alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4126

___________ Sam Dean, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Hartford Life and Accident Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED] Company, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 21, 2005 Filed: October 28, 2005

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sam Dean appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment in his Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action against Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company (Hartford). Dean’s long-term-disability (LTD) benefits were discontinued in October 2002 after Hartford determined he no longer qualified.-2-This court reviews de novo the district court’s application of the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. SeeNorris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan , 308 F.3d 880, 883- 84 (8th Cir. 2002) (under abuse-of-discretion standard, proper inquiry is whether administrator’s decision was reasonable, i.e., supported by substantial evidence); Cash v. Wal-Mart Group Health Plan , 107 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (review under deferential standard is limited to evidence before administrator). We conclude that Hartford was not required to give controlling weight to Dr. Thomas Bailey’s November 2001 opinion as to Dean’s work-related abilities: the opinion was generated almost a year before the determination at issue was made; and it was inconsistent with Dr. Bailey’s subsequent discussions with a Hartford medical director, with an August 2002 functional capacity evaluation, with Dr. Bailey’s treatment records, and with diagnostic test results. See Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord , 538 U.S. 822, 825, 834 (2003) (ERISA plan administrators are not required to credit treating physician’s opinions over other evidence relevant to claimant’s condition); McGee v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. , 360 F.3d 921, 924- 25 (8th Cir. 2004) (it is not unreasonable to deny benefits based upon lack of objective medical evidence). Dean’s challenges to the employability analysis also fail. As the district court pointed out, under the language of the LTD benefit plan at issue here, Dean could continue receiving benefits so long as he was prevented from doing “any” occupation or work for which he could become qualified by training, education, or experience,
see Cash , 107 F.3d at 641 (in determining if interpretation of plan is reasonable, court should consider whether, inter alia, interpretation is contrary to clear language of plan); and in any event, Dean presented nothing supporting his assertion that the specified jobs were not available locally, and Dean’s claim of right upper-extremity problems was not supported by objective medical evidence and was inconsistent with other evidence.-3- Dean has provided no other basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
§ 27.1325 Static pressure systems. ( a ) Each instrument with static air case connections must be vented so that the influence of rotorcraft speed, the opening and closing of windows, airflow variation, and moisture or other foreign matter does not seriously affect its accuracy.
( b ) Each static pressure port must be designed and located in such manner that the correlation between air pressure in the static pressure system and true ambient atmospheric static pressure is not altered when the rotorcraft encounters icing conditions. An anti-icing means or an alternate source of static pressure may be used in showing compliance with this requirement. If the reading of the altimeter, when on the alternate static pressure system, differs from the reading of the altimeter when on the primary static system by more than 50 feet, a correction card must be provided for the alternate static system.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, if the static pressure system incorporates both a primary and an alternate static pressure source, the means for selecting one or the other source must be designed so that— ( 1 ) When either source is selected, the other is blocked off; and
( 2 ) Both sources cannot be blocked off simultaneously.
( d ) For unpressurized rotorcraft, paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply if it can be demonstrated that the static pressure system calibration, when either static pressure source is selected is not changed by the other static pressure source being open or blocked.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-13, 42 FR 36972, July 18, 1977]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3991 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3991

 To establish a special enrollment period for health plans offered on 
 the Exchanges, in response to the public health emergency related to 
                         the coronavirus 2019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2020

  Ms. Duckworth (for herself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a special enrollment period for health plans offered on 
 the Exchanges, in response to the public health emergency related to 
                         the coronavirus 2019.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coronavirus 2019 Special Enrollment 
Period Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD.

    Section 1311(c)(6) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(c)(6)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a special enrollment period that begins on 
                July 1, 2020, and ends on October 1, 2020.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 29.687 Spring devices. ( a ) Each control system spring device whose failure could cause flutter or other unsafe characteristics must be reliable.
( b ) Compliance with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by tests simulating service conditions.
# IMMC.EESC-2020-02609-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2020-02609-00-01-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN

SOC/653

SOC/653

Amending resources for the Youth Employment Initiative

Amending resources for the Youth Employment Initiative

OPINION


  European Economic and Social Committee


  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative

  [COM(2020) 206 – 2020/0086 (COD)]

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative

[COM(2020) 206 – 2020/0086 (COD)]

Referral

| Referral | European Parliament, 27/05/2020


  Council, 02/06/2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 177, al. 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted at plenary | 10/06/2020 |
| Plenary session No | 552 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 219/0/2 |

Referral

European Parliament, 27/05/2020

European Parliament, 27/05/2020

Council, 02/06/2020

Council, 02/06/2020

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 177, al. 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 177, al. 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

10/06/2020

10/06/2020

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

552

552

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

219/0/2

219/0/2

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided, at its 552nd plenary session of 10 and 11 June 2020 (meeting of 10 June 2020), by 219 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided, at its 552nd plenary session of 10 and 11 June 2020 (meeting of 10 June 2020), by 219 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Luca JAHIER

  The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________

_____________
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.5 Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual. ( a ) With each airplane or rotorcraft not type certificated with an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual and having no flight time before March 1, 1979, the holder of a type certificate (including amended or supplemental type certificates) or the licensee of a type certificate must make available to the owner at the time of delivery of the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
( b ) The Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following information: ( 1 ) The operating limitations and information required to be furnished in an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or in manual material, markings, and placards, by the applicable regulations under which the airplane or rotorcraft was type certificated.
( 2 ) The maximum ambient atmospheric temperature for which engine cooling was demonstrated must be stated in the performance information section of the Flight Manual, if the applicable regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated do not require ambient temperature on engine cooling operating limitations in the Flight Manual.
( 3 ) Documentation of compliance with part 38 of this chapter, in an FAA-approved section of any approved airplane flight manual. Such material must include the fuel efficiency metric value as calculated under § 38.11 of this chapter, and the specific paragraph of § 38.17 of this chapter with which compliance has been shown for that airplane.
[Amdt. 21-46, 43 FR 2316, Jan. 16, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53385, Oct. 16, 2009; Admt. 21-107, 89 FR 12653, Feb. 16, 2024]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25339-25340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: May 22, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of

[[Page 25340]]

Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 5As25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
594-4952.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS).


    Dated: April 21, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-10787 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2018153EN.01000701.xml

| 2.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 April 2018

(2018/C 153/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2079 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,12 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4501 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87960 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4993 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1968 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 122,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6620 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,542 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2264 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6614 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,8896 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6013 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5542 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4801 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7145 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6016 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 292,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0121 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6574 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4100 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 796,15 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7409 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,452 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,9587 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,145 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1932 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,5977 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,1685 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2079

JPY

Japanese yen

132,12

DKK

Danish krone

7,4501

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87960

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4993

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1968

ISK

Iceland króna

122,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6620

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,542

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2264

RON

Romanian leu

4,6614

TRY

Turkish lira

4,8896

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6013

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5542

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4801

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7145

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6016

KRW

South Korean won

1 292,04

ZAR

South African rand

15,0121

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6574

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4100

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 796,15

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7409

PHP

Philippine peso

62,452

RUB

Russian rouble

75,9587

THB

Thai baht

38,145

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1932

MXN

Mexican peso

22,5977

INR

Indian rupee

80,1685

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### A. B. HERVEY, Jr., Commissioner of Revenues *v.*CONSTRUCTION HELICOPTERS, Inc.

5-5919

480 S.W. 2d 577

Opinion delivered May 29, 1972

[Rehearing denied June 26, 1972.]

*729
      *R. David Lewis,*for appellant.

*House, Holmes & Jewell*by: *Tom F. Lovett,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant A. B. Hervey Jr., Commissioner of Revenues, brought this action against appellee Construction Helicopters, Inc., a nonresident contractor, to recover $23,100 in use taxes and penalties pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-3129 et seq. (Supp. 1971), for the use of a $700,000 helicopter in the performance of a contract in this State. The trial court dismissed the complaint because it did not allege that the helicopter was procured for use in this State.

We affirm the trial court for the reasons stated in *Larey, Commissioner of Revenue*v. *Wolfe*242 Ark. 715, 416 S. W. 2d 266 (1967). Appellant readily recognizes the *Larey*case as being contrary to the position he is now arguing but suggests that the interpretation there given is contrary to the legislative intent as revealed in the words of the statute. He also suggests that the *Larey*interpretation is contrary to the philosophy of the sales and use tax laws. In making these assertions, appellant overlooks our many cases to the effect that any ambiguity or doubt in a tax act is to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. See *Wiseman*v. *Arkansas Utilities Co.,*191 Ark. 854, 88 S.W. 2d 81 (1936) and *Thompson*v. *Chadwick,*221 Ark. 720, 255 S.W. 2d 687 (1953). His position also ignores the constitutional quagmires that would develop in assessing a $21,000 use tax against a nonresident contractor having only a $10,000 contract.

Affirmed.
DATE DECRIPTION OF SERVICE

5/10/2015 Aircraft Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06

Remote Controller Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06

Battery Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06

5/11/2015 Post Upgrade Flight Test
TYPE PERFORMED BY Result

USER Nigel Martin Success

USER Nigel Martin Success

USER Nigel Martin Success

USER Nigel Martin Success
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-75121, 333-89411 and 333-45998) pertaining to various
Multex.com, Inc. employee and director stock option plans of our report dated
January 24, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Multex.com, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 2001
§ 135.215 IFR: Operating limitations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR outside of controlled airspace or at any airport that does not have an approved standard instrument approach procedure.
( b ) The Administrator may issue operations specifications to the certificate holder to allow it to operate under IFR over routes outside controlled airspace if— ( 1 ) The certificate holder shows the Administrator that the flight crew is able to navigate, without visual reference to the ground, over an intended track without deviating more than 5 degrees or 5 miles, whichever is less, from that track; and
( 2 ) The Administrator determines that the proposed operations can be conducted safely.
( c ) A person may operate an aircraft under IFR outside of controlled airspace if the certificate holder has been approved for the operations and that operation is necessary to— ( 1 ) Conduct an instrument approach to an airport for which there is in use a current approved standard or special instrument approach procedure; or
( 2 ) Climb into controlled airspace during an approved missed approach procedure; or
( 3 ) Make an IFR departure from an airport having an approved instrument approach procedure.
( d ) The Administrator may issue operations specifications to the certificate holder to allow it to depart at an airport that does not have an approved standard instrument approach procedure when the Administrator determines that it is necessary to make an IFR departure from that airport and that the proposed operations can be conducted safely. The approval to operate at that airport does not include an approval to make an IFR approach to that airport.
061517 ORDER RE MERCADO MOTION VERSION JUNE 15, 2017 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER

 The Court has received and reviewed the Motion of Relief from Automatic Stay (the 

“Motion”) filed by Sucesión Pastor Mandry Mercado (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 305.) 

Opposition papers to the Motion must be filed by June 23, 2017. Movant’s reply papers must be 

filed by June 30, 2017. The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party 

thereto requests a hearing. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2017 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number listed as a bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits 

of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); 

and (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3284) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:346 Filed:06/15/17 Entered:06/15/17 13:28:09 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
§ 249.1 Applicability. Subparts A and B of this part apply to: ( a ) Air carriers, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102, that hold either certificates of public convenience and necessity or certificates for all-cargo air service.
( b ) Public charter operators, as defined in part 380 of this chapter.
( c ) Overseas military personnel charter operators, as defined in part 372 of this chapter.
[ER-1214, 46 FR 25415, May 6, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 66725, Dec. 26, 1995]
#### GLENN v. YODER.

No. 33082.

June 24, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1947.

*184 P.*2d *455.*

*107Odes Harwood, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Reily, Reily & Spurr, of Shawnee, for defendant in error.

ARNOLD, J.

This is an appeal by transcript from a money judgment. All alleged assignments of error are concededly predicated upon the refusal of the trial court to grant a jury trial.

The journal entry of judgment which was approved by appellant recites:

> “Premises considered the court finds that the plaintiff and the defendant have hereto (heretofore) waived a jury in this matter, and agreed that said cause may be set for trial before the court. . . .”

12 O. S. 1941 § 556 provides:

> “Issues of law must be tried by the court, unless referred. Issues of fact arising in actions for the recovery of money, or of specific real or personal property, shall be tried by *a*jury, unless a jury trial is waived, or a reference be ordered, as hereinafter provided.”

The question of waiver of a jury under the above statutory provision has been considered by this court in a number of cases and the waiver has been sustained whenever expressly shown by the record or when by silence or conduct the complaining party has been deemed to have consented to a trial by the court. J. R. Watkins v. Miller, 176 Okla. 20, 54 P.2d 314; Greer v. West, 173 Okla. 427, 48 P.2d 1043; Federal Surety Co. v. L. B. Adams Lumber Co., 170 Okla. 445, 40 P.2d 1057.

The judgment imports absolute verity. It shows that the right to a trial by jury was waived. The alleged error of the court in denying jury trial is wholly without merit. The appeal is dismissed as frivolous.

HURST, C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.