alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 111–361—JAN. 4, 2011 124 STAT. 4053 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5605: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Sept. 28, 29, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–361 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 47 East 

Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘George C. Marshall Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GEORGE C. MARSHALL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George C. Marshall 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘George C. Marshall Post Office’’. 

Approved January 4, 2011. 

Jan. 4, 2011 

[H.R. 5605] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4491

_____________________________

DOUGLAS RATCLIFFE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

December 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Douglas Ratcliffe, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
# L_2021104DE.01005601.xml

| 25.3.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 104/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 104/56

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2019/1139 der Kommission vom 3. Juli 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2074/2005 in Bezug auf amtliche Kontrollen von Lebensmitteln tierischen Ursprungs hinsichtlich der Anforderungen an die Informationen zur Lebensmittelkette und an Fischereierzeugnisse sowie hinsichtlich der Bezugnahme auf anerkannte Testmethoden zum Nachweis mariner Biotoxine und auf Testmethoden für Rohmilch und wärmebehandelte Kuhmilch

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 180 vom 4. Juli 2019
  )

Seite 13, Artikel 1 Nr. 2 zur Änderung von Artikel 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2074/2005, Überschrift:

Anstatt:

„
  Anforderungen an die Informationen zur Lebensmittelkette im Sinne der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  Anforderungen an Fischereierzeugnisse im Sinne der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004
  “.

---
- Office Home
- About Us

HomeOffice of the Procurement Executive...About Us – Office of the Procurement Executive

# 									About Us							

Office of the Procurement Executive

The Office of the Procurement Executive (A/OPE) provides management direction and leadership over Department-wide acquisition and federal assistance policies and the full range of acquisitions and federal assistance management services.

1 FAM 212.2 in the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual provides details on the authority, responsibilities, and structure of A/OPE.

**Office of Acquisitions Policy**

The Office of Acquisitions Policy (A/OPE/AP) prescribes the Department’s acquisition and federal assistance policies, regulations, and procedures; determines the effect of new or proposed acquisition or assistance legislation, executive orders, or regulations on, or implements same, into the Department’s acquisition and/or federal assistance policy and procedures.

**Office of Acquisitions Management**

The Office of Acquisitions Management (A/OPE/AQM) manages, plans, and directs the Department’s acquisition programs and conducts contract operations in support of activities worldwide. A/OPE/AQM provides the full range of professional contract management services including acquisition planning, contract negotiations, cost and price analysis, and contract administration.

**Resources**
        - Build America, Buy America Waivers
        - FRAUD ALERT 2021-01 Electronic Equipment Scheme Utilizes Fake Government RFQs [209 KB]  [PDF]
        - U.S. Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions [304 KB]  — Revised 10/21/2020  [PDF]
        - U.S. Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions [855 KB]  — Revised 10/01/2019  [PDF]
        - U.S. Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions [532 KB]  — Revised 04/08/2016  [PDF]  Incorporated by reference in all standard grants, cooperative agreements, fixed amount awards, award to individuals, and property awards to U.S. and foreign recipients that are not Foreign Public Entities. 
        - U.S. Department of State’s Implementation of Executive Order 13798 [206 KB]  (PDF)
        - 1 FAM 212.2
        - Department of State Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (DOSAR)

**Careers**

Each day, the Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive (OPE) delivers flexible solutions through a responsive and knowledgeable workforce that elevates the Acquisition Experience. Become a member of our agency’s team of Acquisition professionals that facilitates U.S. diplomacy and national security interests by applying now!

**Contact Us**

Office of the Procurement Executive1200 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209Phone: 703-875-6037Email: AcquisitionsInquiry@state.gov

Back to Top
#### Washington School District *vs.*Patrick E. Greene et als.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avery, Js.

Argued June 7th

decided July 16th, 1934.

*William M. Harney,*with whom was *Norman Yellin,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*713
      *Edward J. Daly*and *Joseph P. Cooney,*for the appellee (defendant Greene), *D. P. O’Connor,*for the appellees (defendants Hussey *et al.), Reuben Sudarsky,*for the appellee (defendant Baunstein; and *James J. O’Connor,*for the appellee (defendant Ryan) appeared, but at the direction of the court did not argue the cause.

Per Curiam.

Seven of the defendants constituted a building committee of the plaintiff district and the other defendant was a man with whom the commitee made a contract to construct a sidewalk, curb and gutter along the school property. The claim of the plaintiff is that by fraud and conspiracy of the defendants the contractor received a much greater sum than should have been paid for the work he did. The plaintiff does not contend that any direct evidence of fraud or conspiracy was offered, but claims that it had proved the cause of action alleged by inferences to be drawn from the manner in which the committee was appointed and proceeded, and in which the contract was awarded and from the claimed excessive price paid the contractor. No substantial change can be made in the finding of the trial court and we cannot say that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts was that the defendants conspired to defraud the plaintiff, or that any of them were guilty of fraud in connection with the making of the contract.

There is no error.
(logo)Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofFebruary 1, 2017 by and among Barclays Commercial Mortgage Securities LLC asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as CertificateAdministrator and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor andAsset Representations Reviewer relating to the BBCMS Mortgage Trust 2017-C1,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series, 2017-C1 **(BBCMS2017-C1)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of February 27, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”)in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted undermy supervision.

 

3.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 346.15 General provisions. ( a ) *Regulations.* All Individual Retirement Bonds shall be subject to the general regulations prescribed by the Secretary with respect to United States securities, which are set forth in Department of the Treasury Circular No. 300, current revision, to the extent applicable. Copies of the general regulations may be obtained upon request from any Federal Reserve Bank or the Department of the Treasury.
( b ) *Reservation as to issue of bonds.* The Secretary of the Treasury reserves the right to reject any application for the purchase of Individual Retirement Bonds, in whole or in part, and to refuse to issue or permit to be issued any such bonds in any case or any class or classes of cases if he deems such action to be in the public interest, and his action in any such respect shall be final.
( c ) *Additional requirements.* In any case or any class of cases arising under this circular, the Secretary of the Treasury may require such additional evidence as may in his judgment be necessary, and may require a bond of indemnity, with or without surety, where he may consider such bond necessary for the protection of the United States.
( d ) *Waiver of requirements.* The Secretary of the Treasury reserves the right, in his discretion, to waive or modify any provision or provisions of this circular in any particular case or class of cases for the convenience of the United States, or in order to relieve any person or persons of unnecessary hardship, if such action is not inconsistent with law, does not impair any existing rights, and he is satisfied that such action would not subject the United States to any substantial expense or liability.
( e ) *Fiscal agents.* Federal Reserve Banks and Branches, as fiscal agents of the United States, are authorized to perform such services as may be requested of them by the Secretary of the Treasury in connection with the issue, delivery, redemption, reissue, and payment of Individual Retirement Bonds.
( f ) *Reservation as to terms of circular.* The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time, or from time to time, supplement or amend the terms of this circular, or any amendments or supplements thereto.
40103.

#### GARMON v. STERN.

Decided May 16, 1963.

*794
      *James B. Venable,*for plaintiff in error.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

*“*'In passing on the general grounds of a motion for new trial, this court passes not on the weight but on the sufficiency of the evidence. It is our duty to determine whether the verdict as rendered can be sustained under any reasonable view taken of the proofs submitted to the jury.’ *Ingram v. State,*204 Ga. 164, 184 (48 SE2d 891); *Farlow v. Brown,*208 Ga. 646, 648 (68 SE2d 903). See also *Bibb Cigar &c. Co. v. McSwain,*95 Ga. App. 659, 661 (98 SE2d 128).” *Poppell v. Smutney,*106 Ga. App. 480 (127 SE2d 335). The plaintiff presented evidence in support of his contentions and the defendant presented evidence in support of his contentions. The jury trying the case found in favor of the plaintiff’s contentions and it cannot be said that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21237]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8445]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Venetian Glass by Carlo Scarpa: The Venini Company, 
1932-1947''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Venetian Glass by Carlo Scarpa: The Venini 
Company, 1932-1947,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, from on or about 
November 5, 2013, until on or about March 2, 2014, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 26, 2013.
Lee Satterfield,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-21237 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
exhibit_4-6.htm











 EXHIBIT 4.6




 







Amendment No. 2 to RRsat Global Communications Network Ltd. 2006 Israel Equity 


Incentive Plan, dated June 26, 2012


 


Effective as of June 26, 2012, the RRsat Global Communications Network Ltd. 2006 Israel Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows (the "Amendment"):







1.           The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







"Subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan is 1,481,794 Shares."







2.           Except as explicitly amended by this Amendment, all other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
#### Schwartz *v.*Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division et al.

[No. 20,156.

Filed August 20, 1964.]

*Lloyd L. Dewester, Jr., Ross P. Walker,*both of Indianapolis, and *Archie Lapin,*of Muncie, for appellant.

*Edwin K. Steers,*Attorney General and *Keith Campbell,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee, Review Board.

*339Hunter, C. J.

This was a proceeding before the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division to determine the eligibility of the claimant, the appellant Otto J. Schwartz, under the Indiana Employment Security Act.

The appeals referee and the Review Board, with one member dissenting affirmed the determination of the local deputy that the appellant is ineligible for benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.

This matter is before us on a petition to remand filed by the appellee Board of Review.

Upon an examination of said petition and transcript of the record in this cause, we find that the decision of the referee and the Review Board was predicated upon certain written instruments enumerated as follows:

> (a) Agreement between Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corp., Muncie, Indiana, and Local International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, A. F. L.- C. I. O., November 6, 1961. (Transcript, p. 33).

> (b) Retirement Income Guide, Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, for Employees in the Bargaining Unit Represented by Local 287 Affiliated with UAW, AFL-CIO. (Transcript, p. 34).

> (c) Retirement Income Guide, Warner Gear Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, for Employees in the Bargaining Unit Represented by Local 287 Affiliated with UAW, AFL-CIO (As Amended November 1, 1961). (Transcript, p. 35).

However, we find that said written instruments were never offered, admitted or placed in evidence before said referee or the Board. This Court stated in the case of *Jung*v. *Review Board of Indiana Employ.*
      *340
      *Sec. Div.*(1964), 136 Ind. App. 248, 199 N. E. 2d 476 “. . . there must appear no possibility nor opportunity that evidence extraneous the record may serve as any part of the factual foundation upon which the conclusion and ultimate determination of the Board may be premised.”

It is now therefore ordered that this cause be remanded to the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division for further hearing with instructions to entertain the introduction into evidence of said written instruments referred to herein.

Remanded.

Note.—Reported in 200 N. E. 2d 642.
# L_2020273DE.01001701.xml

| 20.8.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 273/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 273/17

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2020/614 der Europäischen Zentralbank vom 30. April 2020 zur Änderung des Beschlusses (EU) 2019/1311 über eine dritte Reihe gezielter längerfristiger Refinanzierungsgeschäfte (EZB/2020/25)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 141 vom 5. Mai 2020
  )

Auf Seite 30 in Artikel 5 Absatz 6:

Anstatt:

„Wenn eine NZB die ihr gemäß vertraglichen oder öffentlich-rechtlichen Regelungen zustehenden Rechtsbehelfe ausübt und ein Teilnehmer deshalb verpflichtet ist, ausstehende Beträge im Rahmen von GLRG III zurückzuzahlen, bevor ihm die Abweichung von der Referenzgröße für den ausstehenden Betrag und die sich daraus gegebenenfalls ergebende Anpassung des Zinsanreizes mitgeteilt wurde, gilt für alle von diesem Teilnehmer im Rahmen des jeweiligen GLRG III aufgenommenen Beträge folgender Zinssatz: a) in der Sonderzinsperiode der durchschnittliche Hauptrefinanzierungssatz in diesem Zeitraum, abzüglich 25 Basispunkten und b) während der verbleibenden Laufzeit des jeweiligen GLRG III der durchschnittliche Hauptrefinanzierungssatz über die Laufzeit des jeweiligen GLRG III bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem die NZB die Rückzahlung zu leisten hatte. Wird eine solche Rückzahlung verlangt, nachdem dem Teilnehmer die Abweichung von der Referenzgröße für den ausstehenden Betrag und die gegebenenfalls resultierende Anpassung des Zinsanreizes mitgeteilt wurden, wird der Zinssatz für alle von diesem Teilnehmer im Rahmen des jeweiligen GLRG III aufgenommenen Beträge gemäß den Absätzen 1 bis 3 festgelegt.“

muss es heißen:

„Wenn eine NZB die ihr gemäß vertraglichen oder öffentlich-rechtlichen Regelungen zustehenden Rechtsbehelfe ausübt und ein Teilnehmer deshalb verpflichtet ist, ausstehende Beträge im Rahmen von GLRG III zurückzuzahlen, bevor ihm die Abweichung von der Referenzgröße für den ausstehenden Betrag und die sich daraus gegebenenfalls ergebende Anpassung des Zinsanreizes mitgeteilt wurde, gilt für alle von diesem Teilnehmer im Rahmen des jeweiligen GLRG III aufgenommenen Beträge folgender Zinssatz: a) in der Sonderzinsperiode der durchschnittliche Hauptrefinanzierungssatz in diesem Zeitraum, abzüglich 50 Basispunkten und b) während der verbleibenden Laufzeit des jeweiligen GLRG III der durchschnittliche Hauptrefinanzierungssatz über die Laufzeit des jeweiligen GLRG III bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem die NZB die Rückzahlung zu leisten hatte. Wird eine solche Rückzahlung verlangt, nachdem dem Teilnehmer die Abweichung von der Referenzgröße für den ausstehenden Betrag und die gegebenenfalls resultierende Anpassung des Zinsanreizes mitgeteilt wurden, wird der Zinssatz für alle von diesem Teilnehmer im Rahmen des jeweiligen GLRG III aufgenommenen Beträge gemäß den Absätzen 1 bis 3 festgelegt.“

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1305 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1305

 To require employers to notify workers before health care benefits or 
                  retirement benefits are terminated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 1995

 Mr. Costello introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require employers to notify workers before health care benefits or 
                  retirement benefits are terminated.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Retired Worker Health Security Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. BENEFIT NOTICE.

    No employer may terminate the health care benefits or retirement 
benefits it provides its employees before the end of a 60-day period 
after the employer serves written notice of such termination to the 
employees and to the labor organization representatives of such 
employees.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of section 2, the term ``employer'' means any business 
enterprise which has 100 or more employees or 500 or more employees who 
have retired and receive or will receive health and pension benefits 
from such enterprise.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 2 shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Albert R. SALMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert E. ROSE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-16546.

D.C. No. CV-00-00037-JLQ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Albert R. Salman appeals pro se the district court’s partial order of dismissal which granted the motion to dismiss filed by Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rose in Salman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his civil rights.

Rose’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order was not a final, appealable judgment. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291; *Chacon v. Babcock,*640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981).

2

. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.