alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           128,749
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       4,770
<MORTGAGE>                                         389
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      566
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 147,412
<CASH>                                           1,030
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,219
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          19,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,856
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                107,595
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                102,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           620
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,038)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,856
<PREMIUMS>                                     161,097
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             11,023
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  84
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  16,700
<BENEFITS>                                     136,866
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     95,825
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            35,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (109,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,268)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (96,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,007)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (98,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (16.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (16.07)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 110.44 Legal or personal representatives of requesters. ( a ) *Generally.* Persons other than a requester (*e.g.,* a lawyer, guardian, family member, friend) may file a Request Package on a requester's behalf as his or her legal or personal representative. A requester need not use the services of a lawyer to apply for benefits under this Program. A legal representative, or a personal representative (who does not need to be a lawyer) is only required, as described in this section, for requesters who are minors or adults who lack legal capacity to receive payment of benefits. In the event that a legal or personal representative files on behalf of a requester, the representative will be bound by the obligations and documentation requirements that apply to the requester (*e.g.,* if a requester is required to submit employment records, the representative must file the requester's employment records). The representative must also satisfy the requirements specific to representatives set out in this part. If a requester has a representative, the Program will generally direct all communications to the representative. However, the Secretary reserves the right of the Program to contact the requester directly if necessary, and to conduct a follow-up survey to determine the ability of the Program to meet requesters' needs.
( b ) *Legal or personal representatives of legally competent adults.* A requester who is a legally competent adult *may* use a legal or personal representative to submit a Request Package on his or her behalf. In such circumstances, the requester must indicate on the Request Form that he or she is authorizing the representative to seek benefits under this Program on his or her behalf.
( c ) *Legal or personal representatives of minors and adults who lack legal capacity to receive payment of benefits.* A requester who is a minor or an adult who lacks legal capacity to receive payment of benefits *must* use a legal or personal representative to apply for benefits under this Program on his or her behalf. In such circumstances, the representative must indicate, in the place provided on the Request Form, that the requester is a minor or an adult who lacks legal capacity to receive payment of benefits and that the representative is filing on behalf of the requester. In addition, before the requester will be paid by the Program, the representative must submit the documentation described in § 110.63. A minor who is emancipated, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, does not need a legal or personal representative to file a Request Form or Request Package on his or her behalf.
( d ) *No payment or reimbursement for legal or personal representatives' fees or costs.* The Act does not authorize the Secretary to pay for, or reimburse, any fees or costs associated with the requester's use of the services of a legal or personal representative under this Program, including those of an attorney.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Issue 
Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice 
Improvement Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement 
Issue Committee will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009, at 2 p.m. 
Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez 
at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine 
Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the 
Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-21448 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Jim FAIR, Petitioner, v. J. H. GUERRY, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 47939.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 8, 1975.

Case dismissed, sua sponte.
# C_2006010EN.01002802.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/28

---

Action brought on 21 October 2005 — Wils v European Parliament

(Case T-399/05)

(2006/C 10/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dieter Wils (Altrier, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the applicant's salary slip for January 2005 with retroactive effect from 1 July 2004, insofar as it increases the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to 9.75 %, and order repayment to the applicant of the percentage of the contribution corresponding to the increase in rate. Accordingly — in the earlier salary slips — restore the rate of contribution to the level set before 1 July 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's salary slip for January 2005 with retroactive effect from 1 July 2004, insofar as it increases the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to 9.75 %, and order repayment to the applicant of the percentage of the contribution corresponding to the increase in rate. Accordingly — in the earlier salary slips — restore the rate of contribution to the level set before 1 July 2004;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Parliament, challenges the increase in the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to 9,75 %, introduced by Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which came into force on 1 May 2004. In support of his claims, he alleges the illegality of that annex, in the light of Article 83(4) of the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable prior to 1 May 2004. The effect of that latter provision was to allow the contribution at issue to be altered for the sole purpose of ensuring actuarial balance. However, the applicant submits that the increase in question was decided upon for other reasons, namely, to cover a pre-existing deficit in the Community pension scheme.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the criteria used by Eurostat to calculate the actuarial balance are based on parameters which have led to miscalculations. He also pleads a breach of the principle of proportionality, in that the increase in question goes beyond what is strictly necessary to restore actuarial balance. Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of his legitimate expectations, since the Parliament clearly let it be understood that it would not allow the rate of contribution to be altered otherwise than in strict compliance with the actuarial balance.

---
# C_2005264EN.01000401.xml

| 25.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 October 2005

(2005/C 264/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1944 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,15 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4601 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67590 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5297 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5446 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 72,16 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8265 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5731 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,773 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,46 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9092 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5977 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,54 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,888 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6299 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5969 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4226 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2638 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7043 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0245 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 263,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9185 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6646 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3698 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 015,66 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,509 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,229 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,1805 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,913 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1944

JPY

Japanese yen

138,15

DKK

Danish krone

7,4601

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67590

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5297

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5446

ISK

Iceland króna

72,16

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8265

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5731

CZK

Czech koruna

29,773

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,46

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9092

RON

Romanian leu

3,5977

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,54

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,888

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6299

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5969

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4226

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2638

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7043

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0245

KRW

South Korean won

1 263,79

ZAR

South African rand

7,9185

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6646

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3698

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 015,66

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,509

PHP

Philippine peso

66,229

RUB

Russian rouble

34,1805

THB

Thai baht

48,913

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 588.503 Exclusion from licenses.

OFAC reserves the right to exclude any person, property, transaction, or class thereof from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. OFAC also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
#### Antoinette S. DOLCH, Appellant, v. David N. DOLCH, Appellee.

No. 78-217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1979.

*619Thomas W. Garrard, Port Charlotte, for appellant.

John J. Dulmer, Jr. of McGill & Dulmer, Venice, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant/wife appeals the amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The pertinent portion of the trial court’s amended final judgment provides:

> The Respondent, ANTOINETTE S. DOLCH, is given exclusive possession of the former marital residence, described as follows for a period of six (6) months or until the property is sold, whichever occurs first:

> Lot 2, Block 130, Section 10, PORT CHARLOTTE SUBDIVISION, as per plat thereof recorded at Plat Book 4, Pages 20A through 20N, of the Public Records of Charlotte County, Florida.

> During the foregoing described six (6) month period, said property shall be offered for sale by the parties and listed with a reputable real estate broker upon terms mutually agreeable to the parties. Should the property not be sold within six (6) months of this judgment, either party may petition the Court for partition of said property. Out of the proceeds of sale, either through private sale or partition sale, the parties shall repay the $2,500.00 jointly owed to the parents of Petitioner, DAVID N. DOLCH.

We hold that the trial court erred in ordering that the jointly owned marital home be sold within six months. That part of the amended final judgment is reversed. Appellant is entitled to the use and occupancy of the marital home as long as she remains unmarried and until the two minor children, ages two and three at this time, attain majority, die, marry, or are no longer dependent. *See Singer v. Singer,*342 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The trial court should determine on remand the appropriate provisions with regard to the payment of the mortgage, insurance, taxes, maintenance, and repairs on the marital home. *See Maroun v. Maroun,*277 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We note that the mortgage payment on the house, $152.93 per month, is reasonable, and it is unlikely that she could obtain alternative housing for herself and the children for that sum.

In all other respects the amended final judgment is affirmed, including the provisions for rehabilitative alimony, child support, and payment when the marital home is sold of the $2,500 owed to the parents of appellee/husband.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.414 Medicare secondary payer and organ acquisition costs. ( a ) *General principle.* If a Medicare beneficiary has a primary health insurer other than Medicare and that primary health insurer has primary liability for the transplant and organ acquisition costs, the Medicare Program may share a liability for organ acquisition costs as a secondary payer to the TH that performs the transplant in certain instances. To determine whether Medicare has liability to the TH that performs the transplant as a secondary payer for organ acquisition costs, it is necessary for the TH that performs the transplant to review the TH's agreement with the primary insurer.
( b ) *Medicare has no secondary payer liability for organ acquisition costs.* If the primary insurer's agreement requires the TH to accept the primary insurer's payment as payment in full for the transplant and the associated organ acquisition costs, Medicare has zero liability as a secondary payer with no payment obligation for the transplantation costs or the organ acquisition costs, and the organ at issue is not a Medicare usable organ.
( c ) *Medicare may have secondary payer liability for organ acquisition costs.* When the primary insurer's agreement does not require the TH that performs the transplant to accept the payment from the primary insurer as payment in full, and the payment the TH receives from the primary insurer for the transplant and organ acquisition costs is insufficient to cover the entire cost, Medicare may have a secondary payer liability to the TH that performs the transplant for the organ acquisition costs. ( 1 ) To determine whether Medicare has a secondary payer liability for the organ acquisition costs, it is necessary for the TH that performs the transplant to submit a bill to its contractor and to compare the total cost of the transplant, including the transplant DRG amount and the organ acquisition costs, to the payment received from the primary payer.
( 2 ) If the payment from the primary payer is greater than the cost of the transplant DRG and the organ acquisition costs, there is no Medicare liability and the TH must not count the organ as a Medicare usable organ.
( 3 ) If the payment from the primary payer is less than the transplant DRG and the organ acquisition costs, there is a Medicare secondary payer liability and all of the following must occur: ( i ) The TH must pro-rate the payment from the primary payer between the transplant DRG payment and the organ acquisition payment.
( ii ) Only the TH that performs the transplant counts the organ as a Medicare usable organ.
( iii ) The portion of the payment applicable to organ acquisition is used on the cost report to reduce the Medicare organ acquisition costs.
[86 FR 73515, Dec. 27, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 72289, Nov. 23, 2022]
§ 2.26 Right to request privacy protection for records. ( a ) ( 1 ) A part 2 program must permit a patient to request that the part 2 program restrict uses or disclosures of records about the patient to carry out treatment, payment, or health care operations, including when the patient has signed written consent for such disclosures.
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, a part 2 program is not required to agree to a restriction.
( 3 ) A part 2 program that agrees to a restriction under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not use or disclose records in violation of such restriction, except that, if the patient who requested the restriction is in need of emergency treatment and the restricted record is needed to provide the emergency treatment, the part 2 program may use the restricted record, or may disclose information derived from the record to a health care provider, to provide such treatment to the patient.
( 4 ) If information from a restricted record is disclosed to a health care provider for emergency treatment under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the part 2 program must request that such health care provider not further use or disclose the information.
( 5 ) A restriction agreed to by a part 2 program under paragraph (a) of this section is not effective under this subpart to prevent uses or disclosures required by law or permitted by this part for purposes other than treatment, payment, and health care operations.
( 6 ) A part 2 program must agree to the request of a patient to restrict disclosure of records about the patient to a health plan if: ( i ) The disclosure is for the purpose of carrying out payment or health care operations and is not otherwise required by law; and
( ii ) The record pertains solely to a health care item or service for which the patient, or person other than the health plan on behalf of the patient, has paid the part 2 program in full.
( b ) A part 2 program may terminate a restriction, if one of the following applies: ( 1 ) The patient agrees to or requests the termination in writing.
( 2 ) The patient orally agrees to the termination and the oral agreement is documented.
( 3 ) The part 2 program informs the patient that it is terminating its agreement to a restriction, except that such termination is: ( i ) Not effective for records restricted under paragraph (a)(6) of this section; and
( ii ) Only effective with respect to records created or received after it has so informed the patient.
[89 FR 12625, Feb. 16, 2024]