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

32005

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 98

Friday, May 19, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Notice of May 18, 2000

Continuation of Emergency With Respect to Burma

On May 20, 1997, I issued Executive Order 13047, effective at 12:01 a.m.

eastern daylight time on May 21, 1997, certifying to the Congress under

section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related

Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104–208), that the Government of Burma has committed large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma after September 30, 1996, thereby invoking the prohibition

on new investment in Burma by United States persons, contained in that

section. I also declared a national emergency to deal with the threat posed

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States by the

actions and policies of the Government of Burma, invoking the authority,

inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.

1701–1706).

The National Emergency declared on May 20, 1997, must continue beyond

May 20, 2000, because the Government of Burma continues its policies

of committing large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma.

Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect

to Burma. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and trans-

[FR Doc. 00–12912

mitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 18, 2000.

œ–

Filed 5–18–00; 12:47 pm]

Billing code 3195–01–P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

       
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                  Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                                       Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                                                   1,199
<SECURITIES>                                                            45,091
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        47,233
<PP&E>                                                                  29,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          23,725
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          57,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    7,052
<BONDS>                                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                                    16
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                                  1
<OTHER-SE>                                                              44,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            57,140
<SALES>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                           544
<CGS>                                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         8,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         (7,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     (7,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            (7,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            (0.22)

        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10QSB AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001074828
<NAME>                        CIGAR KING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999       SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000       JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1.000             1.000
<CASH>                                  287                 0
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           172                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                 0
<INVENTORY>                               0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        459                 0
<PP&E>                               50,000                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       50,459                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,919                 0
<BONDS>                                   0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<COMMON>                             85,050                 0
<OTHER-SE>                         (39,510)                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         50,459                 0
<SALES>                                   0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0                 0
<CGS>                                     0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        885             1,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          (885)           (1,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                               0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                 0



</TABLE>
(77 South. 1003)

#### HARRIS-CORTNER & CO. v. LEDBET-TER.

(7 Div. 499.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

BRICKEN. J.

Affirmed on motion.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

EN/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SKYE TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35343

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01849-RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Skye Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

his antitrust action alleging defendants violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15

FILED

APR 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EN/Research 2 09-35343

U.S.C. § 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because

Taylor failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants’ geographic saleslimit policy imposes “an unreasonable restraint on competition.” Business Elecs.

Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 735-36 (1988) (“[A] vertical

restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price

levels.”); JBL Enters., Inc. v. Jhirmack Enters., Inc., 698 F.2d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir.

1983) (explaining that market shares of a few percentage points “are too small for

any restraint on intrabrand competition to have a substantially adverse effect on

interbrand competition”).

Taylor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 500.219 General.

Except as specifically provided in these regulations, the “Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges” established by the Secretary at 29 CFR part 18 shall apply to administrative proceedings under MSPA.

[48 FR 36741, Aug. 21, 1983. Redesignated at 54 FR 13329, Mar. 31, 1989]
#### § 38.33 Service provider Equal Opportunity Officer obligations.

Service providers, as defined in § 38.4(ggg), are not required to designate an EO Officer. The obligation for ensuring service provider compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part rests with the Governor or LWDA grant recipient, as specified in the State's Nondiscrimination Plan.
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 12.5 Vocational Rehabilitation—Total Expenditures

## Table 12.5: Vocational Rehabilitation—Total Expenditures (in dollars): Federal Fiscal Year 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
[Nos. 27317-9-II; 27323-3-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Isaac Miller, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 00-1-01697-1, M. Karlynn Haberly, J., entered May 4, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136954 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices



### v SC: 136954 COA: 281983 Wayne CC: 98-006279-FH; ZAKEE AHMAD ALI, 00-002676-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
#### § 452.90 Visiting members.

A decision about the voting rights of visiting members is properly one for resolution by the union in accordance with the organization's constitution and bylaws or applicable resolutions. For purposes of the Act, a person is ordinarily considered to be a member of the local to which he pays his dues.
#### § 525.23 Work activities centers.

Nothing in these regulations shall be interpreted to prevent an employer from maintaining or establishing work activities centers to provide therapeutic activities for workers with disabilities as long as the employer complies with the requirement of these regulations. Work activities centers shall include centers planned and designed to provide therapeutic activities for workers with severe disabilities affecting their productive capacity. Any establishment whose workers with disabilities are employed at special minimum wages must comply with the requirements of this part, regardless of the designation of such establishment.
#### § 541.702 Exempt and nonexempt work.

The term “exempt work” means all work described in §§ 541.100, 541.101, 541.200, 541.300, 541.301, 541.302, 541.303, 541.304, 541.400 and 541.500, and the activities directly and closely related to such work. All other work is considered “nonexempt.”
#### § 4231.5 Valuation requirement.

The actuarial valuation requirement under section 4231(b)(4) of ERISA and § 4231.3(a)(2) is satisfied if an actuarial valuation has been performed for the plan based on the plan's assets and liabilities as of a date not earlier than the first day of the last plan year ending before the proposed effective date of the transaction. If the actuarial valuation required under this section is not complete when the notice of merger or transfer is filed, the plan sponsor may provide the most recent actuarial valuation for the plan with the notice, and the actuarial valuation required under this section when complete. For a significantly affected plan involved in a transfer (other than a plan that is a significantly affected plan only because the transfer involves a plan that has terminated by mass withdrawal under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA), the valuation must separately identify assets, contributions, and liabilities being transferred and must be based on the actuarial assumptions and methods that are expected to be used for the plan for the first plan year beginning after the transfer.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 857 

To redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, as an anchorage 

area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, 

as an anchorage area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF PROJECT. 

4 The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, 

5 Maine, authorized under section 107 of the River and 

6 Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 486), and described as a 

7 6-foot deep, 10-acre maneuvering basin located at the 

8 head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 553.215 [Reserved]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

JOSE MARTINEZ FLORES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D08-3866

[July 16, 2014]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-22000 CF10A.

Thomas A. Kennedy of Thomas A. Kennedy, P.A., Vero Beach, for 

appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. 

Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Sonya Rudenstine, Gainesville, and Michael Ufferman, Tallahassee, 

for Amicus Curiae Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Rebecca Sharpless, Coral Gables, Tania Galloni, Miami, and Michael 

Vastine, Miami Gardens, for Amicus Curiae American Immigration 

Lawyers Association South Florida Chapter.

On Remand

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Flores v. State, 134 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2014), this case is 

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the 

Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757 

(Fla. 2012) and Castano v. State, 119 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2012). The trial 

court shall determine whether appellant has established a legally 

sufficient basis to withdraw his plea under the circumstances of this 

case. See Cano v. State, 112 So. 3d 646, 647–48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
- 2 -

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 13 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 13

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives be notified of the 
election of the Honorable Terrance W. Gainer as Sergeant at Arms and 
Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
§ 2570.37 Duty to amend and supplement exemption applications. ( a ) During the Department's consideration of an exemption application and following any grant by the Department of an exemption request, an applicant must promptly notify the Department in writing if they discover that any material fact or representation contained in the application or in any documents or testimony provided in support of the application was inaccurate at the time it was provided to the Department in support of the application. If any material fact or representation changes during this period, or if anything occurs that may affect the continuing accuracy of any such fact or representation, the applicant must promptly notify the Department in writing of the change. In addition, an applicant must promptly notify the Department in writing if it learns that a material fact or representation has been omitted from the exemption application.
( b ) If, at any time during the pendency of an exemption application, the applicant or any other party in interest who would participate in the exemption transaction becomes the subject of an investigation or enforcement action by the Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or any other Federal or state governmental entity involving: ( 1 ) Compliance with provisions of ERISA or FERSA;
( 2 ) Representation of or position or employment with any employee benefit plan, including investigations or controversies involving ERISA or the Code, or any other Federal or state law;
( 3 ) Conduct of the business of a broker, dealer, investment adviser, bank, insurance company, or fiduciary;
( 4 ) Income tax evasion; or
( 5 ) Any felony or conspiracy involving the larceny, theft, robbery, extortion, forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent concealment, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or misappropriation of funds or securities, the applicant must promptly notify the Department.
( c ) The Department may require an applicant to provide any documentation it considers necessary to verify any statements contained in the application or in supporting materials or documents.
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 15 October 2004 to 15 November 2004

(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) (1)

(2004/C 289/07)

Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) — Accepted

Modification of a marketing authorisation (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) — Accepted

----

(1)OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 1.

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LASHUNDRIA NASHAE BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1701

[December 7, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312022CF000983A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
----

Action brought on 27 August 2004 by SmithKline Beecham p.l.c. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-356/04)

(2004/C 273/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 August 2004 by SmithKline Beecham, Brentford, (United Kingdom) represented by Dr V. von Bomhard, Dr A. Renck, Dr A. Pohlmann and I. Fowler, lawyers.

Warner-Lambert Consumer Healthcare S.Com.p.a. Milan, (Italy) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----