alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 216/28 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 216 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4728 August 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 216

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4728 August 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 216/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 216/2 | Statistics relating to technical regulations notified in 2003 under the Directive 98/34/EC procedure — Information supplied by the Commission in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 216/3 | State aid — Germany — State aid No C 25/2004 (ex NN 36/04) — Introduction of DVB-T in Berlin-Brandenburg — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 5 |
| 2004/C 216/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3486 — MAGNA/NVG) (1) | 12 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 216/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 216/2

Statistics relating to technical regulations notified in 2003 under the Directive 98/34/EC procedure — Information supplied by the Commission in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1)

2

2004/C 216/3

State aid — Germany — State aid No C 25/2004 (ex NN 36/04) — Introduction of DVB-T in Berlin-Brandenburg — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

5

2004/C 216/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3486 — MAGNA/NVG) (1)

12

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
#### § 4262.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe rules governing applications for special financial assistance under section 4262 of ERISA and related requirements.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4167]]

Public Law 115-277
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To rename the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 in 
   honor of Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter. <<NOTE: Nov. 3, 
                         2018 -  [H.R. 6870]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RENAMING.

    (a) Short Title.--Section 1 of the Stop Trading on Congressional 
Knowledge Act of 2012 <<NOTE: 5 USC app. 101 note.>>  is amended by 
striking ``Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012'' and 
inserting ``Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter Stop Trading on 
Congressional Knowledge Act''.

    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 103(i)(2) of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103(i)(2)) is amended by striking 
``Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012'' and inserting 
``STOCK Act''.

    Approved November 3, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6870:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         June 22, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         1:30 pm to 3:30 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         David I. Sommers, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 10, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12539  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
795 A.2d 375

#### In the Matter of Kenneth R. GROSS, Petition for Reinstatement.

No. 49 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 19, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2002, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board *242of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated February 25, 2002, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.

■ Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

Mr. Justice Saylor dissents, as he would, at a minimum, adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that an independent auditor audit petitioner’s handling of client funds for a period of three years and submit a report to the Board.
#### BIDDLE v NEW YORK CENTRAL RD CO

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co

No 326.

Decided May 19, 1930

John F. McCrystal, Sandusky, for Biddle.

King, Ramsey & Flynn, Sandusky, for Rd Co.

*418RICHARDS, J.

It is well settled that a master is not hable for the acts of his servant, even if performed during the existence of the employment, unless the servant was acting within the scope of his employment, and it is insisted in this case that the employment on the bridge having been concluded for the day, the servant was no longer within the scope of his employment Clearly this contention must be sustained, unless the employe who threw the broom, was in doing so acting within the scope of his employment in seeking to protect the property of his employer. Under certain circumstances the d.uty of the employe to protect the property of his master may be inferred.

> West Jersey & Seashore R. R. Co. vs. Welch, 72 Am. St. Rep., 659:

> McDermott vs. American Brewing Co., 83 Am. St. Rep., 225;

> Brown vs. Boston Ice Co., 178 Mass., 108.

Certainly the liability of the employer for the act of the employe does not attach unless the relation existed at the time of the injury and with respect to the particular transaction causing the injury. Where, under all the circumstances disclosed, reasonable doubt arises whether the servant was acting within the scope of his employment, the question may properly be submitted to the jury to .ascertain that fact.

Cooley on Torts, 536, gives the test of liability as follows:

> “Tie test of the master’s liability is not in the motive of the servant, but whether that which he did was something which his employer contemplated and something which, if he could do it lawfully might do in the employer’s name.”

It is quite true that ordinarily an act committed by a servant when he is off duty, as at the noon hour or after the day’s work is done, is not within the scope of his employment and the master is not liable therefor. But, if the facts show that, although the day’s work is done, the employe still had a duty to perform in the protection of his master’s property, and if it is shown that in the performance of the act which caused the injury he was acting within the line of that duty, the master would be liable.

Rule L on page 11 of the Book of Rules of the defendant company was introduced in evidence and reads as follows:

> "In case of danger to the railroad propperty, employes must unite to protect it.”

This is a very important rule as applied to this ease and in view of its existence and the facts and circumstances at the time the employe threw the broom, including the inflammable property of the company located nearby, this court' is of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to require that the case should be submitted to the jury.

For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
#### § 37.86 What must the Director do if he or she determines that a complaint will not be accepted?

If a complaint will not be accepted, the Director must notify the complainant, in writing, about that fact, and provide the complainant his/her reasons for making that determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,608
<PP&E>                                          50,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,904
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,088
<SALES>                                        176,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,314
<CGS>                                          153,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,162
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 48860]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12au10-3]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871; FRL-9187-9]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Transportation Conformity Regulations; Withdrawal of Direct 
Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34644), EPA published a direct final 
rule to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). The revisions amended Maryland's transportation conformity 
regulations and general conformity regulations. EPA's approval did not 
include Maryland's regulation regarding conflict resolution associated 
with conformity determinations (COMAR 26.11.26.06). EPA has determined 
that it cannot proceed with approval of these SIP revisions until and 
unless it also approves Maryland's regulation regarding conflict 
resolution associated with conformity determinations. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing its direct final rule approving Maryland's conformity 
regulations. This withdrawal action is being taken under section 110 of 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 75 FR 34644 on June 18, 2010, 
is withdrawn as of August 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Kotsch, (215) 814-3335, or by 
e-mail at kotsch.martin@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
Accordingly, the amendment to the table in 40 CFR 52.1070(c), published 
June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34646), is withdrawn as of August 12, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2010-19812 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Editorial Note on Part 1904
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

§ 1904.4 Recording criteria. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* Each employer required by this part to keep records of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses must record each fatality, injury and illness that: ( 1 ) Is work-related; and
( 2 ) Is a new case; and
( 3 ) Meets one or more of the general recording criteria of § 1904.7 or the application to specific cases of §§ 1904.8 through 1904.12.
( b ) *Implementation* — ( 1 ) *What sections of this rule describe recording criteria for recording work-related injuries and illnesses?* The table below indicates which sections of the rule address each topic. ( i ) Determination of work-relatedness. See § 1904.5.
( ii ) Determination of a new case. See § 1904.6.
( iii ) General recording criteria. See § 1904.7.
( iv ) Additional criteria. (Needlestick and sharps injury cases, tuberculosis cases, hearing loss cases, medical removal cases, and musculoskeletal disorder cases). See §§ 1904.8 through 1904.12.
( 2 ) *How do I decide whether a particular injury or illness is recordable?* The decision tree for recording work-related injuries and illnesses below shows the steps involved in making this determination.
[66 FR 6122, Jan. 19, 2001, as amended at 81 FR 91809, Dec. 19, 2016; 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LIBERTY CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,517,539
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      75,591
<MORTGAGE>                                     230,910
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  132,696
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,078,272
<CASH>                                          36,774
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             277,578
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         262,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,060,765
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,853,173
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  31,450
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           28,488
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                247,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,599
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                       163,443
<OTHER-SE>                                     396,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,060,765
<PREMIUMS>                                     321,371
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            155,221
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              (2,582)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 145,087
<BENEFITS>                                     218,751
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     73,967
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           140,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 4022.94 What are the PBGC's rules on designating a person to get benefits the PBGC may owe me at the time of my death? ( a ) *When you may designate.* At any time on or after the date we take over your plan, you may designate with us who will get any benefits we owe you at the time of your death.
( b ) *Change of designee.* If you want to change the person(s) you designate with us, you must submit another designation to us.
( c ) *If your designee dies before you* — ( 1 ) *In general.* If the person(s) you designate with us dies before you or at the same time as you, we will treat you as not having designated anyone with us (unless you named an alternate designee who survives you). Therefore, you should keep your designation with us current.
( 2 ) *Simultaneous deaths.* If you and a person you designated die as a result of the same event, we will treat you and that person as having died at the same time, provided you and that person die within 30 days of each other.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7**  **463**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. AHMAD RASHAD TOMLINSON, a/k/a Tank , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00285

- BO

- 1; 5:11

- cv - 00565

- BO )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes , Assistant United States Attorney s , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to al ter or amend the judgment. Tomlinson was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender in May 2006 to 180 months’ imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal.
In 2011, Tomlinson filed this § 2255 motion challenging his career offender designation in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Carachuri

- Rosendo v. Holder , 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and our opinion in United States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) ( en banc) . The district court held that Carachuri

- Rosendo was retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review and that Tomlinson was entitled to equitable tolling to assert his claim under Simmons , but that ultimately Tomlinson’s claim failed on the merits. At the time the district court issued its decision denying § 2255 relief, it did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in United States v. Powell , 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012) , where we held that Carachuri

- Rosendo is not retroactively applic able to cases on collateral review. 691 F.3d at 5 59

- 60.3 In light of Powell , Tomlinson’s § 2255 motion is untimely. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED