alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 966 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 966


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2007

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To enable the Department of State to respond to a critical shortage of 
         passport processing personnel, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Passport Backlog Reduction Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. REEMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE ANNUITANTS.

    Section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 
4064(g)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph--
            ``(C)(i) to provide assistance to consular posts with a 
        substantial backlog of visa applications; or
            ``(ii) to provide assistance to meet the demand resulting 
        from the passport and travel document requirements set forth in 
        section 7209(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
        Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
        note).'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(3) The authority of the Secretary to waive the application of 
subsections (a) through (d) for an annuitant pursuant to paragraph 
(1)(C) shall terminate on September 30, 2010.''.

            Passed the Senate June 29, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33314-33315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-224-001]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to 
be effective March 27, 2000:

Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 95E
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 95I
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95K

    Transwestern states that this filing is made to: (1) Comply with 
the Commission's April 26, 2000 order

[[Page 33315]]

accepting Transwestern's March 27, 2000 filing, subject to 
Transwestern's submitting within 15 days of such order, tariff sheets 
consistent with the requirements of Order No. 637; and (2) to clarify 
its tariff provisions to allow a releasing shipper to subject its 
prearranged deal at maximum rates or above maximum rates to further 
posting and bidding if it desires.
    Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12862 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### PELAIA v U S FIRE INSURANCE CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10152.

Decided Jan. 20, 1930

Horace B. Neff, Cleveland, for Pelaia.

Gott, Bloomfield & Orr, Cleveland, for Ins. Co.

SULLIVAN, J.

From an examination of the evidence we have come to the conclusion that there was no evidence showing as noted that the suit, had been brought within the year prescribed by the terms of the policy, and our further judgment is that there is no scintilla of evidence of an evidentiary character showing a waiver of the clause providing for the commencement of the action within a year. From Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, reading from page 6810, we find that the clause in question is valid.

*125The validity of such a clause is also upheld in Appel Admr. vs Cooper Insurance Co. 76 OS. 502.

We quote also from Corn City Mutual Ins. Co. vs Schwan, 1 Cir. Ct. 192, 1 C. D. 105:

Upon the question of waiver, mere negotiations are not sufficient to constitute a waiver. Conversation relating to a loss is insufficient. A mere attempt to collect the insurance is equally unefficacious. It must appear not only by an allegation of waiver but by proof to support it that a waiver has been made and this waiver in order to operate as an advantage and estoppel, must be of such a nature that it misleads the assured and becomes the instrumentality by which the provisions of the policy under question become inoperative. Thus it must be some act of the insurance company which in and of itself prevents the plaintiff from seeking his remedy in the courts and as before noted this must go beyond the proposition of mere conversation, negotiation and discussion unless it amounts in its entirety to turning the plaintiff from his course and misleading him to the extent that it results in the expiration of the statute of limitations from the provisions of limitations incorporated in the policy of insurance. We find the evidence in this case fails to reach the mark which we have noted is necessary in order to amount to a waiver.

Thus from the record it appears that the suit had not been filed within the year prescribed by the provisions of the policy and that the negotiations between the assured and the company did not reach that point where a waiver was created which amounts to misleading the plaintiff to the extent that it rendered inoperative the provisions of the policy relating to the time in which the suit may be commenced.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ., and Levine, J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### §§ 1926.442-1926.448 [Reserved]
#### FASSNACHT v BESSINGER et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2264.

Decided Feb. 17, 1930

Scott Stahl and L. E. Gorman,’ both of Toledo, for Fassnacht.

F. A Carabin and Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Effier, all of Toledo, for Bessinger, et.

*203LLOYD, J.

■ The evidence shows that Halapleus has an easement or right of way along the southerly line of the property in question next to and adjoining the river, but is somewhat in conflict as to the knowledge possessed by Mrs. Fassnacht as to its nature and extent. There is no evidence to show that it has ever been or is now a public highway. Mrs. Fassnacht and her predecessors in title have always paid the taxes levied and assessed thereon. It has never been legally dedicated to public use, nor has there ever been an acceptance of it as such by the public authorities. It leads to and stops at the private property of Halapleus and so far as the evidence discloses has never been used by any one except him and his predecessor in title, nor for any purpose except as a private way of ingress and egress to and from the property now owned by him.

The trial court, therefore, correctly found that

> “/Halapleus is entitled to and has an easement or right of way in, to and over and upon”

the land in question. In view of the admissions and allegations of the pleadings filed by Maud A. Fassnacht and the Bessingers, the only question for determination is whether Mrs. Fassnacht had a right of action for breach of the covenants of warranty contained in the deed to her from the Bessingers. The question, we think, must be answered in the affirmative. The deed is explicit in its terms and unless the facts are such as in law would justify a reformation thereof, the grantors must answer in damages for the injury, if .any, resulting to the grantee for the breach of its covenants.

> Long vs. Molor, 5 Ohio St., 272;

> Kunkle vs. Beck, 1 Ohio App., 70;

> 3 L. R. A., 789;

> 4 L. R. A., N. S., 309, note;

> 38 Am. & Eng. Anno. Cases, 862.

The judgment of the court of common pleas in favor of the defendants in error Bessinger and against the plaintiff in error is therefore reversed and the action remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.

Richards, J., concurs. Williams, J., dissents.
§ 22.12 Notice of hearing. ( a ) When the ALJ receives the complaint and answer, the ALJ shall promptly serve a notice of hearing upon the defendant in the manner prescribed by 29 CFR part 18. At the same time, the ALJ shall send a copy of such notice to the representative for the Government.
( b ) Such notice shall include— ( 1 ) The tentative time and place, and the nature of the hearing;
( 2 ) The legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;
( 3 ) The matters of fact and law to be asserted;
( 4 ) A description of the procedures for the conduct of the hearing;
( 5 ) The name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the Government and of the defendant, if any; and
( 6 ) Such other matters as the ALJ deems appropriate.
[52 FR 48492, Dec. 22, 1987, as amended at 86 FR 1781, Jan. 11, 2021]
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 1:47 PM

To: Hutson, Nick; Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid

Cc: Frey, Nathan J.; Grossman, Andrea

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563 -- 111(b) TSDs on Review of 

Electric Utility Integrated Resource Plans, Geographic Availability, and Achievability of the 

Standard for Newly Constructed Steam Generating EGUs

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_EO13563_111bTSDs.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the following TSDs related to 

111(b): 

1. Review of Electric Utility Integrated Resource Plans; 

2. Geographic Availability; and 

3. Achievability of the Standard for Newly Constructed Steam Generating EGUs. 

Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
§ 2570.32 Persons who may apply for exemptions and the administrative record. ( a ) The following persons may apply for exemptions: ( 1 ) Any party in interest to a plan who is or may be a party to the exemption transaction;
( 2 ) Any plan which is a party to the exemption transaction; or
( 3 ) In the case of an application for an exemption covering a class of parties in interest or a class of transactions, in addition to any person described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an association or organization representing parties in interest who may be parties to the exemption transaction.
( b ) An application by or for a person described in paragraph (a) of this section may be submitted by the applicant or by an authorized representative. An application submitted by an authorized representative of the applicant must include proof of authority in the form of: ( 1 ) A power of attorney; or
( 2 ) A written certification from the applicant that the representative is authorized to file the application.
( c ) If the authorized representative of an applicant submits an exemption application to the Department together with proof of authority to file the application as required by paragraph (b) of this section, the Department will direct all correspondence and inquiries concerning the application to the representative unless requested to do otherwise by the applicant.
( d ) ( 1 ) The administrative record is open for public inspection, pursuant to § 2570.51(a), from the date an applicant submits an application to the Office of Exemption Determinations.
( 2 ) The administrative record includes, but is not limited to, the initial exemption application and any modifications or supplements thereto; all correspondence with the applicant after the applicant submits the exemption application; and any information provided by the applicant in connection with the exemption application, whether provided orally or in writing (as well as any comments and testimony received by the Department in connection with an application).
( 3 ) Although the administrative record is open and available to the public only after an applicant submits an exemption application, the record includes any material documents or supporting information that was submitted to the Department in connection with the subject transaction of the application, whether orally or in writing, before formal submission of the application. The administrative record does not include records of communications with the Department which were either not with respect to the subject transaction of the application or not followed by the submission of an exemption application related to those communications.
( 4 ) If documents are required to be provided in writing, by either the applicant or the Department, the documents may be provided either by mail or electronically, unless otherwise indicated by the Department at its sole discretion.
#### FOREMAN v HARVEY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10914.

Decided Oct. 13, 1930

Young, Meyers & Young, Cleveland, for Foreman.

Stearns, Chamberlain & Royan, Cleveland, for Harvey.

LEVINE, J.

There is much discussion in the argument on the sufficiency of the petition. In view of our former holding in the case of Pinchefsky vs Goldstone, 170 NE 657, we *682would be constrained to hold that the petition in this case, even as amended, is insufficient. There is, however, a more apparent ground for sustaining the judgment of the lower court. As above stated the action of the court followed statement of counsel. The statement of counsel is not contained in the bill of exceptions. We are not permitted to speculate or guess or to accept oral declarations as to what the statement of counsel consisted of. We must, of course, assume that there was something in the statement of counsel by way of an admission which undermined the plaintiff’s case. We are not therefore confined to a consideration of the sufficiency of the petition, since the .action of the trial court would be justified on the single ground that the statement of counsel as to what he expected to prove by way of substantiating the allegations of his petition, destroyed the plaintiff's cause of action.

In view of the state of the record, the judgemnt of the common pleas court will be affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Cline, J, concur.
* 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 7, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40245 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. DAVID GARCIA-JUAREZ Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-1138-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Garcia-Juarez appeals from his conviction of illegal reentry following deportation. Garcia contends, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence violated the relevant statutory maximum of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and that the district court erred by imposing the 16-level crime-of-violence adjustment of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because he was not actually convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Minnesota in 2000. He also contends, for the first time on appeal, that the “felony” andNo. 03-40245 -2- “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is illegal and constitutes plain error. United States v. Sias , 227 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2000). Garcia was deported before his scheduled sentencing date in Minnesota, and he has never been sentenced on his Minnesota guilty plea. He was never formally adjudicated guilty in Minnesota. See State v. Hoelzel , 639 N.W.2d 605, 609 (Minn. 2002). Garcia was not convicted in Minnesota for federal immigration law purposes. See Moosa v. INS , 171 F.3d 994, 1001- 02 (5th Cir. 1999). As the government concedes, the district court therefore erred by imposing the 16-level adjustment and by sentencing Garcia to more than two years’ imprisonment. Because the district court erred by sentencing Garcia under the “aggravated felony” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), we do not reach the issue, raised for the first time on appeal, of the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
----

----

I Informacija

Komisija

----

Euro kursas (1)

2004 m. rugpjūčio 19 d.

(2004/C 210/01)

1 euras= 

----

(1)

Šaltinis: valiutų perskaičiavimo kursai paskelbti ECB.

----

----

Išankstinis pranešimas apie koncentraciją

(Byla Nr. COMP/M.3551 - CD&R/CULLIGAN)

Bylą yra numatoma nagrinėti supaprastinta tvarka

(2004/C 210/02)

(Tekstas svarbus EEE)

----

(1)OL L 24, 2004 1 29, p. 1 .

(2)OL C 217, 2000 7 29, p. 32.

Tarybos Reglamentas (EEB) Nr. 4064/89 pakeistas Tarybos Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 139/2004.

----
Dean

Proteina

Food and Nutrition Service Alimentos ricos 

en proteínas

Palabras de vocabulario:

yo, ver
Este libro pertenece a:
Yo veo frijoles.
Yo veo pollo.
Yo veo nueces.
Yo veo pescado.

Atún
Yo veo huevos.
Yo veo jamón. 
Yo veo carne.
Yo veo alimentos ricos en proteínas.

Atún

Descubre otros materiales 

de educación nutricional 

desarrollados bajo la iniciativa 

de Team Nutrition del 

Departamento de Agricultura 

de los Estados Unidos en: 

https://teamnutrition.usda.gov.

Mayo 2018 · FNS474E-S

USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.
§ 1626.16 Subpoenas. ( a ) To effectuate the purposes of the Act the Commission shall have the authority to issue a subpoena requiring: ( 1 ) The attendance and testimony of witnesses;
( 2 ) The production of evidence including, but not limited to, books, records, correspondence, or documents, in the possession or under the control of the person subpoenaed; and
( 3 ) Access to evidence for the purpose of examination and the right to copy.
( b ) The power to issue subpoenas has been delegated by the Commission, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act, to the General Counsel, the District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, and Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs, or their designees. The subpoena shall state the name, address and title of the issuer, identify the person or evidence subpoenaed, the name of the person to whom the subpoena is returnable, the date, time and place that testimony is to be given or that documents are to be provided or access provided.
( c ) A subpoena issued by the Commission or its designee pursuant to the Act is not subject to review or appeal.
( d ) Upon the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena issued under this section, the Commission may utilize the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 49 and 50, to compel compliance with the subpoena.
( e ) Persons subpoenaed shall be entitled to the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.
[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 32063, Aug. 4, 1989; 71 FR 26831, May 9, 2006; 85 FR 65220, Oct. 15, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK>0000861388
<NAME>LG&E ENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,229,361
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    571,097
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         782,270
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       190,540
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,773,268
<COMMON>                                       774,792<F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                          167<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            466,279
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,241,238
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    136,530
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,510,775
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             365,135
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,519,590
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,773,268
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,976,413
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           111,823
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,602,899<F3>
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,714,722
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        261,691
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           (248,310)<F4>
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  13,381<F4>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       102,047
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,666)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      6,824
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 (95,490)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       160,815
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       71,557
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         211,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $3,481.
<F2>Represents unrealized loss on marketable securities, net of taxes.
<F3>Includes equity in earnings of affiliates of $73,798.
<F4>Includes loss from discontinued operations of $23,599 and loss on disposal of
discontinued operations of $225,000, both net of income taxes. Also includes
cumulative effect of accounting change of $7,162, net of income taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>