alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.11 Rules against age discrimination. The rules stated in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 23.13 and 23.14. ( a ) *General rule.* No person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( b ) *Specific rules.* A recipient may not, in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, directly or through contractual licensing, or other arrangements, use age distinctions or take any other actions that have the effect, on the basis of age, of: ( 1 ) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
( 2 ) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( c ) *Non-exhaustive list.* The specific forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section do not necessarily constitute a complete list.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julio Cesar RODAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50387.

D.C. No. CR-99-01274-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

- Julio Cesar Rodas appeals the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Rodas contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-level decrease in his offense level under § U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b) for what he contends was his minor role in the conspiracy. We review for clear error a district court’s determination that a defendant was not a minor or minimal participant. *United States v. Murillo,*255 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir.2001). *899A downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 “is to be used infrequently and only in exceptional circumstances.” *United States v. Davis,*36 F.3d 1424, 1436 (9th Cir.1994.)

Because Rodas admitted to conspiring to distribute, and to possessing with the intent to distribute, a total of three kilograms of cocaine over two separate transactions, the district court did not clearly err by denying Rodas a minor-role reduction under § U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). *See Murillo,*255 F.3d at 1179 (“Where drugs are present in significant quantities, that in itself is sufficient to deny a sentencing reduction [under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b)].”); *United States v. Antonakeas,*255 F.3d 714, 727 (9th Cir.2001) (upholding denial of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) adjustment because “a supplier of kilogram quantities of cocaine on multiple occasions is not deserving of any downward adjustment.”).

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.
#### Czerkas v. Taylor Borough et al.

*A. C.F. KenowsM,*for plaintiff.

*Hugh J. McMenamin*and *Charles L. Robertson,*for defendants.

October 28, 1953.

Hoban, P. J.,

A compulsory non-suit was entered at trial as to both defendants. The basis of the case was the alleged negligence of a member of the hose company, a volunteer fire company, in *590throwing a catch ring toward a fire hydrant while the apparatus was responding to an alarm.

No legal liability for the tort of one of its members can be imposed upon the hose company, and the only way in which the borough could be held would be under a provision of The Vehicle Code making a borough jointly and severally liable with any member of a volunteer hose company of the borough for any damage caused by such member while operating fire department equipment going to, attending or returning from a fire: The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, sec. 619, 75 PS §212.

But here the alleged tortfeasor is neither a party to the action nor identified in the testimony. The phrase “jointly and severally liable” does not impose separate liability apart from that of the tortfeasor, but means that if the tortfeasor is found individually liable, then a plaintiff may collect from the borough and the individual or from the borough alone, with the borough retaining the right to recoup.

Even so the trial judge thought no negligence was established and a review of the evidence confirms that opinion.

We discharge this rule with reluctance because plaintiff was severely injured in the accident while he was returning from an act of mercy in attempting to extinguish the fire to which the hose company was en route. We are informed by counsel, however, that the Taylor Borough Council is considering an award to plaintiff which will somewhat compensate him for the medical expense and personal loss suffered, an action of which we thoroughly approve.

Now, October 28, 1953, the rule to show cause why the compulsory nonsuit heretofore entered in the above-entitled case should not be taken off and a new trial awarded, 'is discharged.
[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: Motorvehicle use map. Ashley National Forest, Utah. Vernal Ranger District West**
 
2013: FrontBack| 2014 | 2016: FrontBack
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:AS 3/12/
Item Number: 0080-G(online)
CGP systemNumber:000924146
 
June 28, 2018
§ 57.5 Notice of preliminary fee calculation. ( a ) *Content of notice.* Each fee year, the IRS will make a preliminary calculation of the fee for each covered entity as described in § 57.4. The IRS will notify each covered entity of its preliminary fee calculation for that fee year. The notification to a covered entity of its preliminary fee calculation will include— ( 1 ) The covered entity's allocated fee;
( 2 ) The covered entity's net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks;
( 3 ) The covered entity's net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks taken into account after the application of § 57.4(a)(4);
( 4 ) The aggregate net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks taken into account for all covered entities; and
( 5 ) Instructions for how to submit a corrected Form 8963, “Report of Health Insurance Provider Information,” to correct any errors through the error correction process.
( b ) *Timing of notice.* The IRS will specify in other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin the date by which it will send each covered entity a notice of its preliminary fee calculation.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELENA WHITBY a/k/a JENNIFER ROSS, JAMES CRYSTAL HOLDINGS, INC., JAMES CRYSTAL LICENSES, LLC
, and JAMES CRYSTAL ENTERPRISES, LLC
, Appellant s ,

v.

CBS RADIO STATIONS, INC, f/k/a

INFINITY RADIO, INC.
, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D 17

- 1717

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward L. Artau, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2000

- CA

009360

- XX0 CAF.

Robert G. Haile, Jr. of Haile, Shaw & Pfaffenberger, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellants.

Alan Rosenthal and Natalie J. Carlos of Carlton Fields, Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,596,141
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 50,050,230
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      20,348,465
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        20,585,685
<LOANS>                                    215,525,563
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,500,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             319,722,277
<DEPOSITS>                                 286,126,417
<SHORT-TERM>                                   315,966
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,714,906
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,613,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,280
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,916,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             319,722,277
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,902,281
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,850,176
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               449,620
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            18,202,077
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,856,863
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,000,193
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,201,884
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  450,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             382,370
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,698,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,317,553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,317,553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,609,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.61
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,716,965
<LOANS-PAST>                                   421,446
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                500,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,693,865
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  705,746
<RECOVERIES>                                    62,587
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,500,706
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,500,706
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                           9,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,242
<PP&E>                                       1,252,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 738,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 981,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,441
<BONDS>                                        352,191
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           441
<OTHER-SE>                                     373,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   981,518
<SALES>                                         19,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               465,813
<CGS>                                           14,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  311,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Reagans Mill Sewer Company, Inc., Appellant, v Town Board of Town of Dover et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 655]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Dover dated September 9, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the rate-increase petition only to the extent of granting a 1.24% rate increase for sewage treatment services, the petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered September 27, 2004, as denied the petition, confirmed the determination, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of Dover (hereinafter the Town Board) to partially grant the rate-increase petition by approving only a 1.24% rate increase for sewage treatment services, was rational and was not arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Bennett Rd. Sewer Co. v Town Bd. of Town of Camillus,*273 AD2d 902 [2000]; *Matter of Heritage Hills Sewage Works Corp. v Town Bd. of Town of Somers,*245 AD2d 450 [1997]; *see also Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 444 [1978]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 232 [1974]; *Matter of Pagnozzi v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Piermont,*292 AD2d 613 [2002]). The Town Board’s determination provides for “fair, reasonable and adequate rates” (Transportation Corporation Law § 121) and, considered in its entirety, the determination is “just and reasonable” (M*atter of Abrams v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y.,*104 AD2d 135, 137 [1984], *affd*67 NY2d 205 [1986]; *see Matter of Heritage Hills Sewage Works Corp. v Town Bd. of Town of Somers, supra; Matter of Kessel v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y.,*123 AD2d 203 [1987]) because it ensures the petitioner’s financial integrity and ability to attract capital *(see Matter of Abrams v Public Serv. Commn. of State of N.Y., supra*at 137; *see also FPC v Hope Natural Gas Co.,*320 US 591 [1944]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
# L_2020410EN.01011001.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 410/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 410/110

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2020/1410 of 25 September 2020 on the position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, in the 66th session of the Harmonized System Committee of the World Customs Organization in relation to the envisaged adoption of Classification opinions, classification decisions, amendments to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes or other advice on the interpretation of the Harmonized System, and of recommendations to secure uniformity in the interpretation of the Harmonized System under the Harmonized System Convention

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 406 of 3 December 2020
  )

This corrigendum should be considered null and void.

---
<PAGE> 1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Item 6.
-------

                                   Exhibit 11
                                   ----------

                                                                                 THREE MONTHS                 THREE MONTHS
                                                                                    ENDED                         ENDED
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS                                              DECEMBER 31, 1996            DECEMBER 31, 1995
                                                                             ----------------------       ----------------------
<S>                                                                                      <C>                          <C>     
Net income                                                                                $593,439                     $483,758
                                                                                          ========                     ========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                               1,652,400                    1,834,900


Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of stock options                            35,600                       59,700
                                                                                            ------                       ------

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding                         1,688,000                    1,894,600
                                                                                         =========                    ========= 

Earnings per common share and common share equivalent                                        $0.35                        $0.26
                                                                                             =====                        =====
</TABLE>


                                                             18
#### § 100.19 Disposition of counterfeit notes and coins.

All counterfeit notes and coin found in remittances are cancelled and delivered to the U.S. Secret Service of the Department of the Treasury or to the nearest local office of that Service, a receipt for the same being forwarded to the sender. Communications with respect thereto should be addressed to the Director, U.S. Secret Service, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20223.
§ 25.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78451, Dec. 22, 2008]
DRAFT 

AGENDA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

PLACE OF MEETING: FORRESTAL BUILDING 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW 

ROOM 1E-245 

WASHINGTON, DC 20585 

TELEPHONl3: 202-586-9127 

TELEFAX: 202-586-4617 

DATE AND TIME: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6,20011 

9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING 

The purpose of this public meeting is to: 1) continue the September 11,2001, public 

meeting where DOE discussed the priorities of the existing appliance standards 

program, possible expansion of the scope of the program, and criteria and the 

process for applying the criteria in considering new products for either standards or 

voluntary programs; and 2) receive comments on the preliminary data sheets for 

potential new products and recommendations as to whether or not these products 

should be considered for further action including: standards, negotiated 

agreements, legislation, Energy Star, tax credits, etc. 

I. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS 

11. AGENDA REVIEW 

111. INTRODUCTION 

IV. REVIEW OF SEPTEMBER 1 lT" MEETING 

A. Revised Criteria for Prioritization 

B. Comment Summary 

 EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 01B
V. POTENTIAL NEW PRODUCTS 

A. Review Data Sheets 

B. Possible Selection Criteria 

C. Brainstorming 

D. Recommendations for Prioritization of Products 

VI. NEXT STEPS 

A. Follow-up Action Items 

B. Continuing Communication 

ADJOURNMENT 

 EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 01B
# L_2020050EN.01002401.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/24

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 1015/2010

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 315 of 5 December 2019
  )

| 1. | On page 287, Article 1, point 2(a): |
| --- | --- |

1.

On page 287, Article 1, point 2(a):

for:

| ‘(a) | washing machines and washer-dryers belonging to the scope of Directive 2006/42/EC;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

washing machines and washer-dryers belonging to the scope of Directive 2006/42/EC;’,

read:

| ‘(a) | washing machines and washer-dryers belonging to the scope of Directive 2006/42/EC (*1); |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

washing machines and washer-dryers belonging to the scope of Directive 2006/42/EC (*1);

*1

| 2. | On page 303, in Annex III, point 1.1(c), the formula is replaced with the following:

  ‘



  ’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

On page 303, in Annex III, point 1.1(c), the formula is replaced with the following:

‘

  Image 1

  ’

| 3. | On page 304, in Annex III, point 1.2(d), the formula is replaced with the following:

  ‘



  ’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

On page 304, in Annex III, point 1.2(d), the formula is replaced with the following:

‘

  Image 2

  ’

| 4. | On page 305, in Annex III, point 5.2, the formula is replaced with the following:

  ‘



  ’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

On page 305, in Annex III, point 5.2, the formula is replaced with the following:

‘

  Image 3

  ’

| 5. | On page 306, in Annex III, point 6, the formula is replaced with the following:

  ‘



  ’ |
| --- | --- |

5.

On page 306, in Annex III, point 6, the formula is replaced with the following:

‘

  Image 4

  ’

---

(*1)  Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24).’.

*1

---
#### § 19.965 Legal proceedings.

*Legal proceedings* means any criminal proceeding or any civil judicial proceeding, including a proceeding under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812), to which the Federal Government or a State or local government or quasi-governmental authority is a party. The term also includes appeals from those proceedings.
#### § 31.3121(a)(14)-1 Payments by employer to survivor or estate of former employee.

The term “wages” does not include any payment by an employer to a survivor or the estate of a former employee made after 1972 and after the calendar year in which such employee died.

[T.D. 7374, 40 FR 30950, July 24, 1975, as amended by T.D. 7373, 40 FR 30957, July 24, 1975]