alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.91 Protection of health-care eligibility. Any veteran whose entitlement to VA pension is terminated by reason of income from work or training shall, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, retain for 3 years after the termination, the eligibility for hospital care, nursing home care and medical services (not including dental) which the veteran otherwise would have had if the pension had not been terminated as a result of the veteran's receipt of earnings from activity performed for remuneration or gain by the veteran but only if the veteran's annual income from sources other than such earnings would, taken alone, not result in the termination of the veteran's pension. ( a ) A veteran who participates in a vocational training program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 15 is eligible for the one-time 3 year retention of hospital care, nursing home care and medical services benefits at any time that the veteran's pension is terminated by reason of income from the veteran's employment.
( b ) A veteran who does not participate in a vocational training program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 15 is eligible for the one-time 3 year retention of hospital care and medical services benefits only if the veteran's pension is terminated by reason of income from the veteran's employment during the period February 1, 1985 through January 31, 1989.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524, 1525, 1516)
[51 FR 19330, May 29, 1986. Redesignated at 61 FR 21965, May 13, 1996]
# Official Journal C 286/2004

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 286 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4723 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 286

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4723 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2004/C 286/1 | Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors'accounts for the financial year 2003 | 1 |
| 2004/C 286/2 | Reportby the Court of Auditors on the audit of the operational efficiency of themanagement of the European Central Bank for the financial year 2003, togetherwith the European Central Bank's replies | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2004/C 286/1

Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors'accounts for the financial year 2003

1

2004/C 286/2

Reportby the Court of Auditors on the audit of the operational efficiency of themanagement of the European Central Bank for the financial year 2003, togetherwith the European Central Bank's replies

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1719

___________________________

Kenneth L. Smith, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: October 5, 2016

Filed: October 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., appeals from the decision of the district court1

 affirming

an administrative law judge’s decision denying him disability insurance benefits. 

1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
Having carefully reviewed the record before us and the parties’ submissions on

appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the

adverse decision. See Johnson v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2015)

(substantial evidence is that which reasonable mind would accept as adequate to

support Commissioner’s decision). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,236
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,579
<INVENTORY>                                    1,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28,214
<PP&E>                                         40,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 99,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          43,305
<BONDS>                                        33,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       65,511
<OTHER-SE>                                     (42,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   99,924
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               93,707
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  78,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20,084
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Boundless Motor
Sports Racing, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul A. Kruger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:  (1)
    
    the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Paul A. KrugerPaul A. KrugerChief Executive OfficerDate: March 2, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51707 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS ANGEL ARIAS-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-320-ALL Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Angel Arias-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-51707

2 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.1710 Escheat (payment of burial benefits to an estate with no heirs).

VA will not pay burial benefits if the payment would escheat (that is, would be turned over to the State because there are no heirs to the estate of the person to whom such benefits would be paid).

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 4.2


                     AMENDMENT TO THE PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE
                     COMPANIES EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

                                  July 21, 1998


         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Philadelphia
Consolidated Holding Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company") has
determined to amend certain provisions of the Philadelphia Insurance Companies
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") in order to clarify the amendment
provisions of he Plan and to modify the time at which eligible employees may
commence participation in the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Board is authorized to amend the Plan, at its discretion,
from time to time pursuant to Section 18 of the Plan

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Section 18 of the Plan is hereby clarified by adding the following
sentence at the end thereof;

                  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
         Section 18, a change in the timing of initial participation in the Plan
         by newly hired employees shall not be treated as a modification of the
         eligibility requirements of the Plan."

         2. A new paragraph is added at the end of Section 4 of the Plan to
read:

                  "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section 4, the
         Board of Directors may establish rules regarding commencement of
         participation in the Plan with respect to any Offering Period to permit
         participation in the Plan by employees who have been employed by the
         Company or its Subsidiaries for any period specified that is not
         greater than six months, provided such rules are applied to all
         employees of the Company and its Subsidiaries on a uniform basis."

         3. In all other aspects, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANDRES ESTRADA,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-4804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PRIMITIVO ABEJA VEGA, a/k/a Roberto Lopez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00363-JAB)

Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Dusenbury, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,

Greensboro, North Carolina; Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW, ALEXANDER

& PORTER, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants.

Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Andres Estrada and

Primitivo Abeja Vega appeal their convictions and sentences for

conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). On appeal, counsel filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the

question of whether the sentences were reasonable. Neither

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we

affirm. 

We find Appellants’ ranges of imprisonment were properly

calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, their sentences

at the low end of the Guidelines range of imprisonment were

reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.

2006). 

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record

and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the convictions and sentences. We require counsel to inform the

clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If a client requests a

petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
- 4 -

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 9234 Civilian noninstitutional population Number in thousands 70 to 74 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU00024941Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Population Level - 70-74 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:10:10 PM)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2687 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2687

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain types of mail 
 matter from being sent by a Member of the House of Representatives as 
                        part of a mass mailing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2007

  Mr. LaHood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent certain types of mail 
 matter from being sent by a Member of the House of Representatives as 
                        part of a mass mailing.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3210(a) of title 39, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(8) A Member of the House of Representatives may not send, as 
part of a mass mailing, any matter described in subparagraph (B), (C), 
or (F) of paragraph (3).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to mail sent during any session of Congress 
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.107


 


Maximum Mortgage Contract


 


Contract No.: GONGGAODIZIDI2014061805


 


Mortgagor: Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


 


Mortgagee : China Minsheng Bank Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : June 19, 2014


 


Mortgage Definition : To ensure multiple loans Party B (Mortgagee)
has lent to Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd., Party A (Mortgagor) is willing to provide the Maximum Mortgage Guarantee hereunder
for Party B.


  


Maximum Amount: RMB100, 000,000


 


Mortgage Term : June 19, 2014 to June 18, 2015


 


 Collateral: The assets Party A mortgages
to Party B as Collateral are listed in Maximum Mortgage Contract (No. GONGGAODIZIDI2014061805). The appraised value of the Collateral
is RMB 203,606,500.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SELMA PINCHEFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-1898 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-615) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 11, 1997 Before HALL, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Beverly D. Crawford, Sa'ad El-Amin, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD,Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberly Neeb, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Selma Pinchefsky appeals the district court's order granting the Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO's (CWA) motion for summary judgment. She claims that the district court erred in finding that her claim for breach of the duty of fair representation against CWA was barred by the applicable statute of limitations period. She also claims that the district court erred in finding that her claim is barred because she failed to avail herself of the union's internal appeals procedure. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, § 10(b), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (1994), the statute of limitations period for Pinchefsky's claim is six months. See DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters , 462 U.S. 151, 169 (1983). The issue before us is whether Pinchefsky should have known of her injury based on an August 3, 1994, meeting she had with the President of her local, in which CWAclaims Pinchefsky was informed that it intended to withdraw its arbitration demand previously advanced on her behalf. Pinchefsky testified in her deposition that she recalled this meeting, and that she was informed at this meeting about CWA's internal appeals process. While Pinchefsky later submitted an affidavit in which she denies remembering the meeting, we agree with the district court that this denial is not sufficient to overcome her deposition testimony, or to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Military Servs. Realty, Inc. v. Realty Consultants of Virginia, Ltd. , 823 F.2d 829, 832 (4th Cir. 1987). We therefore find that Pinchefsky knew or should have known that CWA was withdrawing its arbitration demand as of August 3, 1994, and that her claim is accordingly barred by the statute of limitations. We further find that Pinchefsky's claim is barred based on her failure to avail herself of CWA's internal appeals process. See Clayton v. United Auto. Workers , 451 U.S. 679, 681 (1981).
AFFIRMED
2
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2305-020]

On September 15, 2009, Commission staff, in response to the filing of a notice of study dispute by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) on August 26, 2009, convened a single three-person Dispute Resolution Panel pursuant to 18 CFR 5.14(d).

The Panel will hold a technical conference at the time and place noted below. The session will address study disputes regarding terrestrial special status species, cultural resources, non-native invasive plant species (noxious weeds), land use, and soil erosion. The focus of the technical session is for the disputing agencies, applicants, and Commission to provide the Panel with additional information necessary to evaluate the disputed studies. All local, State, and Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend the meeting as observers. The Panel also may request information or clarification on written submissions, as necessary, to understand the matters in dispute. The Panel will limit all input that it receives to the specific studies or information in dispute and will focus on the applicability of such studies or information to the study criteria stipulated in 18 CFR 5.9(b). If the number of participants wishing to speak creates time constraints, the Panel may, at their discretion, limit the speaking time for each participant.

If you have any questions, please contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-6512.

## Technical Conference

Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009.

Time: 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (CDT).

Place: Hilton Garden Inn-Houston/Bush Intercontinental Airport, 15400 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77032.

Phone: 281-449-4148.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-23656 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 97015          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 10          Edition Date: 04-FEB-89          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1990/07**Notice ListingOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **