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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3615

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the Armed 

Forces for the cost of protective body armor purchased by or on behalf 

of the member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members 

of the Armed Forces for the cost of protective body 

armor purchased by or on behalf of the member.

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

3 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE 

4 ARMED FORCES FOR PURCHASE OF PROTEC5 TIVE BODY ARMOR. 

6 (a) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary 

7 of Defense may reimburse a member of the Armed Forces 

8 for the cost of protective body armor purchased by the 

9 member, or by another person on behalf of the member, 
2

•HR 3615 IH 

1 for use by the member while deployed in connection with 

2 Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or 

3 Operation Iraqi Freedom if the member was so deployed 

4 and was not issued protective body armor before such de5 ployment. 

6 (b) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—Reimbursement 

7 may be provided under subsection (a) for protective body 

8 armor purchased during the period beginning on Sep9 tember 11, 2001, and ending on December 31, 2003. Not 

10 later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act, the Secretary shall implement regulations to expedite 

12 the provision of such reimbursement.

Æ
Exhibit II

First floor:

1. Employee Assistance Program

2. Distribution of time

3. State Agency for Approval of Post-Secondary Occupational and Technical Education 

Programs and Public Institutions

4. Teacher Career Office

5. Office of Controlled Substances

6. Undersecretary of Payroll Administration

Second floor: 

1. Office of Collective Agreements

2. Recruitment Office

3. Teaching File

4. Assistant Secretary for Human resources 

5. Office for Teachers’ Certifications

6. Rock Solid

7. Classification and Redistribution

Third floor: 

1.Rock Solid

2. Office of the Comptroller 

3. Accountability and Assessment Program Reginal Office 

4. Special Education Programs

5. School Management

6. School Transportation

7. Psychology

8. Social Worker

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23249-2 Filed:01/13/23 Entered:01/13/23 11:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit II Page 1 of 2
9. School Counseling

10. Unit Exams

11. Adult Program

12. Division of Metrics Execution

Fourth floor: 

1. True North Office

2. Computer Center

3. OSIATD Office for the Information System and Teaching Technological Support 

4. Inova Learning Center

5. Contracts Unit

6. Classified Files

7. Personnel Transactions

Fifth floor: 

1. Regional Superintendent

2. Administrative offices

3. Post Office

4. Finance Office

5. School Transportation Office

6. School Canteens Office

7. Adult Education Office

8. Human Resources Office

9. Legal Division

10. Office for Federal Affairs

11. Office for Provisional Remedies

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23249-2 Filed:01/13/23 Entered:01/13/23 11:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit II Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 11
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

§ 11.63 How and to whom do I submit my petition for rulemaking or petition for exemption? ( a ) To submit a petition for rulemaking or exemption— ( 1 ) By electronic submission, submit your petition for rulemaking or exemption to the FAA through the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov ,* the Federal Docket Management System website. For additional instructions, you may visit *http://www.faa.gov ,* and navigate to the Rulemaking home page.
( 2 ) By paper submission, send the original signed copy of your petition for rulemaking or exemption to this address: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
( b ) Submit a petition for rulemaking or exemption from part 139 of this chapter— ( 1 ) To the appropriate FAA airport field office in whose area your airport is, or will be, established; and
( 2 ) To the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by electronic submission to this Internet address: *http://www.regulations.gov .*
( c ) The FAA may designate other means by which you can submit petitions in the future.
( d ) Submit your petition for exemption 120 days before you need the exemption to take effect.
[Amdt. 11-50, 69 FR 22386, Apr. 26, 2004, as amended at 72 FR 68474, Dec. 5, 2007; Amdt. 11-55, 74 FR 202, Jan. 5, 2009; FAA-2016-6761, Amdt. No. 11-62, 83 FR 28534, June 20, 2016]
#### § 652.55 General.

You must hold risk-based capital in an amount determined in accordance with this subpart.
EXHIBIT A

PARTY APPEARANCE SHEET

Name of Party Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc.

Party Name Abbreviation

 (For Use with Zoom)

Wal-Mart

Omnibus Hearing Participant

Attorney(s) Representing Party (provide the listed 

information for each attorney who may appear for the 

Party):

• Name,

• Email,

• Law Firm,

• Phone Number, and

• Docket Entry No. for the Attorney’s Notice of

Appearance

Antonio Bauzá-Santos

antonio.bauza@bioslawpr.com

Bauzá Brau Irizarry & Silva

(787) 710-8262/723-8758

Docket Entry No. 16972

and/or

Guillermo J. Silva-Wiscovich

gsilva@bioslawpr.com

Bauzá Brau Irizarry & Silva

(787) 710-8262/723-8743

Docket Entry No. 16973

Plan Objection Docket Entry No. Docket Entry No. 164131

1 Wal-Mart filed an Opposition (Docket Entry No. 16413) to the Three Hundred Third Omnibus 

Objection (Substantive) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Employees Retirement System of the 

Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Claims for Which the Commonwealth and ERS are 

not Liable (Docket Entry No. 16030).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19890-1 Filed:01/25/22 Entered:01/25/22 15:25:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
II 

Calendar No. 558 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3536 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, as the 

‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln 

7 Hollinsaid Malden Post Office’’. 
2 

•HR 3536 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post 

6 Office’’. 

Calendar No. 558 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3536 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostHollinsaid Malden Post Office’’. Illinois, as the ‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln al Service located at 210 Main Street in Malden, 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported without amendment
#### MILLER v. CASSILLY.

Assumpsit — supplies to a steamboat in possession of a mortgagee — liability.

A mortgagee of a boat in possession, is in legal contemplation the owner, and supplies furnished to her while so in possession, are held to be furnished to him.

Assumpsit, for supplies furnished the steamboat Amazon. Plea non assumpsit. It was agreed that the supplies were furnished the boat, while the defendant had possession of her as mortgagee.

Bv the Court.

A mortgagee in possession of the mortgaged property, is, in legal contemplation, the owner, and for supplies furnished this boat while the defendant was so in possession, *he is liable;*by intendment of law, they are furnished to him.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of  Innodata  Corporation  on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-85530,
dated  October  21,  1994 and Registration No. 333-3466, dated April 11, 1996)
and  on  Form  S-3  (Registration  No.  333-3464, dated April 11, 1996) of our
report  dated March 14, 1997, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Innodata  Corporation  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1996.

Margolin,  Winer  &  Evens  LLP
Garden  City,  New  York
March  14,  1997
#### § 614.4450 General requirements.

Authority for loan approval is vested in the Farm Credit banks and associations.

[51 FR 41947, Nov. 20, 1986]
#### § 614.4800 Guarantees and contracts of suretyship.

A bank for cooperatives or an agricultural credit bank, under a policy approved by the bank's board of directors, may lend its credit, be itself a surety to indemnify another, or otherwise become a guarantor if an eligible cooperative substantially benefits from the performance of the transaction involved. A bank may guarantee the debt of eligible cooperatives and foreign parties or otherwise agree to make payments on the occurrence of readily ascertainable events if the guarantee or agreement specifies a maximum monetary liability. Guarantees may be secured or unsecured, and can include, but are not limited to, such events as nonpayment of taxes, rentals, customs duties, costs of transport, and loss of or nonconformance of shipping documents. The bank's customer shall have an unqualified obligation to reimburse the bank for payments made under a guarantee or surety.

[55 FR 24887, June 19, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 4445, Jan. 30, 1997]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements listed below of our report dated April 16, 2005 relating to the
financial statements, which appear in the 2004 Annual Report to the Stockholders
of Back Yard Burgers, Inc., which is incorporated by reference in Back Yard
Burgers, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 1, 2005.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Description                     Form/Registration Statement Number
              -----------                     ----------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>
Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
Incentive Stock Option Plan Of 1993               Form S-8, No. 333-102737

Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
1995 Incentive Award Plan and 1995 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan                               Form S-8, No. 33-95180

Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
2002 Equity Incentive Plan                        Form S-8, No. 333-102736
</TABLE>

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

Memphis, Tennessee
April 16, 2005
# C_2018104EN.01001502.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters

(Case C-700/17)

(2018/C 104/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Kyritz

Applicant:

Defendant: Wolf-Henning Peters

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the tax exemption for the provision of medical care by a specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, assessed under Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or under Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the tax exemption for the provision of medical care by a specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, assessed under Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or under Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

1

| 2. | Does the applicability of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — if this provision is applicable — require that a confidential relationship exist between the doctor and the person being treated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the applicability of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — if this provision is applicable — require that a confidential relationship exist between the doctor and the person being treated?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
#### HORACE VANDERBEEK, APPELLANT, v. HERBERT DURHAM, RECORDER OF SOMERVILLE (FRED KUGLER, JR., COMPLAINANT), RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 27, 1939

Decided January 25, 1940.

For the appellant, *Samuel R. Blaine.*

For the respondent, *Reger & Smith.*

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated by the recorder of Somerville. Having been so convicted, he made application to the justice holding the Circuit of the Supreme Court in Somerset county for a summary review, and the matter was made returnable before another justice, who sat for the justice holding the Somerset Circuit and affirmed the conviction. This appeal is from such action.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question raised as to the legality of a summary review by a justice of *38the Supreme Court other than the justice to whom the application for such review is presented. We are of the opinion that the appeal must he dismissed, because, as was said in *Jersey City*v. *Thorpe,*90 *N. J. L.*520:

“It is too plain for argument that such an appeal is without legal foundation, not only for the reason that an appeal has not been substituted for a writ of error in the review of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but for the more substantial reason that a writ of error does not run directly to this court from the orders or judgments of a legislative agency such as the justice of the Supreme Court is under the provisions of the statute under which the proceedings below were had.

*“Certiorari*is the proper remedy; the constitutionality of the statutory review by a legislative agency is sustainable solely upon the ground that orders or judgments so made may be supervised by the Supreme Court upon *certiorari. Newark*v. *Kazinski,*86 *N. J. L.*59.”

This appeal, bringing nothing to this court, is dismissed.

*For dismissa*l—The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchard, Case, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 14.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARON BENCIC, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-15295 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00627-NVW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 16, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, ** Judge. Appellant Sharon Bencic appeals the denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The ALJ concluded that Bencic suffered from two severe impairments, but could perform “light work,” including her previous work as a 

# FILED
MAY 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.waitress. On appeal, Bencic argues that the ALJ erred in weighing her physicians’ medical opinions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The ALJ did not err in giving more weight to the opinions of non-examining and non-treating physicians over the opinion of treating physician Dr. Hurley. The ALJ gave “specific and legitimate” reasons for giving less weight to Dr. Hurley ’s opinion, including that it was inconsistent with the opinion of three spine specialists, and with Dr. Hurley’s own conservative course of treatment. See Lester v. Chater , 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995). These reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See id. Despite Bencic’s arguments to the contrary, the ALJ could rely on the opinions of examining and non-examining physicians to discount Dr. Hurley’s opinion to the extent these opinions were supported by and consistent with the objective medical evidence. See Thomas v. Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Bencic was not disabled at step four, we do not reach Bencic ’s argument that the ALJ erred at step five. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“If we can find that you are disabled or not disabled at a step, we make our determination or decision and we do not go on to the next step.”). AFFIRMED
.



### 2
Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Epolin, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August  31,  2005,
as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned certifies,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley  Act  of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's  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.


Dated: October 17, 2005         By:/s/ Murray S. Cohen
                                       Murray S. Cohen,
                                       Chairman of the Board and
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Dated: October 17, 2005         By:/s/ James Ivchenko
                                       James Ivchenko,
                                       President (Principal Financial
                                       Officer)
§ 119.21 Commercial operators engaged in intrastate common carriage and direct air carriers. ( a ) Each person who conducts airplane or powered-lift operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier, shall comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part, and shall conduct its: ( 1 ) Domestic operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements. However, based on a showing of safety in air commerce, the Administrator may permit persons who conduct domestic operations between any point located within any of the following Alaskan islands and any point in the State of Alaska to comply with the requirements applicable to flag operations contained in subpart U of part 121 of this chapter: ( i ) The Aleutian Islands.
( ii ) The Pribilof Islands.
( iii ) The Shumagin Islands.
( 2 ) Flag operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements.
( 3 ) Supplemental operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements. However, based on a determination of safety in air commerce, the Administrator may authorize or require those operations to be conducted under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
( 4 ) Commuter operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements.
( 5 ) On-demand operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements.
( b ) Persons who are subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this section may conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, provided they obtain authorization from the Administrator.
( c ) Persons who are subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section may conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, provided they obtain authorization from the Administrator.
[Doc. No. 28154, 60 FR 65913, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 119-2, 61 FR 30433, June 14, 1996; Amdt. 119-3, 62 FR 13254, Mar. 19, 1997; Docket No. FAA-2022-1563; Amdt. No. 119-20, 88 FR 48089, July 26, 2023]