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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,917]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 14, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of BonaKemi USA, Incorporated, Monroe, North Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of July 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18042 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Fern Hill Sportswear Co., Inc., v. Willensky

Before Hoban, P. J., and Eagen, J.

*488
      *Bialkowski, Bialkowski & Bialkowski,*for plaintiff.

*William P. Farrell*and *James E. O’Brien,*for defendant.

May 12, 1953.

Per Curiam,

Defendant presents a petition requesting the court to order plaintiff to produce certain books and records of plaintiff, to permit defendant to gain information necessary to him to prepare proofs of a prima facie defense. See Pa. R. C. P. 4009 and 4011.

The pleadings, which are complete, indicate that plaintiff charges defendant, a former treasurer of plaintiff, with cashing certain company checks and applying the proceeds to his own use, without corporate authority and without proper accounting on the company’s books. The direct defense admits that defendant indorsed and cashed checks of the company but that the checks were issued on countersignature of the president on corporate authority, and that the transactions should have been entered properly on the books of account and represented by other documents, all of which are within possession of plaintiff, and therefore defendant is without means of controverting plaintiff’s assertions. There is an affirmative defense pleaded, but this petition for discovery is not concerned therewith.

Obviously, since defendant admits cashing company checks, he is handicapped in presenting his defense of justification, authority and proper accounting unless he can identify the checks in question, point to the corporate authority and submit the accounting facts, none of which he is able to do unless he sees the checks, books and records which contain the basic facts essential to his defense.

The pleadings seem to indicate that the petition falls within the clear intent of Pa. R. C. P. 4009, and is not within the limitations of Pa. R. C. P. 4011.

Accordingly, an order will be entered as prayed for.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

#### § 1.402(c)-1 Taxability of beneficiary of certain foreign situs trusts.

Section 402(c) has the effect of treating, for purposes of section 402, the distributions from a trust which at the time of the distribution is located outside the United States in the same manner as distributions from a trust which is located in the United States. If the trust would qualify for exemption from tax under section 501(a) except for the fact that it fails to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of § 1.401-1, which restricts qualification to trusts created or organized in the United States and maintained here, section 402(a) and § 1.402(a)-1 are applicable to the distributions from such a trust. Thus, for example, a total distribution from such a trust is entitled to the long-term capital gains treatment of section 402(a)(2), except in the case of a nonresident alien individual (see section 871 and 1441 and the regulations thereunder). However, if the plan fails to meet any requirement of section 401 and the regulations thereunder in addition to paragraph (a)(3)(i) of § 1.401-1, section 402(b) and § 1.402(b)-1 are applicable to the distributions from such a trust.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11679, Nov. 26, 1960]
39700.

#### GAY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Russell, Judge.

1. An award of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, affirmed by the Judge of the Superior Court of Bibb County on appeal, will be affirmed by this court where supported by any evidence. *Department of Revenue v. Graham,*102 Ga. App. 756 (2) (117 SE2d 902).

2. While exerting himself at work unconnected with his employment on Saturday, February 27, 1960, this claimant suffered symptoms diagnosed as consonant with a small heart attack. The following week and in the course of his employment, which included lifting bathtubs, he had to stop on several occasions because of pain and shortness of breath, which also was diagnosed as a series of small coronary thromboses. On that Saturday, March 5, he went to a doctor for the first time. The following Monday he worked with increasing difficulty until forced by pain to leave around 2 p.m. He did not return to work. He suffered a disabling heart attack at home on the evening of the following Tuesday, March 8, I9601, for which he was hospitalized several weeks followed by bedrest and convalescence at his home. He improved slowly until a second massive attack in February, 1961. Two medical experts testified, one of whom was of the opinion that the exertion of the employment did not contribute to the disability, while the other was of the opinion that, had the employee not returned to work after the coronary incident of February 27, 1960, but been hospitalized at that time, he would likely not have had the subsequent attacks, and that the employment during the week of February 29 was accordingly a contributing precipitating factor. Asked why, if that were the case, the disabling attack followed a period of 24 hours during which the em*680ployee was not working, he replied, “You have asked a question that I can’t answer. . . I tell you we don’t know what causes all of the attacks ... we don’t really know.”

Decided October 1, 1962.

*Jack P. Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anderson, Walker & Reichert, Albert P. Reichert,*contra.

Neither of the disabling attacks occurred while the employee . was working, and the first, if connected with exertion, was exertion not connected with the employment. Under these facts plus the conflict in the medical opinion evidence it cannot be said that the award denying compensation was without evidence to support it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
#### § 1.662(c)-2 Death of individual beneficiary.

If an amount specified in section 662(a) (1) or (2) is paid, credited, or required to be distributed by an estate or trust for a taxable year which does not end with or within the last taxable year of a beneficiary (because of the beneficiary's death), the extent to which the amount is included in the gross income of the beneficiary for his last taxable year or in the gross income of his estate is determined by the computations under section 662 for the taxable year of the estate or trust in which his last taxable year ends. Thus, the distributable net income and the amounts paid, credited, or required to be distributed for the taxable year of the estate or trust, determine the extent to which the amounts paid, credited, or required to be distributed to the beneficiary are included in his gross income for his last taxable year or in the gross income of his estate. (Section 662(c) does not apply to such amounts.) The gross income for the last taxable year of a beneficiary on the cash basis includes only income actually distributed to the beneficiary before his death. Income required to be distributed, but in fact distributed to his estate, is included in the gross income of the estate as income in respect of a decedent under section 691. See paragraph (e) of § 1.663(c)-3 with respect to separate share treatment for the periods before and after the death of a trust's beneficiary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 5664)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Special Emphasis Panel AA-3 Member Conflict Review.                    

*Date:*                         March 9, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         3 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737,                         *bautista@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 22, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-1841 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 717

Employed full time (persons who usually work 

Number in thousands

18 to 19 years

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU02500088Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time, 18-

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:31 PM)
Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
 2009
    
    
    2008A  Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    308.3
    
    
    
    566.0B  Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    (8.8
    )
    
    
    (19.7
    )C  Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    299.5
    
    
    
    546.3D  Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    295,232,000
    
    
    
    315,662,000E  Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    8,092,000
    
    
    
    10,419,000F  Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    8,091,000
    
    
    
    10,411,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    1.04
    
    
    
    1.79Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    1.02
    
    
    
    1.74UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    1.01
    
    
    
    1.73Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    0.99
    
    
    
    1.68
#### Mark Conrad FAUROT, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy M. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-17437.

D.C. No. CV-00-02290-WBS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

*314Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

California state inmate Mark Conrad Faurot, II, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action against California Superior Court Judge Guy M. Young. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action because all of the allegations against Judge Young concern acts normally performed by judges in their judicial capacity. *See Schucker v. Rockwood,*846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 19, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00655

- CR

Martin HERRERA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR8710A

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the underlying cause on September 4, 2018. A

clerk’s record was filed on S eptember 14, 2018, and the docket sheet reflects that appellant is still awaiting sentencing. Because the trial court has not imposed sentence in the underlying cause, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2 (providing

a ppellate deadlines run from the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within two weeks from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction . All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

We further note that the trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right o f appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these

rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of September, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Motion Granted; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 3 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00654

- CV

IN RE AIDA TIPTON , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No

. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 518,963



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 5, 2024 , relator Aida Tipton filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Pamela Medina, presiding judge of the Probate Court No

. 2 of Harris County , to vacate the trial court’s August 16, 2024, order granting amended Rule 202 petition for deposition to investigate for potential claims

.2 On September 20, 2024, real party in interest Vickie Dempsey, individually and as executor of the estate of Michael Tipton, deceased (“RPI”), filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition for writ of mandamus is moot because RPI filed a dismissal of the Rule 202 petition in the trial court.

Because the record reflects that on September 17, 2024, RPI filed in the trial
court a dismissal of RPI’s R ule 202 petition, we grant RPI’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot

. Accordingly, w e dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
#### § 20.2056(b)-10 Effective dates.

Except as specifically provided in §§ 20.2056(b)-5(c)(3) (ii) and (iii), 20.2056(b)-7(d)(3), 20.2056(b)-7(e)(5), and 20.2056(b)-8(b), the provisions of §§ 20.2056(b)-5(c), 20.2056(b)-7, 20.2056(b)-8, and 20.2056(b)-9 are applicable with respect to estates of decedents dying after March 1, 1994. With respect to decedents dying on or before such date, the executor of the decedent's estate may rely on any reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions. In addition, the rule in the last sentence of § 20.2056(b)-5(f)(1) and the rule in the last sentence of § 20.2056(b)-7(d)(1) regarding the effect on the spouse's right to income if applicable local law provides for the reasonable apportionment between the income and remainder beneficiaries of the total return of the trust are applicable with respect to trusts for taxable years ending after January 2, 2004.

[T.D. 8779, 63 FR 44393, Aug. 19, 1998, as amended by T.D. 9102, 69 FR 21, Jan. 2, 2004]
In the costs section of the executive summary, I thought you were adding a sentence saying the costs of this rule 

are less than the 2009 rule but you haven’t estimated that (e.g. the 2009 rule is an upper bound estimate of the 

costs)?

Second, were the Title V costs calculated in 2009? If so, where are they in this table?

Table 1. Summary of the Costs and Emissions Reductions of 40 CFR Part 

63, Subpart VVVVVV 

From: Penny Lassiter [mailto:Lassiter.Penny@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 6:21 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

RE: Latest CMAS Preamble 

Higgins, Cortney 

to: 

Penny Lassiter 

10/16/2012 10:58 AM 

Cc: 

Nick Parsons 

Hide Details 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Requirement Capital Costs ($)

Annualized 

Costs ($/yr)

Emissions 

Reductions (tpy)

Batch process vents $390,000 $370,000 <43

Continuous process vents $170,000 $85,000 <29

Metal HAP process vents $690,000 $1,700,000 41

Storage tanks $85,000 $15,000 5

Heat exchange systems $640,000 $280,000 79

Transfer operations $75,000 $10,000 1

Wastewater systems $210,000 $79,000 51

Management practices $540,000 $685,000 N/A

Total $2,800,000 $3,200,000 248

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web1109.... 10/16/2012
Cc: Nick Parsons 

Subject: Fw: Latest CMAS Preamble

 

Cortney,

Please find attached below a clean version and a redline version (the file that doesn't say "clean" in the title) 

showing the additional language on pg. 37 to add the citation to part 70 and to list the types of other rules that 

could have to be included in a title V permit. This is a redline from the previous clean version we sent to you at 

4:00 pm on 10/12.

Penny Lassiter 

Group Leader 

Refining and Chemicals Group (D205-01) 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. EPA 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

(919) 541-5396 

----- Forwarded by Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/15/2012 06:16 PM -----

From: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/15/2012 05:07 PM

Subject: Latest CMAS Preamble

(See attached file: EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121015 Clean.doc)(See attached file: 

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121015.doc)

- - 

Nick Parsons 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

919.541.5372 

parsons.nick@epa.gov

"No man is more important than the team." -Bo Schembechler

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web1109.... 10/16/2012
§ 1.988-2T Recognition and computation of exchange gain or loss (temporary). ( a ) through ( b ) (15) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.988-2(a) through (b)(15). (16) *Deferral of loss on certain related-party debt instruments*—(i) *Treatment of creditor.* For rules applicable to a corporation included in a controlled group that is a creditor under a debt instrument see § 1.267(f)-1(e). ( ii ) *Treatment of debtor* — ( A ) *In general.* Exchange loss realized under § 1.988-2(b)(4) or (b)(6) is deferred if— ( 1 ) The loss is realized by a debtor with respect to a loan from a person that has a relationship to the debtor described in section 267(b) or section 707(b); and ( 2 ) The transaction resulting in the realization of exchange loss has as a principal purpose the avoidance of Federal income tax. ( B ) *Recognition of deferred loss.* Any exchange loss that is deferred under paragraph (b)(16)(ii)(A) of this section is deferred until the end of the term of the loan, determined immediately prior to the transaction. (17) through (h) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.988-2(b)(17) through (h). ( i ) *Special rules for section 988 transactions of a section 987 QBU.* For rules regarding section 988 transactions of a section 987 QBU, see § 1.987-3T(b)(4) for section 987 QBUs in general and § 1.987-1T(b)(6) for dollar QBUs. (j) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (b)(16) of this section applies to any exchange loss realized on or after December 7, 2016. Paragraph (i) of this section applies to taxable years beginning on or after one year after the first day of the first taxable year following December 7, 2016. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a taxpayer makes an election under § 1.987-11(b), then paragraph (i) of this section applies to taxable years to which §§ 1.987-1 through 1.987-10 apply as a result of such election. (k) *Expiration date.* The applicability of this section expires on December 6, 2019. [T.D. 9795, 81 FR 88879, Dec. 8, 2016]