

Eeetlon ii of hrtiole 6676A-1, Vernon’8 hnuotated 

Civil 3lmtutee, pr0rIder aI followel 

O(n) ‘Notor &II' rhall IaoluQs every rehlole exoept 

there opensted by muroular power or l xolu8Irel~ on 

8tatiosary ml18 or traot8, whioh 18 ured In tranrportIng 

per8onr between or through two or more Inoorporqted 

altler an&/or towne anti/or vIllago for ooapenea~tlon 

..(or hire) whether operated over flxod routes or othonlre; 

exoept 8UOh of r&id VehiOle8 l 8 are operated l $ OlU8iVely 

within the lIaIt8 of Inoorpomted eltler and/or town8 

or ruburban addition8 to ruoh towns.* 

We are not lnfoned a8 to the p8rtiaplW faotr bonoerning the method Of eper%t%OA Of the bUae8 that We U8ed On the 

chartere4 trIp8 IA qU08tlon. Newever, In the lart rentan of 

your letter, quoted l b0Te, JOU OOnillUde tht th0 bU8e8 we bOilt& 

used t0 traarport prrrongo~r for hIx@e. Pil%8beIw true, you 

are advieed that under the expreB8 term8 Of the 8tatute, quoted 

above, the burer ured in tr*nrpmtIng pereon for ain on 

ohartered trlpr whemIn the trip would be between or through 

two or more inmrporateb altier 8re *Notor h8ed ana 8houl.d 

be registered vIth bu8 lioOn80 Qlate6. 

We are l ~olo8Ing a oepy of Our Opinion No. O-1430, 

whioh holds in erfeat that aertain operatlonr 0r buror am 

operation8 tar hire tithln the meanlng of ArtIole Qlla, Vernon’8 

Annotated Civil 5tatut.8. 

We tXlZ8t that we &VO 8mt:8iWtOri~y l nnnr ea Jo ur 

que8tIon. 

Your8 very truly
39160.

#### GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY v. SHAW.

Decided November 16, 1961

Rehearing denied December 12, 1961.

*103
      *M. D. McClendon, Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bex T. Beeves, Merreil Collier,*contra.

Ebesrhardt, Judge.

The well-settled rule in Georgia is that an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board will not be reversed if there is any competent evidence to support it. While the employer attempts to raise issues relative to a pre-existingback injury mentioned in the first award made by the board, there are many cases supporting the proposition that “The original award is conclusive on both the employer and employee as to the extent of the disability of the employee, as found by the [board].” *Home Acc. Ins. Co. v. McNair,*173 Ga. 566 (lb) (161 SE 131). E.g., *Moore v. American Mut. &c. Ins. Co.,*67 Ga. App. 259 (19 SE2d 763); *Riegel Textile Corp. v. Vinyard,*88 Ga. App. 753, 755 (77 SE2d 760). Therefore, the application of the “any evidence” yardstick is all that is necessary here.

The claimant testified about his condition in January, 1958, the date of the award, as contrasted to his condition in November, 1959, when he had requested a hearing on a change of condition. At the former time, he could “do some work,” although limited in his bending; he drove to California in a pickup truck; he could pick up forty to sixty pounds; he could walk for most of the day; he could sleep through the entire, night; he did carpentry work around his house; and, he worked in a service station as a “front man” waiting on trade. At the latter time, he couldn’t do any work; he suffered when driving from his home in Mountain View to Atlanta; he could not carry grocery sacks weighing-fifteen to' twenty pounds into the house; he could walk for no more than thirty minutes; he got up about three or four times a week in the night; he was “too painful” to do any carpentry work; and, he was no longer able to work at the service station.

This uncontradicted evidence, of itself, would probably be sufficient to meet the “any evidence” test. See *General Motors Corp.*
      *104
      *v. Craig,*91 Ga. App. 239, 240 (85 SE2d 441); *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hammond,*90 Ga. App. 595 (83 SE2d 576). However, it was substantiated by his service station employer who testified that claimant’s ability to do the “front man” work dwindled to the point where he was unable to perform his duties. Further, an orthopedic surgeon testified that claimant’s physical condition was consistent with his testimony. The physician further stated that, while claimant could do some “light work” on occasion, some days he might not be able to do any work because of the pain. Even the neurological surgeon selected by the employer testified that claimant’s later difficulties could be traced to the original injury.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that the “any evidence” rule has been satisfied here and the superior court did not err in affirming the award of the board.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.*
427 A.2d 1225

#### Commonwealth v. Hooks, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Harris S. Pasline, Public Defender for appellant;

James J. Narlesky, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, HESTER and CAVANAUGH, JJ.

The judgment of sentence in the above case is affirmed.
§ 1.312-12 Distributions of proceeds of loans guaranteed by the United States. ( a ) The provisions of section 312(j) are applicable with respect to a loan, any portion of which is guaranteed by an agency of the United States Government without regard to the percentage of such loan subject to such guarantee.
( b ) The application of section 312(j) is illustrated by the following example:
Example. Corporation A borrowed $1,000,000 for the purpose of construction of an apartment house, the cost and adjusted basis of which was $900,000. This loan was guaranteed by an agency of the United States Government. One year after such loan was made and after the completion of construction of the building (but before such corporation had received any income) it distributed $100,000 cash to its shareholders. The earnings and profits of the taxable year of such corporation are increased (pursuant to section 312(j)) by $100,000 immediately prior to such distribution and are decreased by $100,000 immediately after such distribution. Such decrease, however, does not reduce the earnings and profits below zero. Two years later, it has no accumulated earnings and has earnings of the taxable year of $100,000. Before it has made any payments on the loan, it distributes $200,000 to its shareholders. The earnings and profits of the taxable year of the corporation ($100,000) are increased by $100,000, the excess of the amount of the guaranteed loan over the adjusted basis of the apartment house (calculated without adjustment for depreciation). The entire amount of each distribution is treated as a distribution out of earnings and profits and, accordingly, as a taxable dividend.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Editas Medicine, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her or his knowledge:

 

(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 Company.

 

 

Dated: March 29, 2016

 

| By:    | /s/ Katrine S. Bosley                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Katrine S. Bosley                     |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                  |   |
|   |                                  |   |
| By:    | /s/ Andrew A.F. Hack                  |   |
|   | Andrew A.F. Hack, M.D., Ph.D.         |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |   |

 

----
# C_2016419EN.01001401.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-91/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8701 - Tractors - Subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 - Agricultural tractors (excluding pedestrian-controlled tractors) and forestry tractors, wheeled, new - Light four-wheeled all terrain vehicles designed to be used as tractors))

(2016/C 419/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 2 of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid in so far as it classifies the vehicle described in that paragraph under subheading 8107 90 90 of that Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, and not under one of subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 of that Combined Nomenclature, which correspond to the engine power of that vehicle.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
- USGS Home
- Contact USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent publications 
    by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore          
        	 
  Explore recent publications 
    by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by Publication type and year
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by Publication type and year
- Documentation           
       	 
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Copper deposits of the Tyrone district, New Mexico

#### Professional Paper 122

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                 
  (6077 pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                 
    (2795 pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                 
    (3579 pdf)
- **Plate 6**                                 
    (844 pdf)
- **Plate 7**                                 
    (1260 pdf)
- **Plate 8**                                 
    (878 pdf)
- **Plate 9**                                 
    (1218 pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility 
            FOIA 
            Privacy 
            Policies and Notices

U.S. 
Department of the Interior |                 U.S. Geological Survey                URL: 
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp122 
                                    Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page                    Page Last Modified: February 
02, 2012 00:10:15
§ 1.280B-1 Demolition of structures. ( a ) *In general.* Section 280B provides that, in the case of the demolition of any structure, no deduction otherwise allowable under chapter 1 of subtitle A shall be allowed to the owner or lessee of such structure for any amount expended for the demolition or any loss sustained on account of the demolition, and that the expenditure or loss shall be treated as properly chargeable to the capital account with respect to the land on which the demolished structure was located.
( b ) *Definition of structure.* For purposes of section 280B, the term *structure* means a building, as defined in § 1.48-1(e)(1), including the structural components of that building, as defined in § 1.48-1(e)(2).
( c ) *Effective date.* This section is effective for demolitions commencing on or after December 30, 1997.
[T.D. 8745, 62 FR 67726, Dec. 30, 1997]
§ 1.1274-5 Assumptions. ( a ) *In general.* Section 1274 does not apply to a debt instrument if the debt instrument is assumed, or property is taken subject to the debt instrument, in connection with a sale or exchange of property, unless the terms of the debt instrument, as part of the sale or exchange, are modified in a manner that would constitute an exchange under section 1001.
( b ) *Modifications of debt instruments* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if a debt instrument is assumed, or property is taken subject to a debt instrument, in connection with a sale or exchange of property, the terms of the debt instrument are modified as part of the sale or exchange, and the modification triggers an exchange under section 1001, the modification is treated as a separate transaction taking place immediately before the sale or exchange and is attributed to the seller of the property. For purposes of this paragraph (b), a debt instrument is not considered to be modified as part of the sale or exchange unless the seller knew or had reason to know about the modification.
( 2 ) *Election to treat buyer as modifying the debt instrument* — ( i ) *In general.* Rather than having the rules in paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply, the seller and buyer may jointly elect to treat the transaction as one in which the buyer first assumed the original (unmodified) debt instrument and then subsequently modified the debt instrument. For this purpose, the modification is treated as a separate transaction taking place immediately after the sale or exchange.
( ii ) *Time and manner of making the election.* The buyer and seller make the election under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section by jointly signing a statement that includes the names, addresses, and taxpayer identification numbers of the seller and buyer, and a clear indication that the election is being made under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. Both the buyer and the seller must sign this statement not later than the earlier of the last day (including extensions) for filing the Federal income tax return of the buyer or seller for the taxable year in which the sale or exchange of the property occurs. The buyer and seller should attach this signed statement (or a copy thereof) to their timely filed Federal income tax returns.
( c ) *Wraparound indebtedness.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the issuance of wraparound indebtedness is not considered an assumption.
( d ) *Consideration attributable to assumed debt.* If, as part of the consideration for the sale or exchange of property, the buyer assumes, or takes the property subject to, an indebtedness that was issued with OID (including a debt instrument issued in a prior sale or exchange to which section 1274 applied), the portion of the buyer's basis in the property and the seller's amount realized attributable to the debt instrument equals the adjusted issue price of the debt instrument as of the date of the sale or exchange.
[T.D. 8517, 59 FR 4824, Feb. 2, 1994]