alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 302-17.23 What are the procedures for my WTA? ( a ) Your agency prepares a relocation travel authorization, which includes an estimate of the WTA and RITA, to obligate funds for your relocation.
( b ) Your agency pays certain allowances to you. Your agency also pays vendors directly for other relocation expenses.
( c ) Your agency instructs you as to whether to submit one voucher after you have completed your relocation or to submit vouchers at various points as your relocation progresses plus another when your relocation is completed.
( d ) You submit your voucher(s) for reimbursement of certain relocation expenses.
( e ) Your agency determines the extent to which each allowance, each item on your voucher(s), and each direct payment to a vendor is nontaxable or is taxable income to you under the IRC.
( f ) For the taxable items, your agency calculates your WTA and any reimbursement(s) due to you in accordance with § 302-17.24. Your agency sets aside the amount of your WTA and pays the IRS as a withholding tax in accordance with IRS requirements.
# Comments on: 21-1618: RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential
#### § 301-73.105 What are the consequences of an employee not using the E-Gov Travel Service or the TMS?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77028, Sept. 20, 2024.

If an employee does not use the ETS (when available) or your agency's designated TMS, the employee is responsible for any additional costs (see § 301-50.5 of this chapter) resulting from the failure to use the ETS or your TMS. In addition, you may take appropriate disciplinary actions.

[FTR Amdt. 2003-07, 68 FR 71030, Dec. 22, 2003, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61540, Oct. 31, 2007; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12253, Feb. 16, 2024]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 53 2 . GREGORY K. ANKERI CH v . THE STATE.

In 2 01 1

, Greg o ry K

. An k eri ch was s en t en ced as a fi rs t o ffen d er t o fi v e y ears ’

p ro b at i o n fo r p o s s es s i o n o f m et h am p h et am i n e. In 20 1 4, bas ed o n h i s co m m i s s i o n o f

ne w f el on i es , t h e t ri al co u rt rev o k ed An keri ch ’ s p ro b at i o n an d ad j u d icat ed h i m g u ilty

. An k eri ch t h en fi l ed t hi s d i rect ap p eal . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n.

Becau s e t h e u n d erl y i n g su b j ect m at t er o f An k eri ch ’ s ap p eal i s th e rev o cat i o n

o f h is “ fi rs t of

f e n d e r ” p ro b at i o n , h e was req u i red t o fi l e an ap p l icat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i n o rd er t o o b t ai n r e v i e w i n th i s Co u rt

. See OCGA § 5 -6

-

3 5 (a) (5 ); Jo n es v. S t at e , 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 69 n

. 2 (7 4 5 SE2 d 1) (2 0 13 ) ; Z a m o r a v.

S t a t e , 2 2 6 Ga. Ap p. 1 0 5 (4 8 5 SE2 d 2 1 4 ) (1 9 97 ). An k eri ch ’ s fai l u re t o f i l e an

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal d ep ri ves u s o f ju ri s d i ct ion to c o n s i d er t h i s ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. See W h i t e v. St a t e , 23 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 3 (5 0 5 SE2 d 2 2 8 )

(1 9 9 8).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 06/17/2015 June 17, 2015
#### § 302-17.50 What information should I provide to my agency to make the RITA calculation possible under the one-year process?

You should provide the information required in the “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” as follows:

Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status—One-Year Process

| The following information, which my agency will use in calculating the RITA to which I am entitled, was shown on the Federal, state, and local income tax returns that I (or my spouse and I) filed for the 20 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ tax year (this should be the most recent year in which you filed). | |
| Federal Filing status: | |
| ☐ Single | ☐ Head of Household |
| ☐ Married Filing Jointly | ☐ Qualifying Widow(er) |
| ☐ Married Filing Separately | |
| (a) Taxable income as shown on my (our) IRS Form 1040: $ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Significant future changes in income (including cost of living raises) that you can foresee for the current year: | |
| \_\_\_\_Increase \_\_\_\_Decrease \_\_\_\_No Foreseeable Changes | |
| (b) Approximate net amount of this (these) change(s): $ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| (c) Predicted taxable income for the current tax year 20 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ = Sum of (a) and (b) = $ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| State you are moving out of: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Filing status for the state moving out of: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_% | |
| State you are moving into: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Filing status for the state moving into: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_% | |
| Locality you are moving out of: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Filing status for the locality moving out of: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_% | |
| Locality you are moving into: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Filing status for the locality moving into: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_% | |
| The above information is true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I (we) agree to notify the appropriate agency official of any significant changes to the above so that appropriate adjustments to the RITA can be made. | |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Employee's signature | Date |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
| Spouse's signature (if filing jointly) | Date |
#### § 302-3.227 If I become divorced from my spouse or terminate my committed relationship with my domestic partner while OCONUS will I receive reimbursement to return my former spouse or domestic partner and dependents to the U.S.?

Yes, if you become divorced from your spouse or terminate your committed relationship with your domestic partner while OCONUS, you will receive reimbursement to return your former spouse or domestic partner and dependents to their place of actual residence within or outside CONUS.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-06, 75 FR 67631, Nov. 3, 2010]
§ 0.503 Submission of requests for mandatory declassification review. ( a ) Requests for mandatory review of national security information shall be in writing, addressed to the Managing Director, and reasonably describe the information sought with sufficient particularity to enable Commission personnel to identify the documents containing that information and be reasonable in scope.
( b ) When the request is for information originally classified by the Commission, the Managing Director shall assign the request to the appropriate bureau or office for action.
( c ) Requests related to information, either derivatively classified by the Commission or originally classified by another agency, shall be forwarded, together with a copy of the record, to the originating agency. The transmittal may contain a recommendation for action.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16197]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Combined Arts Advisory Panel--
Notice of Change

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the open 
session for the meeting of the Combined Arts Advisory Panel, Visual 
Arts section (Creativity & Organizational Capacity categories), to the 
National Council on the Arts, previously announced for 2 p.m.-3:30 p.m. 
on July 12th, 2000, will be held on July 13th, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 
p.m. The meeting will be held in Room 716 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 00-16197 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2009 (the Report), I, Bernard Poussot, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 7, 2009



By:

/s/ Bernard PoussotBernard Poussot Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed by 

the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Justin Michael 

Winter, it is this 25th day of May 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, 

ORDERED that, effective immediately, the Respondent, Justin Michael 

Winter, is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for violation 

of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (e), 3.3(a), 3.4(d), 4.1(a), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(a), 

(b), (c) and (d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is 

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Justin Michael 

Winter from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees 

of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial 

tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(b).

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader

 Chief Justice

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

JUSTIN MICHAEL WINTER

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 1

 September Term, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    309,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               907,881
<PP&E>                                       3,201,387
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,504,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,836,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          702,482
<BONDS>                                        583,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,609
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,264,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,836,054
<SALES>                                      1,114,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,119,443
<CGS>                                          878,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,334
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* 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 October 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20724 USDC No. 4:04-CR-81-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaint iffAppellee,

versus EVARISTO BELTRAN RODRIGUEZ, DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

------------------------------------------------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Evaristo Beltran Rodriguez has filed a motion to withdraw and briefs pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Rodriguez has filed a response. Our independent review of the briefs and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2.
MEMORANDUM

Date: October 28, 2015

Subject: October 27, 2015, meeting with NEDA/CAP 

From: Greg Nizich, EPA/OAQPS/AQPD/NSRG

To: EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0616

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum documents an October 27, 2015, discussion between Ms. Janet 

McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)

Office of Air and Radiation and Ms. Leslie Ritts of the National Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP). 

II. DATE

The meeting occurred from 3:15 pm to 4:00 pm EDT on October 27, 2015, at the William 

Jefferson Clinton Federal Building in Washington, DC.

III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

At the end of a meeting held with Ms. McCabe and NEDA/CAP members primarily to discuss 

ozone implementation ideas and the Clean Power Plan, Ms. Ritts brought up some concerns to 

Ms. McCabe regarding the EPA’s proposed amendments to the Regional Consistency regulations 

and noted that NEDA/CAP had submitted comments on the proposed changes.
# Comments on: 19-2025: RODRIGUEZ v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential
EXHIBIT 12.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of National Grid plc;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d -15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Steve Holliday

Steve HollidayTitle: Chief ExecutiveNational Grid plc
007P16

#### Gilbert Breedlove and Thomas Holland v. Marion R. Warren, in his Official Capacity, as Director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, and the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts

Pits’ PDR Prior to a Decision of the COA (COA15-1381)

Denied
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<NAME>  AIRPLANES GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       32
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (15)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   229
<PP&E>                                           4,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              138
<BONDS>                                          3,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,727)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,206
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   505
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (244)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (35)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (4)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (468)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (7)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (253)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (253)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 60-1.27 Sanctions. ( a ) *General.* The sanctions described in subsections (1), (5), and (6) of section 209(a) of the Order may be exercised only by or with the approval of the Director. Referral of any matter arising under the Order to the Department of Justice or to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be made by the Director.
( b ) *Debarment.* A contractor may be debarred from receiving future contracts or modifications or extensions of existing contracts, subject to reinstatement pursuant to § 60-1.31, for any violation of Executive Order 11246 or the implementing rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor. Debarment may be imposed for an indefinite term or for a fixed minimum period of at least six months.
[62 FR 44191, Aug. 19, 1997]
368P15

#### Johnnie Wilkes, Employee v. City of Greenville, Employer, Self-Insured (PMA Management Group, Third-Party Administrator)

1. Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1193)

1. Allowed 11/12/2015

2. Def’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed

3. Def’s PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Allowed

4. N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, N.C. Association of County Commissioners, N.C. League of Municipalities, and N.C. School Boards Association’s Motion for Leave to File *Amicus*Brief

4. Allowed

5. N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, N.C. Chamber, N.C. Retail Merchants Association, and N.C. Home Builders Association’s Conditional Motion for Leave to File *Amicus*

5. Allowed
February 26, 2013

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Air Carrier Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: OST-2013-0034

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

JetBlue has completed its polling of carrier s served with JetBlue’s application for a Statement of Authorization that would permit JetB lue to display Aer Lingus’ designator code on JetBlue’s flights between points in the United Stat es. We have received a “no objection” from all

carriers.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan B. Hill Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation

cc: Service List
§ 109-38.403-3 Exceptions. Exceptions to § 109-38.403-2 of this subpart are as follows: ( a ) As a result of the negligent or willful act of a party other than the organization or its employee, and the responsible party can be determined; or
( b ) As a result of mechanical failure and the employee was not otherwise negligent. Proof of the failure must be provided; or
( c ) As a result of normal wear comparable to similar vehicles.