alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Membership of the Office of the Secretary Performance Review 
Board

AGENCY: Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Membership on the Office of the Secretary Performance 
Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 5 U.S.C., 4314(c)(4), Department of 
Commerce (DOC) announces the appointment of persons to serve as members 
of the Office of the Secretary (OS) Performance Review Board (PRB). The 
OS PRB is responsible for reviewing performance ratings, pay 
adjustments and bonuses of Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The 
term of the new members of the OS PRB will expire December 31, 2011.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of service of appointees to 
the Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board is upon 
publication of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of 
Executive Resources, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of 
the Director, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
(202) 482-3600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The names, position titles, and type of 
appointment of the members of the OS/PRB are set forth below by 
organization: Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary, 2009-
2011, Performance Review Board Membership.

Office of the Secretary

    Tene A. Dolphin, Director, Executive Secretariat.
    Earl B. Neal, Director, Office of Information Technology, Security, 
Infrastructure, and Technology.

Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration

    Suzan J. Aramaki, Director, Office of Civil Rights.
    Alfred J. Broadbent, Director, Office of Security.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

    W. Todd Grams, Chief Financial Officer for NIST.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    Louisa Koch, Director, Office of Education.

Office of the General Counsel

    Michael A. Levitt, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation.
    Barbara S. Fredericks, Assistant General Counsel for Administration 
(Alternate).

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Denise A. Yaag,
Director, Office of Executive Resources.
[FR Doc. E9-23344 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1668V

UNPUBLISHED

DAWN HALLEY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 28, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Mark Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 29, 2018, Dawn Halley filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was 

administered on October 15, 2016, she suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 27, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states that 

he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. 

Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[m]edical 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and 

Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in the 

case.” Id. at 4. Furthermore, it is “respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the 

criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to 

Interpretation (“QAI”).” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SEAN GREENE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2894 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 15, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge. Sean Greene, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-427 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MARITIME MATTERS 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BRAZIL 

Signed at Washington September 30, 2005 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BRAZIL 

Maritime Matters 

 Agreement signed at Washington September 30, 2005; 

 Entered into force April 27, 2011. 



Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Portuguese text of this Agreement. If the Portuguese text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4516 Lien requirements. ( a ) Loans for the purchase of a dwelling or for the purchase of a farm on which there is a farm residence shall be secured by a first lien on the property or estate. Loans for the construction of a farm residence or other dwelling shall also be secured by a first lien.
( b ) Loans solely for the purpose of energy conservation improvements or other alterations, improvements, or repairs shall be secured in the following manner: ( 1 ) Loans for $1,500 or less need not be secured, and in lieu of the title examination a statement may be accepted from the borrower that he or she has an interest in the property not less than that prescribed in § 36.4515(a).
( 2 ) Loans for more than $1,500 but 40 percent or less of the prior to the improved reasonable value of the property shall be secured by a lien reasonable and customary in the community for the type of alteration, improvement, or repair financed.
( 3 ) Loans for more than $1,500 and for more than 40 percent of the prior to the improved reasonable value of such property shall be secured by a first lien on the property or estate. However, such a home improvement loan may be secured by a lien immediately subordinate to the lien securing the previous loan extended by the Secretary, if the Department of Veterans Affairs is the holder of all liens of superior priority on the property. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3711(d)(1))
( c ) Tax liens, special assessment liens, and ground rent shall be disregarded with respect to any requirement that loans shall be secured by a lien of specified dignity. With the prior approval of the Secretary, Under Secretary for Benefits, or Executive Director, Loan Guaranty Service, liens retained by nongovernmental entities to secure assessments or charges for municipal type services and facilities clearly within the public purpose doctrine may be disregarded. In determining whether a loan for the purchase or construction of a home is secured by a first lien the Secretary may also disregard a superior lien created by a duly recorded covenant running with the realty in favor of a private entity to secure an obligation to such entity for the homeowner's share of the costs of the management, operation, or maintenance of property, services or programs within and for the benefit of the development or community in which the veteran's realty is located, if the Secretary determines that the interests of the veteran-borrower and of the Government will not be prejudiced by the operation of such covenant. In respect to any such superior lien to be created after June 6, 1969, the Secretary's determination must have been made prior to the recordation of the covenant.
[20 FR 6261, Aug. 26, 1955, as amended at 20 FR 9180, Dec. 10, 1955; 23 FR 2340, Apr. 10, 1958; 34 FR 9561, June 18, 1969; 45 FR 20472, Mar. 28, 1980; 61 FR 28059, June 4, 1996]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2414 

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to adjust the Federal benefit payment required to 

be paid to certain retirees of the District of Columbia Metropolitan 

Police Department and the District of Columbia Fire Service to take 

into account service longevity payments which under District of Columbia 

law are considered basic compensation for purposes of retirement, survivor benefits, and annuities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to adjust the Federal 

benefit payment required to be paid to certain retirees 

of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia Fire Service to take 

into account service longevity payments which under District of Columbia law are considered basic compensation 

for purposes of retirement, survivor benefits, and annuities. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2414 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Metropolitan Police 

3 Department and Fire Service Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT TO 

5 TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SERVICE LONGEVITY 

6 PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN DISTRICT OF CO7 LUMBIA POLICE AND FIRE SERVICE RETIR8 EES. 

9 (a) ADJUSTMENT IN FEDERAL BENEFIT PAY10 MENT.—Section 11012(e) of the National Capital Revital11 ization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 

12 (sec. 1–803.02(e), D.C. Official Code) is amended— 

13 (1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND FIRE

14 SERVICE’’ after ‘‘POLICE’’; and 

15 (2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol16 lowing: ‘‘For purposes of subsection (a), in deter17 mining the amount of a Federal benefit payment 

18 made to an officer or member of the Metropolitan 

19 Police Department or Fire Service, the benefit pay20 ment to which the officer or member is entitled 

21 under the District Retirement Program shall include 

22 any amounts which would have been included in the 

23 benefit payment under such Program if the amend24 ments made by section 202 of the Metropolitan Po25 lice Department Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Law 

26 16–223) had taken effect prior to the freeze date, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2414 IH

1 but only with respect to an officer or member who 

2 completes 20 years of active service prior to retire3 ment.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to Federal benefit 

6 payments made on or after the date of the enactment of 

7 this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1717

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Luis Antonio Flores-Dominguez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 5, 2007 Filed: November 8, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luis Antonio Flores-Dominguez challenges the 120-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance cont aining methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. Flor es-Dominguez’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should have had discretion to sentence Flores -Dominguez below the mandatory minimum notwithstanding his ineligibility for a safety -valve reduction, and that his sentence is-2- unreasonable. We conclude that Flores -Dominguez’s sentence is not unreasonable because 120 months was the statutory minimum. SeeUnited States v. Gregg , 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. A ccordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.985 Notification of prior or concurrent proceedings in *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) In any *inter partes* reexamination proceeding, the patent owner shall call the attention of the Office to any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved, including but not limited to interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissue, reexamination, or litigation and the results of such proceedings.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the rules, any person at any time may file a paper in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding notifying the Office of a prior or concurrent proceeding in which the same patent is or was involved, including but not limited to interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissue, reexamination, or litigation and the results of such proceedings. Such paper must be limited to merely providing notice of the other proceeding without discussion of issues of the current *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

[77 FR 46629, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
SERVED JANUARY 3, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

'^^-ARTMENT OF 

- NSPORWION 

• n OPERATIONS 

•; JAN •u ^i=31 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0011 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS FAA-2009-0972 

ORDER ON STATUS OF CASE 

In prior pleadings the Agency notified the undersigned that the matter is pending 

settlement subject to the approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. The parties are hereby directed to notify the Judge, in writing, by February 1, 2011, 

the status of this case and status of settlement. 

joodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment(s) - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09AL0011 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Christopher Pappaioanou, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Legal Affairs 

Mesa Air Group, Respondent 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 100 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

Laura E. Jennings, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3452 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant; 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

r-ll
§ 85a.2 Definitions. Any term defined in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and not defined below shall have the meaning given it in the Acts. As used in this part: *Assistant Regional Director* means any one of the ten Occupational Safety and Health Administration Assistant Regional Directors for Occupational Safety and Health.
*Employee* has the same meaning as stated in the OSH Act and for the purposes of this part includes *miner* as defined in the FMSH Act.
*Employer* has the same meaning as stated in the OSH Act and for the purposes of this part includes *operator* as defined in the FMSH Act.
*FMSH Act* means the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*).
*Informed consent* means the knowing consent of an individual or his legally authorized representative, so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion. The basic elements of information necessary to such consent include: ( 1 ) A fair explanation of the procedures to be followed, and their purposes, including identification of any procedures which are experimental;
( 2 ) A description of any attendant discomforts and risks reasonably to be expected;
( 3 ) A description of any benefits reasonably to be expected;
( 4 ) A disclosure of any appropriate alternative procedures that might be advantageous for the subject;
( 5 ) An offer to answer any inquiries concerning the procedures; and
( 6 ) An instruction that the person is free to withdraw his consent and to discontinue participation in the investigation any time without prejudice to the subject.
*Investigation* means research projects, experiments, demonstrations, studies, and similar activities of NIOSH which are conducted under section 20 of the OSH Act and section 501 of the FMSH Act.
*Legally authorized representative* means an individual or judicial or other body authorized under applicable law to consent on behalf of a prospective subject to such subject's participation in the particular activity or procedure.
*MSHA District Office* means any one of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's District Offices.
*NIOSH* means the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
*NIOSH authorized representative* means a person authorized by NIOSH to conduct investigations of places of employment, including any person that is fulfilling a contract agreement with NIOSH or is serving as an expert or consultant to NIOSH pursuant to the Act.
*OSH Act* means the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.*).
*Place of employment* means any coal or other mine, factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by any employee of an employer.
[79 FR 2792, Jan. 16, 2014]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 6.4 Schedule for collective membership marks.

All collective membership marks in applications based on sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act and registrations resulting from such applications are classified as follows:

| Class | Title |
| --- | --- |
| 200 | Collective Membership. |

[73 FR 67775, Nov. 17, 2008]