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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 100

To encourage States to study and adopt interstate compacts for the regulation

of interstate insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 11, 1995

Mr. MOORHEAD introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

JOINT RESOLUTION

To encourage States to study and adopt interstate compacts

for the regulation of interstate insurance.

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States

authorizes cooperation among the States through the use

of interstate compacts;

Whereas the McCarran-Ferguson Act recognizes that the regulation by the several States of the business of insurance

is in the public interest;

Whereas there are more than 140 interstate compacts in effect today that have proven to be effective and efficient

mechanisms for the States to strengthen and coordinate

their regulatory responsibilities, particularly as they affect complicated and comprehensive multistate issues;
2

•HJ 100 IH

Whereas it is in the best interests of the people of the United

States for the regulatory capability of those States to be

enhanced; and

Whereas the business of insurance is increasingly a

multistate and international business: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. INSURANCE COMPACTS.

4 The Congress acknowledges the benefits of interstate

5 compacts to address multistate problems. To the extent

6 that they are not already empowered to do so, the States

7 are encouraged and authorized to study and to adopt,

8 where appropriate, interstate insurance regulatory com9 pacts to address regulatory issues, including the regulation

10 of alien (non-United States) insurers and reinsurers, in11 surer solvency, rehabilitation and liquidation, guaranty

12 fund protection, and insurance agent licensing.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George Uriel IBARRA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50723.

D.C. No. CR-01-01788-JSR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 19, 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**

George Uriel Ibarra appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for one count of importation of marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960) and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)). Ibarra’s contention that Sections 952, 960, and 841 are unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by *United States v. Buckland,*277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (§ 841), *United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 *928(9th Cir.2002) (§ 952), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-1111 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960).

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.
#### § 19.975 Notice.

*Notice* means a written communication served in person, sent by certified mail or its equivalent, or sent electronically by e-mail or facsimile. (See § 19.615.)
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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0637]

# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,                         *Elizabeth.Berbakos@fda.hhs.gov,*                         301-796-3792.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18385), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0396. The approval expires on August 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: August 11, 2009.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E9-19788 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
§ 28.525 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *“Fringe benefits” defined.* For purposes of these Title IX regulations, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 28.515.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 96

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favorednation treatment) to the products of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1995

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BARTON

of Texas, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky,

Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. EVANS,

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. MARKEY,

Ms. PELOSI, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STARK and Mr. TRAFICANT)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of the

People’s Republic of China.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress does not approve the extension of the

4 authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on
2

HJ 96 IH

1 June 2, 1995, with respect to the People’s Republic of

2 China.

Æ
www.gpo.gov

### §3335. Terms of loans

#### (a) In general

A loan under this subchapter to an Indian student shall—

(1) be subject to repayment over a period of not more than 5 years;

(2) not bear interest;

(3) be subject to forgiveness for services to the tribe in accordance with section 3336 of this title; and

(4) contain such additional terms and conditions as the initial loan agreement between the tribe or tribal organization and student may prescribe in writing.

#### (b) Cost of attendance

Calculation of the cost of attendance for the student must include all costs as determined by the tribe for the purposes of fulfilling the policy of this subchapter.

#### (c) Additional requirements

Any student seeking a loan under this subchapter shall apply for and accept the maximum financial aid available from other sources. However, for purposes of determining eligibility, loans provided under this program may not be considered in needs analysis under any other Federal law, and may not penalize students in determining eligibility for other funds.

(Pub. L. 102–325, title XIII, §1345, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 810.)

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 3334 of this title.
# L_2019154EN.01003301.xml

| 12.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 154/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 154/33

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/953

of 22 May 2019

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Nizza’ (PDO)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Italy's application to register the name ‘Nizza’ and published it in the Official Journal of European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Italy's application to register the name ‘Nizza’ and published it in the Official Journal of European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Nizza’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Nizza’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Nizza’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2019.

For the Commission

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 55, 12.2.2019, p. 6.

2

---
#### § 1025.410 Recordkeeping.

Refer to § 1010.410.
#### § 1.6694-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the captions that appear in §§ 1.6694-1 through 1.6694-4.

## § 1.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparers.

(a) Overview.

(1) In general.

(2) Date return is deemed prepared.

(b) Tax return preparer.

(1) In general.

(2) Responsibility of signing tax return preparer.

(3) Responsibility of nonsigning tax return preparer.

(4) Responsibility of signing and nonsigning tax return preparer.

(5) Tax return preparer and firm responsibility.

(6) Examples.

(c) Understatement of liability.

(d) Abatement of penalty where taxpayer's liability not understated.

(e) Verification of information furnished by taxpayer or other third party.

(1) In general.

(2) Verification of information on previously filed returns.

(3) Examples.

(f) Income derived (or to be derived) with respect to the return or claim for refund.

(1) In general.

(2) Compensation.

(i) Multiple engagements.

(ii) Reasonable allocation.

(iii) Fee refunds.

(iv) Reduction of compensation.

(3) Individual and firm allocation.

(4) Examples.

(g) Effective/applicability date.

## § 1.6694-2 Penalty for understatement due to an unreasonable position.

(a) In general.

(1) Proscribed conduct.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms.

(b) Reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits.

(1) In general.

(2) Authorities.

(3) Written determinations.

(4) Taxpayer's jurisdiction.

(5) When “more likely than not” standard must be satisfied.

(c) Substantial authority.

(d) Exception for adequate disclosure of positions with a reasonable basis.

(1) In general.

(2) Reasonable basis.

(3) Adequate disclosure.

(i) Signing tax return preparers.

(ii) Nonsigning tax return preparers.

(A) Advice to taxpayers.

(B) Advice to another tax return preparer.

(iii) Requirements for advice.

(iv) Pass-through entities.

(v) Examples.

(e) Exception for reasonable cause and good faith.

(1) Nature of the error causing the understatement.

(2) Frequency of errors.

(3) Materiality of errors.

(4) Tax return preparer's normal office practice.

(5) Reliance on advice of others.

(6) Reliance on generally accepted administrative or industry practice.

(f) Effective/applicability date.

## § 1.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct.

(a) In general.

(1) Proscribed conduct.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms.

(b) Willful attempt to understate liability.

(c) Reckless or intentional disregard.

(d) Examples.

(e) Rules or regulations.

(f) Section 6694(b) penalty reduced by section 6694(a) penalty.

(g) Effective/applicability date.

## § 1.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters.

(a) In general.

(b) Tax return preparer must bring suit in district court to determine liability for penalty.

(c) Suspension of running of period of limitations on collection.

(d) Effective/applicability date.

[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78439, Dec. 22, 2008]
40118.

#### SCHAFFER v. PADGETT.

Decided May 14, 1963

Rehearing denied May 29, 1963.

*862*Fine & Rolader,*for plaintiff in error.

*Luther C. Llames, Jr.,*contra.

Ebehhabdt, Judge.

The general grounds of the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment n.o.v. involve the same principles and will be considered together. There are two reasons why the plaintiff’s position on these grounds is without merit. The applicable statute, *Code*§ 4-213, sets out that “The broker’s commissions are earned when, during the agency, he finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner.”

The plaintiff never produced an offer from Gordy which matched or exceeded the eventual sales price of $28,500. The only offer made through them was for $17,000. Even a slight variation from the owner’s terms will prevent the agent from recovering, and this variation was substantial. See *Thornton v. Lewis,*106 Ga. App. 328 (1) (126 SE2d 869).

The law does not leave the broker without protection where he locates a prospective buyer, as the owner must exercise good faith. An agency for an unspecified time is an agency for a reasonable time, the latter being a jury question. *Thornton v. Lewis,*106 Ga. App. 328, 331, supra, and citations. In the present case, however, the jury was authorized to believe Padgett’s version of his telephone conversation with Wolbe (set out in the statement of facts), and conclude that the plaintiff’s agency for the defendant had been ended after Wolbe was unable to procure another offer from Gordy. The effect of the jury verdict is that the agency had been voluntarily terminated by the agreement of the parties. See *Girardeau & Saunders v. Gibson,*122 Ga. 313 (50 SE 91).

There was no error in overruling the motion for judgment n.o.v. or the general grounds of the motion for new trial. Special ground 8 of the amended motion is a restatement of the same argument and was properly overruled.

*863The remaining special grounds specify errors in the charge, none of which are meritorious, as follows:

(a) Two grounds (5 and 6) complain that the court charged *Code*§ 4-213, referred to above. The statute was applicable.

(b) Ground 4 complains of a charge on the preponderance of the evidence being “considered sufficient to produce a conviction.” In addition to having been clearly stated in another portion of the charge, we do not see how the charge could have misled the jury to plaintiff’s harm.

(c) Failure to charge certain principles without request is the complaint in ground 7. Suffice it to say that the principles were generally covered in other portions of the charge.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
ADDENDUM
      NO. 19 TO

    REVOLVING
      LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

    CONVERTIBLE
      REVOLVING CREDIT PROMISSORY NOTE

    DATED
      OCTOBER 26, 1987

    


    For
      good
      and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged, Robert Howard and iCAD, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby agree to
      extend the repayment date set forth in Paragraph D of the above referenced
      Convertible Revolving Credit Promissory Note, as amended (the “Note”) previously
      issued by the Company to Robert Howard under the Revolving Loan and Security
      Agreement referred to above (the “Loan Agreement”), from March 31, 2007 to March
      31, 2008. 

     

    In
      addition, Robert Howard agrees that he will not, while the Loan Agreement and
      related revolving line of credit are in effect, convert any outstanding advances
      made by him to the Company under the Loan Agreement (whether evidenced by the
      Note or other document) into shares of the Company’s common stock that would
      exceed the shares of the Company’s common stock “available for issuance”, which,
      for purposes of this Agreement, is defined as the authorized shares of the
      Company’s common stock less issued and outstanding common shares less any shares
      of the Company’s common stock reserved for issuance upon exercise or conversion
      of outstanding convertible preferred stock, convertible notes, non-employee
      warrants and non-employee stock options.

    


    The
      undersigned, Robert Howard, also represents to the Company that he does not
      intend to call in the principal balance of the note. 

     

     

    
      	 	
              /s/
                Robert Howard

              Robert
                Howard

               

              iCAD,
                Inc.

              


              By:
                /s/
                Darlene Deptula-Hicks

              Name:
                Darlene Deptula-Hicks

              Title:
                Chief Financial Officer 

            


    

     

    Dated:
      March 1, 2007
1 Ogulei, David

From: **Morgan, Andrea** Sent: **Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:39 PM** To: **ken.page@illinois.gov; Ray.Pilapil@illinois.gov** Cc: **Damico, Genevieve; Ogulei, David** Subject: **Call with Veolia and Community Groups to Develop A Public Participation Plan** 

**Ray and Ken,**

**We would like to invite you to join us for a confer ence call with Veolia and community groups in the**  **East St Louis area on March 27 at 12pm to discuss t he public participation process for the upcoming**  **permitting action for Veolia. At this call we will be discussing how the permitting process ran when w**  **e public noticed a draft permit for Veolia last year,**  **and see if there are any suggestions for improvements, or whether there were any activities**  **undertaken that was not particularly useful in aiding to community members’ understanding of the p**  **rocess or draft permit itself. We will be focusing on the development of a public participation plan a**  **nd will not discuss any issues regarding the substance of the permit we are developing on the ca**  **ll. If you are available and would like to join us, the information for the call is below.** 

**Dial in number:** (877) 226-9607

**Access code:** 824 598 5675#

**Please let me know if you have any questions.**

**Thanks, Andrea Morgan** 

Andrea Morgan Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax: (312) 692-2920
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 103

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service

Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the

United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded

from the budget of the United States Government.

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

3 That section 8348 of title 5, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

6 receipts and disbursements of the Fund—

7 ‘‘(1) shall not be included in the totals of—

8 ‘‘(A) the budget of the United States Gov9 ernment as submitted by the President; or
2

•HR 103 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the congressional budget (including

2 allocations of budget authority and outlays pro3 vided therein);

4 ‘‘(2) shall be exempt from any general budget

5 limitation imposed by statute on expenditures and

6 net lending (budget outlays) of the United States

7 Government; and

8 ‘‘(3) shall be exempt from any order issued

9 under part C of the Balanced Budget and Emer10 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985.’’.

Æ