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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,896] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 14, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a Union official on behalf of workers of Logistics Services Incorporated, Dayton, Ohio. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-64,835) filed on December 26, 2008 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-2127 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Somanetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
we, Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance, Controller, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

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

Dated: January 30, 2004              /s/ Bruce J. Barrett
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer

Dated: January 30, 2004              /s/ William M. Iacona
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance,
                                     Controller, Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                     Officer
§ 136.331 Selection. ( a ) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall determine the individuals who receive Indian Health Scholarships.
( b ) Priority shall be given to applicants who are Indians.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Glen D. Aaron, II, * From the 118th District Court

 of Glasscock County,

 Trial Court No. 1865.

Vs. No. 11-20-00080-CV * April 28, 2022

Stephen Fisher, James Fisher, * Opinion by Trotter, J.

Katie Elam Ward, James O. “Tony” Elam, (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stephen Cory Elam, Debbie Elam, Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

and Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., sitting by assignment)

(Williams, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Glen D. Aaron, II.
# C_2006022EN.01001003.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/10

---

Removal from the register of Case C-158/05 (1)

1

(2006/C 22/20)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

By order of 7 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-158/05: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C of 11.6.2005.

1

---
# C_2005217EN.01006403.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-385/02 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/136)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 10 June 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-385/02, Marta Andreasen v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

1

---
#### Juan Antonio ESTRAVIZ and James Edward Dean, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 77-2374, 77-2379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 9, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1979.

*804John H. Lipinski; Weissenborn & Burr and Lee Weissenborn, Miami, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sharon Langer, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, James Dean and Juan Es-traviz, were tried together and convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine. In addition, Dean was convicted of possession of cocaine. In these consolidated appeals both Dean and Estraviz contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. They basically argue that there is insufficient evidence of any agreement between them to sell the cocaine.

An agreement to commit a crime may be inferred from all the surrounding circumstances. *Scaldeferri v. State,*294 So.2d 407 (Fla.3rd DCA 1974). After a review of the record, we find that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have drawn a reasonable inference that an agreement existed. See *United States v. Gomez,*529 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1976).

Defendant Dean also contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying him closing argument.

In order to make the point of denial of the right to a closing argument available as error, the defendant must have tendered and been refused the right to have his counsel make a closing argument subsequent to a closing argument against him made for the prosecution. *Hall*v. *State,*119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935). In the case at bar the prosecution waived closing argument and as a result, defense counsel spoke last to the jury. There being no closing argument of the prosecution to rebut, we find no error.

We also considered the remaining points of defendant Estraviz and find no prejudicial error has been made to appear.

Finally, we concerned ourselves with the general sentence of two years imprisonment for both convictions (possession of cocaine and conspiracy to sell cocaine). Under the holding in *Dorfman v. State,*351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977), the imposition of a general sentence is improper. Accordingly, we hereby vacate the two-year general sentence and remand the cause to the trial court to impose separate sentences for each of the convictions.

Affirmed in all respects except for the general sentence.
#### Elizabeth F. Floyd, Administratrix, etc., of David Van Horne Floyd, Deceased, Plaintiff, *against*Edwin Clark *et*al., Defendants.

[Special Term.]

(Decided February, 1880.)

As the provision of the Code limiting the lien of a judgment on real estate to ten years (Code Civ. Pro. § 1251) makes no distinction between lands still owned by the judgment debtor and lands conveyed to others or incumbered by other liens, judgments over ten years old are not liens on surplus moneys arising on a foreclosure sale of land of the judgment debtor. The provision for levying execution on the debtor’s real estate after ten years (Code Civ. Pro. § 1252) does not extend the original lien of the judgment.

Upon distribution of surplus moneys arising on a foreclosure sale of land, a claim by an attorney to a certain sum as payable for his professional services out of a judgment which is a lien on the land, may properly be left to be enforced by action.

The costs to be allowed on the proceeding to determine the disposition of such surplus moneys are motion costs and disbursements only.

Motion to confirm report of referee as to distribution of surplus moneys arising on a sale of land upon foreclosure of a mortgage.

J. F. Daly, J.

Judgments over ten years old are not liens on the surplus. They are not liens on the real estate of the judgment debtor. The Code (§ 1251) limits the lien on real estate to ten years, without making any distinction between lands still held by the debtor and lands conveyed to others or incumbered by other liens. Before the passage of this Code the judgment bound the real property of the debtor, where no other rights intervened, for the full twenty years, and such property might be sold upon execution at any timé during that period (2 Rev. Stat. 539 §§ 3 and 4; *Nims*v. Sabine, 44 How. Pr. 252; *Beard*v. *Sinnott,*3 Jones & S. 51). The provision of the Revised Statutes cited has been repealed by chapter 417, Laws of 1877. Execution may now be levied *529on the debtor’s real estate after ten years under the provisions of section 1252 of the Code. But this special provision does not extend the original lien of the judgment, and the real estate is bound only from the time of recording and indexing the notice therein provided for. No such notice was recorded in this case, and the judgments obtained against Garrett D. Clark, on October 14th, 1861, May 4th, 1862, February 12th, 1864, and August 15th, 1865, were properly excluded by the referee.

The referee does not allow the claim of D. Levy for payment of $50 to him as attorney of Mrs. Corcoran, payable out of the amount of her judgment. I think it better to leave him to his action for whatever may be due him for services as ^attorney and counsel.

The costs to be allowed on this proceeding are motion costs and disbursements only: $20 costs each to Cooper and Roe and Thomas & Wilder.

Order accordingly.
HomeGeorgia

# Georgia

164 items

        -    TIAS  		Georgia (06-809.1) – Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation	  November 5, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (09-1105.1) – Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement	  November 5, 2009 
        -    Other Release  		United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership	   
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (07-1206) – Air Transport Agreement	  December 6, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (07-620) – Agreement on Trade and Investment	  June 20, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (06-809) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Earth Sciences	  August 9, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (13147) – Agreement on the Peace Corps Program	  August 14, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (03-626) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  June 26, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (03-325) – Agreement on Defense Cooperation	  March 25, 2003 
        -    TIAS  		Georgia (01-618) – Agreement on Cooperation in Law Enforcement	  June 18, 2001 

previous page1…14151617next page

Back to Top
HomeZambia

# Zambia

80 items

        -    Press Statement  		Zambia Independence Day	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 24, 2023 
        -    U.S. Embassy Release  		United States Strengthens Investment in Lobito Corridor	  October 23, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Lusaka, Zambia: American International School of Lusaka: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 18, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to Angola, Zambia, DRC, and Belgium	  October 16, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing on U.S.-EU Partnership to Accelerate Development of the Lobito Corridor	  September 13, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Gen. Michael Langley, U.S. Africa Command and Command Senior Enlisted Leader, Sergeant Major Michael P. Woods	  September 12, 2023 
        -    		The United States Is Providing $30 Million to Build Healthy, Fertile Soils as Part of VACS	   
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerJuly 11, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Zambia	  June 27, 2023 

previous page1234…8next page

Back to Top
§ 2.35 Disclosures to elements of the criminal justice system which have referred patients. ( a ) *Consent for criminal justice referrals.* A part 2 program may disclose information from a record about a patient to those persons within the criminal justice system who have made participation in the part 2 program a condition of the disposition of any criminal proceedings against the patient or of the patient's parole or other release from custody if: ( 1 ) The disclosure is made only to those persons within the criminal justice system who have a need for the information in connection with their duty to monitor the patient's progress (*e.g.,* a prosecuting attorney who is withholding charges against the patient, a court granting pretrial or post-trial release, probation or parole officers responsible for supervision of the patient); and
( 2 ) The patient has signed a written consent meeting the requirements of § 2.31 (except paragraph (a)(6) of this section which is inconsistent with the revocation provisions of paragraph (c) of this section) and the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Duration of consent.* The written consent must state the period during which it remains in effect. This period must be reasonable, taking into account: ( 1 ) The anticipated length of the treatment;
( 2 ) The type of criminal proceeding involved, the need for the information in connection with the final disposition of that proceeding, and when the final disposition will occur; and
( 3 ) Such other factors as the part 2 program, the patient, and the person(s) within the criminal justice system who will receive the disclosure consider pertinent.
( c ) *Revocation of consent.* The written consent must state that it is revocable upon the passage of a specified amount of time or the occurrence of a specified, ascertainable event. The time or occurrence upon which consent becomes revocable may be no later than the final disposition of the conditional release or other action in connection with which consent was given.
( d ) *Restrictions on use and redisclosure.* Any persons within the criminal justice system who receive patient information under this section may use and redisclose it only to carry out official duties with regard to the patient's conditional release or other action in connection with which the consent was given.
[82 FR 6115, Jan. 18, 2017, as amended at 83 FR 251, Jan. 3, 2018; 89 FR 12627, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### § 589.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures, and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
#### § 589.343 U.S.-registered money transmitter.

The term *U.S.-registered money transmitter* means any U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including its foreign branches, or any agency, office, or branch of a foreign entity located in the United States, that is a money transmitter, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100 and that is registered pursuant to 31 CFR 1022.380.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.46 Lump-sum payments. ( a ) *Lump-sum commutation of future benefits.* If a lump-sum compensation award stipulates that the amount paid is intended to compensate the individual for all future medical expenses required because of the work-related injury or disease, Medicare payments for such services are excluded until medical expenses related to the injury or disease equal the amount of the lump-sum payment.
( b ) *Lump-sum compromise settlement.* ( 1 ) A lump-sum compromise settlement is deemed to be a workers' compensation payment for Medicare purposes, even if the settlement agreement stipulates that there is no liability under the workers' compensation law or plan.
( 2 ) If a settlement appears to represent an attempt to shift to Medicare the responsibility for payment of medical expenses for the treatment of a work-related condition, the settlement will not be recognized. For example, if the parties to a settlement attempt to maximize the amount of disability benefits paid under workers' compensation by releasing the workers' compensation carrier from liability for medical expenses for a particular condition even though the facts show that the condition is work-related, Medicare will not pay for treatment of that condition.
( c ) *Lump-sum compromise settlement: Effect on services furnished before the date of settlement.* Medicare pays for medical expenses incurred before the lump-sum compromise settlement only to the extent specified in § 411.47.
( d ) *Lump-sum compromise settlement: Effect on payment for services furnished after the date of settlement* — ( 1 ) *Basic rule.* Except as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if a lump-sum compromise settlement forecloses the possibility of future payment of workers' compensation benefits, medical expenses incurred after the date of the settlement are payable under Medicare.
( 2 ) *Exception.* If the settlement agreement allocates certain amounts for specific future medical services, Medicare does not pay for those services until medical expenses related to the injury or disease equal the amount of the lump-sum settlement allocated to future medical expenses.
# C_2005196EN.01000201.xml

| 11.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3754 — Strabag/Dywidag)

(2005/C 196/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 23 June 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3754. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3754. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005296EN.01001905.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/19

---

Removal from the register of Case C-481/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 296/40)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-481/04, in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, and Landesanwaltschaft Bayern.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 15, 2022

No. 04-22-00333-CR

Steven James ELSIK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 156th Judicial District Court, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M-21-0009-CR-B

Honorable Starr Boldrick Bauer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due June 6, 2022, but was not filed. On June 6, 

2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension until July 21, 

2022 to file the record. After consideration, we GRANT IN PART the request and ORDER the 

court reporter to file the record by July 6, 2022.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of June, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court