alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 802.210 Covered port. ( a ) The term *covered port* means, subject to paragraph (b) of this section, any port that is listed: ( 1 ) In the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration's annual final enplanement data as a “large hub airport,” as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102;
( 2 ) In the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration's annual final all-cargo landed weight data as an airport with annual aggregate all-cargo landed weight greater than 1.24 billion pounds;
( 3 ) By the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration as a “joint use airport,” as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 47175;
( 4 ) By the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration as a commercial strategic seaport within the National Port Readiness Network; or
( 5 ) By the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics as a top 25 tonnage, container, or dry bulk port.
( b ) For purposes of determining whether a port constitutes a covered port under paragraph (a) of this section, ( 1 ) Any port that is added after February 13, 2020 to any of the lists described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed not to be in effect as a covered port until 30 days after the port's addition to the relevant list maintained by the Department of Transportation; and
( 2 ) In the context of a particular transaction, the covered ports in effect on the day immediately prior to, the earlier of, the date on which the parties sign a written document establishing the material terms of the transaction, or the completion date of the transaction, shall apply.
Note 1 to § 802.210 :
The lists described in paragraph (a) of this section are published on the Department of Transportation website.
§ 802.233 Property right. ( a ) The term *property right* means, with respect to real estate, any of the following rights or abilities, whether or not exercised, whether or not shared concurrently with any other person, and whether or not the underlying real estate is subject to an easement or other encumbrance: ( 1 ) To physically access the real estate;
( 2 ) To exclude others from physically accessing the real estate;
( 3 ) To improve or develop the real estate; or
( 4 ) To attach fixed or immovable structures or objects to the real estate.
( b ) Examples: ( 1 ) *Example 1.* Corporation A, a foreign person, enters into a lease of real estate. Although at least one other person shares concurrently with Corporation A the right to access the property, Corporation A retains the right to physically exclude others from access that would interfere with its rights under the lease. Under the lease, Corporation A has the right to exclude others from physically accessing the real estate, and therefore affords the foreign person a property right.
( 2 ) *Example 2.* Corporation A, a foreign person, enters into a lease of real estate that allows Corporation A to develop the real estate. The exercise of the right to develop the real estate is subject to Corporation A obtaining the appropriate regulatory permits. Notwithstanding the fact that Corporation A has not fully exercised its lease right pending the issuance of the permits, Corporation A is a party to lease that affords it a property right for purposes of this part.
#### § 525.305 [Reserved]
40738.

#### CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS et al. v. BOYD.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Where an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation is supported by any evidence, no error of law appearing, it must be affirmed on appeal. *Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Wilbanks,*68 Ga. App. 631 (23 SE2d 519); *Harper v. National Traffic Guard Co.,*73 Ga. *824App. 385 (2a) (36 SE2d 842); *Kell v. Bridges,*80 Ga. App. 55 (1) (55 SE2d 309); *Fleming v. Fidelity & Cas. Co.,*89 Ga. App. 405, 406 (79 SE2d 407); *Pepperell Mfg. Co. v. Mathis,*92 Ga. App. 85, 88 (88 SE2d 201); *St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Fletcher,*97 Ga. App. 429, 430 (103 SE2d 438).

Decided May 25, 1964

Rehearing denied June 15, 1964.

*Woodruff, Saveli, Lane & Williams, John M. Williams,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Conger & Conger, Leonard H. Conger,*contra.

2. In order to support an award for an alleged “change in condition”'for the better there must be evidence that the claimant’s condition has changed for the better subsequent to the previous award of the board in which the claimant’s condition was adjudicated. *Phinese v. Ocean Accident &c. Corp.,*81 Ga. App. 394 (58 SE2d 921); *Fletcher v. Aetna Cas.*&c. *Co.,*95 Ga. App. 23 (96 SE2d 650); *St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Fletcher,*97 Ga. App. 429, supra.

3. In the present case the uncontradicted testimony of the claimant that his physical condition, at the time of the hearing on the change of condition was worse, coupled with the fact that there was no medical or other testimony showing any change of condition, supported the award of the board that there had not been a change for the better in claimant's condition. See *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hammond,*90 Ga. App. 595 (83 SE2d 576); *General Motors Corp. v. Craig,*91 Ga. App. 239 (85 SE2d 441), and *St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Fletcher,*97 Ga. App. 429, supra. Therefore, the Superior Court of Decatur County did not err in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 560.541 Third-country diplomatic and consular funds transfers.

United States depository institutions and United States registered brokers or dealers in securities are authorized to process funds transfers, in a manner consistent with § 560.516, for the operating expenses or other official business of third-country diplomatic or consular missions in Iran.
HomeBulgaria

# Bulgaria

111 items

        -    TIAS  		Bulgaria (94-602) – Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment	  June 2, 1994 

previous page1…101112

Back to Top
| (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or                15 (d) of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | BY                /s/                Connie Woods Hawkins  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:                Connie Woods Hawkins                       |
|   | Title:                Chief Financial Officer                   |
|   | Date:                November 14, 2006                          |
§ 800.305 Incremental acquisitions. ( a ) Any transaction in which a foreign person acquires an additional interest in, or for which a change in rights of the foreign person occurs with respect to, a U.S. business over which the same foreign person, or any entity that it wholly owns directly or indirectly, previously acquired direct control as a result of a covered control transaction for which the Committee concluded all action under section 721 shall be deemed not to be a covered transaction. If, however, a foreign person that did not acquire control of the U.S. business in the prior transaction is a party to the later transaction, the later transaction may be a covered transaction.
( b ) Examples: ( 1 ) *Example 1.* Corporation A, a foreign person, directly acquires a 40 percent voting interest and important rights with respect to Corporation B, a U.S. business. The documentation pertaining to the transaction gives no indication that Corporation A's interest in Corporation B may increase at a later date. Corporation A and Corporation B file a voluntary notice of the transaction with the Committee. Following its review of the transaction, the Committee informs the parties that the notified transaction is a covered control transaction, and concludes action under section 721. Three years later, Corporation A acquires the remainder of the voting interest in Corporation B. Assuming no other relevant facts, because the Committee concluded all action with respect to Corporation A's earlier direct acquisition of control in the same U.S. business, and because no other foreign person is a party to this subsequent transaction, this subsequent transaction is not a covered transaction.
( 2 ) *Example 2.* Corporation A, a foreign person that is not an excepted investor, makes a covered investment in Corporation B, an unaffiliated U.S. TID business, pursuant to which Corporation A acquires a five percent non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B that affords it access to material nonpublic technical information of Corporation B. Following its review of the transaction, the Committee informs the parties that the notified transaction is a covered investment, and concludes action under section 721. Two years later, Corporation A, in a subsequent investment, acquires an additional five percent non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B, which affords Corporation A the right to appoint one board member of Corporation A. The subsequent investment is a covered investment.
( 3 ) *Example 3.* Same facts as the example in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, except that instead of Corporation A acquiring the remainder of the voting interest in Corporation B three years after the initial acquisition, the remaining 60 percent voting interest is acquired by Corporation X. Corporation X is wholly owned by Corporation Y. Corporation Y also owns 100 percent of Corporation A. The subsequent transaction may be a covered transaction because, while Corporation A and Corporation X are both under common ownership of Corporation Y, Corporation A (the direct acquirer in the initial transaction) does not wholly own Corporation X.
H. R. 2525

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To modify the operation of the antitrust laws, and of State laws similar to the

antitrust laws, with respect to charitable gift annuities.

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 ‘‘Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust

Relief Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS.

(a) EXEMPT CONDUCT.—Except as provided in subsection (b),

it shall not be unlawful under any of the antitrust laws, or under

a State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, for 2 or more

persons described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) that are exempt from taxation under

section 501(a) of such Code to use, or to agree to use, the same

annuity rate for the purpose of issuing 1 or more charitable gift

annuities.

(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect

to the enforcement of a State law similar to any of the antitrust

laws, with respect to conduct described in subsection (a) occurring

after the State enacts a statute, not later than 3 years after the

date of the enactment of this Act, that expressly provides that

subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to such conduct.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) ANNUITY RATE.—The term ‘‘annuity rate’’ means the

percentage of the fair market value of a gift (determined as

of the date of the gift) given in exchange for a charitable

gift annuity, that represents the amount of the annual payment

to be made to 1 or 2 annuitants over the life of either or

both under the terms of the agreement to give such gift in

exchange for such annuity.

(2) ANTITRUST LAWS.—The term ‘‘antitrust laws’’ has the

meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the

Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12), except that such term includes

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.

45) to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods

of competition.

(3) CHARITABLE GIFT ANNUITY.—The term ‘‘charitable gift

annuity’’ has the meaning given it in section 501(m)(5) of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(m)(5)).
H. R. 2525—2

(4) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the meaning given

it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act

(15 U.S.C. 12(a)).

(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given it

in section 4G(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)).

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF ACT.

This Act shall apply with respect to conduct occurring before,

on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
NANCY E. WHITAKER, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3085

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH

- 3330

- 14

- 0634 -I- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A MOS J ONES , Amos Jones Law Firm

, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

S ARA B. R EARDEN , Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by B RYAN G. P OLISUK

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and c onsidered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN
, M OORE
, and S TOLL
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 18, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. John L. HARTNETT, Respondent.

No. 55153.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 21, 1981.

*1353Anita F. Dahlquist and John A. Boggs, Asst. Staff Counsels, Tallahassee and Jacquelyn S. Plasner, Asst. Staff Counsel, Miami, for complainant.

John L. Hartnett, in pro. per., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us upon the Court’s own Rule to Show Cause why respondent, John L. Hartnett, should not be held in contempt of this Court for failure to comply with the order of February 22, 1979, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Florida. The Florida Bar has presented strong evidence that respondent has actively engaged in the practice of law despite his two-year suspension for the reasons set forth in *The Florida Bar v. Hartnett,*368 So.2d 353 (Fla.1979). Respondent did finally appear before this Court in response to the Rule to Show Cause, which is actually the sixth such rule issued by this Court between May 16, 1979, and September 26,1980. Attempted service of the first five rules to show cause failed, and it is clear from the record that respondent has at least on some occasions avoided service of process.

The respondent’s conduct and clear disrespect for this Court cannot be tolerated. Respondent is hereby found in contempt for willfully violating this Court’s order of February 22, 1979, and the discipline earlier imposed is now modified to disbarment, effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

BOYD, Justice,

concurs in part and dissents in part:

I concur in the finding of contempt but would extend suspension an additional two years.

SUNDBERG, Chief Justice,

dissents:

I would remand to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing on the violation of the suspension order and imposition of appropriate sanctions for contempt, if found to have been violated.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1427

ALINA ROJEA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN CREGGER, Technical Manager; SANDI SMITH, Corporate HR Generalist; 

KAY DSOUZA VENKATRAJAN, Application Developer; USI INSURANCE 

SERVICES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00619-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alina Rojea, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Douglas Dellinger, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alina Rojea appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Rojea’s claims brought pursuant 

to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Rojea’s

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2924

To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in March 1996.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Mr. ARCHER (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. SHAW, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr.

HERGER, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr.

ZIMMER, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. HAYES, Mr.

LAUGHLIN, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr.

CHRISTENSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

The Committee on Ways and Means discharged; considered and passed

A BILL

To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits

in March 1996.

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

3 SECTION 1. TIMELY PAYMENT OF MARCH 1996 SOCIAL SE4 CURITY BENEFITS GUARANTEED.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—
2

•HR 2924 CPH

1 (1) Congress intends to pass an increase in the

2 public debt limit before March 1, 1996.

3 (2) In the interim, social security beneficiaries

4 should be assured that social security benefits will be

5 paid on a timely basis in March 1996.

6 (b) GUARANTEE OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT

7 PAYMENTS.—In addition to any other authority provided

8 by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue under

9 chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, obligations of

10 the United States before March 1, 1996, in an amount

11 equal to the monthly insurance benefits payable under title

12 II of the Social Security Act in March 1996.

13 (c) OBLIGATIONS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DEBT

14 LIMIT.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Obligations issued under

16 subsection (b) shall not be taken into account in ap17 plying the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31,

18 United States Code.

19 (2) TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.—Paragraph

20 (1) shall cease to apply on the earlier of—
3

•HR 2924 CPH

1 (A) the date of the enactment of the first

2 increase in the limitation in section 3101(b) of

3 title 31, United States Code, after the date of

4 the enactment of this Act, or

5 (B) March 15, 1996.

Æ
#### § 560.311 General license.

The term *general license* means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 44883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20887]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Women's Business Council

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, 
time, and agenda for the next meeting of the National Women's Business 
Council (NWBC). The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 29, 2009 from 
approximately 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Eisenhower Conference Room, 
Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the 
meeting of the National Women's Business Council. The National Women's 
Business Council is tasked with providing policy recommendations on 
issues of importance to women business owners to the President, 
Congress, and the SBA Administrator.
    The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the NWBC's agenda and 
action items for fiscal year 2010 included but not limited to 
procurement, access to capital, access to training and technical 
assistance, and affordable health care. The topics to be discussed will 
include: 2010 projects and upcoming October Town Hall Meeting in New 
Orleans, LA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The meeting is open to the public 
however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to 
attend or make a presentation to the NWBC must contact Katherine 
Stanley by Friday, September 25, 2009, by fax or e-mail in order to be 
placed on the agenda. Katherine Stanley, Operations Manager, NWBC, 409 
Third Street, SW., Suite 210, Washington, DC 20416, telephone 202-205-
6695, fax 202-205-6825, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d09bb1a4b8b5a2b9beb5fea3a4b1bebcb5a990bea7b2b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="410a2035292433282f246f3235202f2d2438012f3623226f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or 
require additional information, please contact Katherine Stanley at the 
above information.
    For more information, please visit our Web site at www.nwbc.gov.

    Dated: August 20, 2009.
Meaghan K. Burdick,
SBA Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-20887 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>