alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 839.511 What can I elect under the FERCCA if my employer put me into FERS by mistake and then I was not allowed to remain in FERS when the error was discovered?

An employee who was erroneously placed in FERS during a time when the employee should have had an opportunity to elect FERS is allowed to keep the erroneous FERS coverage. If the employee was given an opportunity to remain in FERS, then the employee is disqualified from making an election of retirement coverage under the FERCCA (see [§ 839.221](/on/2024-09-20/title-5/section-839.221)). If you were not allowed to remain in FERS and were placed in CSRS due to a qualifying retirement coverage error, you may elect FERS or remain in CSRS. If you were not allowed to remain in FERS and were placed in CSRS Offset due to a qualifying retirement coverage error, you may elect FERS or remain in CSRS Offset. If you were not allowed to remain in FERS and were placed in Social Security-Only due to a qualifying retirement coverage error, you may elect FERS or remain in Social Security-Only. This is summarized in the following chart:

| You were in: | And your coverage was previously corrected to: | You may elect: |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FERS | CSRS | CSRS or FERS. |
| FERS | CSRS Offset | CSRS Offset or FERS. |
| FERS | Social Security-Only | Social Security-Only or FERS. |
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Roderick Undrea Williams, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00028

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

1323472 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice

Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the personal letter of the

appellant requesting dismissal of his appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Roderick Undrea Williams, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED September 3 , 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COUR T JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 11957A115 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A115

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE THREE - PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER I: THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, SECTION II: THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 115 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 115

THE COUNCIL SHALL CARRY OUT ITS DUTIES AND EXERCISE ITS POWERS OF DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TREATY .

IT SHALL TAKE ALL MEASURES WITHIN ITS POWERS TO CO-ORDINATE THE ACTIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND OF THE COMMUNITY .
#### § 600.1600 Purpose and scope.

Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that any fishery management plan (FMP) with respect to any fishery shall establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery. 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11). The purpose of a standardized reporting methodology is to collect, record, and report bycatch data in a fishery that, in conjunction with other relevant sources of information, are used to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery and inform the development of conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. This subpart sets forth requirements for and guidance on establishing and reviewing a standardized reporting methodology.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NOS. WR-84,095-01 & 84,095- 02

EX P ARTE JOSE LUIS VILL ARREAL, Applicant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. 656-A-CR & 657-A-C R IN THE 63RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM TERRELL COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of t he trial court transmitt ed to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and posses s i o n of a controlled substance. He was sentenc ed to imprisonment for two y ear s and twelve months. He did not appea l his convictions. Applicant contends, among other thi ng s, that his gu i l t y pleas were involuntary beca use he was not admonished that a g uilty plea might result in deportation. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might en t itle him to relief

. Ex parte Tovar , 9012

S.W .2d 484, 486 (1995). I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). Applicant appea

rs to be repr esente d by counsel. I f he is not and the trial court elec ts to hold a hea ring , it shall determine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Appli cant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to r epre sent him at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether (1) Applicant

was deporte d beca

use of these convictions and is suffe ring collater al conseque nces from these convictions; (2) he wa s ad m o n ished under Article 26.13(a)(4) of t he C ode of Criminal Procedur e that a g uilty plea might result in de portation; (3) if not, his guilty pleas wer e rende red involuntary ; and (4) his claim should be barr ed by the doctrine lache s. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W .3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The trial c ourt shall also g ive Appli cant an opportunity to explain his delay in raising this claim. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Ap p l i ca nt’s claim for habea s corpus relief

. These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this orde r. A supplemental transcript c ontaining all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of t his order

. Any extensions of time shall3

be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 18, 2015 Do not publish
```

                                                       Exhibit 99.3

                  OFFICER'S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

I,  Andrew  J.  Cederoth,  a  duly  authorized   representative  of
Navistar Financial Corporation, the Servicer, certify:

1.  I have reviewed the annual report and other reports  containing
    distribution  information  for the period covered by the annual
    report;

2.  The absence in these reports,  to the best of my knowledge,  of
    any  untrue  statement  of  material  fact  or  omission  of  a
    material fact necessary to make the  statements  made, in light
    of the  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made,
    not misleading;

3.  The  inclusion in these  reports,  to the best of my knowledge,
    of the  financial  information  required  to be provided to the
    trustee under the governing documents of the issuer; and

4.  Compliance by the  Servicer with  its servicing obligations and
    minimum servicing standards.

5.  That no default in performance of any obligations has occurred.

                                         By:  /s/ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
                                                 Andrew J. Cederoth
                                                 Vice President and Treasurer

                                                 December 18, 2003
```
#### EMILY SNOW, Respondent, *v.*SAMUEL W. CABLE, Appellant.

*Mamed woman*— *right of, to recover for her*seimces— *objection that husband should sue cannot be first taken on appeal.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, a married woman, to recover the value of services rendered by her as a general housekeeper to defendant, and for extra services, which she claimed to have rendered to him while so employed.

The court, at General Term, said : “ The defence that the plaintiff was a married woman, hence not entitled to recover for her own services, was not set up in the defendant’s answer to the complaint ,• nor was this defence urged on the trial, either by motion for nonsuit, objection to evidence or otherwise. To make this defence available on this appeal, it should appear in the *281xecord, that it was in some way, and at some time, before the case was submitted for decision, insisted on.

“ But, waving this difficulty in the defendant’s case, it plainly appears that the agreement counted on was with the plaintiff as a *feme sole,*with her husband’s express approval. As to this fact there is no question. It is most unequivocally proved. Her husband permitted her to engage in the defendant’s service, for herself, on her own account, and in her own right, and ho consented to the use of her property for the defendant’s benefit, under an arrangement between the parties that' recompense should-be made to her. The husband might, as he did do, permit his wife to engage in business on her own account, and have her own personal earnings. In such case the avails or proceeds are her own ; and she may claim them, and recover them the same as if she were a *feme sole. (Brooks*v. *Schwerin,*54 N. Y., 348.) In the case cited, Judge Earl, in speaking of the rights of married women under the married woman’s act, says : ‘ When she labors for another, her services no longer belong to her husband, and whatever she earns in such service belongs to her as if she were a *feme sole.’*(See, also, *Birlcbeck*v. *Aekroyd,*74 N. Y., 356; *Adams*v. *Ourtis,*4 Lans., 164.) The amendment of the married woman’s act (1860, chapter 90), expressly empowers a married woman to labor on her own separate account, and to have the fruits of it in her own right. These remarks also apply to the extra work performed by the plaintiff for the defendant; and as to this work, it seems that it was performed outside the special agreement between her and the defendant, hence ivas a proper subject of recovery outside the contract.”

*N.C.& M. W. Marvin,*for the appellant.

*A. D. Peake,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Bockes, J. ;

Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
## SERVED: OCTOBER 18, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF MAGORIEN HONING & 

### HYDRAULICS FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0908
NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OFPROCEEDING 

## .··::I)Mrfh
.. 

## AENT 

## OF

, 1 '.1, \ 11/j..., ::<J:.**\Jr~no-** 

## frr,4TION

, IJ t, I , \_,., J**~** i ··(··'ti=:T 

### nor:DAT!()f\l('

· ,**.~** ....... , \1..., '·' r Ln · I,,)
. 

### 1:**~8** 

## ZHll OCT ! 

### q ...

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011WP910318) has been assigned to Administrative**~aw** 

### Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List Ronnie A. 

### Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law

### SERVICE LIST . ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Neel Viradia, General Manager Magorien Honing & Hydraulics, 

### Respondent 1212 South Vail Avenue Montebello, CA 90640 TEL: _323-723-1151 FAJ(: 323-888-1154 Email: 

### www.magorien.com Michael F. McKinley, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 · TEL: 202-267-7100 FAJ(: 202-267-5106 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge U.S;. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (£11-310) Washington, DC 20590 .TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202.:.366-2139 StaffAssistant 202-366-5121 FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0908

,(Civil Penalty Actiop)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For

### ~ervice inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-'-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.40 Civil penalties.

The procedures of 15 CFR part 904 apply to the assessment of civil penalties, except as modified by the requirements of section 8 of the Act.
### Kruger. Brett 

## (OSn

From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject:
Dear Mr. Kruger: Anita.Mosner@hklaw.com Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:12 PM Kruger, Brett (05T) Arlene.5mallwood@hklaw.com; Jennifer.Nowa k@hklaw.com UPS- Renewal of US-Kazakhstan Authority - Docket 2007-26668 i\ ).'"'1 •• 

## a
-. '.J' 

### I ,

Iam writing to follow up on our discussion concerning the US-Kazakhstan authority held by United Parcel Service (UPS). Asyou know, the Department first issued UPSan exemption to serve the US-Kazakhstan market on July 20, 2007. UPSfiled atimely application to renew that authority on April 20, 2009. The authority remains in force pursuant to Part 377 of the DOT's regulations. UPSrespectfully requests that the Department take formal and favorable action on the 2009 renewal application, as having a renewal from your offices with acurrent date may simplify future licensing discussions with the authorities of Kazakhstan. Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Anita Mosner Counsel to UPS 

### Anita Mosner 

# IHolland &

### Knight Partne~ 800 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 

# I Washington DC20006 0: 1.202.419.2604 

# I M: 1.202.378.0833 

# I F: 1.202.955.5564 anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

# I www.hklaw.com Follow me on Twitter - @anitaaviation https:Utwitter.com/AnitaAviation/

Add to addre5s book 

### I View professional biography

NOTE:This e-mail isfrom a lawfi.rm, Holland &Knight LLP("H&K"), and is intended solely for the useof the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believeyou received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose itto anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you aclient unless itcontains aspecificstatement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&Kin reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If
. you properly receivedthis e-mail asaclient, co-counselor retained expert of H&K,you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client orwork product privilege that may beavailable to protect confidentiality.

1
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.73 Prohibited species. ( a ) *General.* The harvest and possession restrictions of this section apply without regard to whether the species is harvested by a vessel operating under a commercial vessel permit. The operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ is responsible for the limit applicable to that vessel.
( b ) *Prohibited coral.* Gulf prohibited coral taken as incidental catch in the Gulf EEZ must be returned immediately to the sea in the general area of fishing. In fisheries where the entire catch is landed unsorted, such as the scallop and groundfish fisheries, unsorted prohibited coral may be landed ashore; however, no person may sell or purchase such prohibited coral.
( c ) Wild live rock may not be harvested or possessed in or from the Gulf EEZ.
[78 FR 22952, Apr. 17, 2013, as amended at 82 FR 60567, Dec. 21, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,593,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,619,983
<PP&E>                                         423,985
<DEPRECIATION>                               (423,985)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,619,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,035
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,328,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,619,983
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,065,215
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               291,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                773,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            773,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   773,675
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 622

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

#### § 622.430 Management area.

The management area is the EEZ around Puerto Rico bounded by rhumb lines connecting the following points and geographic instructions in order:

| Point | North lat. | West long. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A (intersects with the international and EEZ boundary) | 19°37′29′′ | 65°20′57′′ |
| B | 18°25′46.3015′′ | 65°06′31.866′′ |
| From Point B proceed southerly along the 3-nautical mile territorial boundary of the St. Thomas and St. John island group to Point C | | |
| C | 18°13′59.0606′′ | 65°05′33.058′′ |
| D | 18°01′16.9636′′ | 64°57′38.817′′ |
| E | 17°30′00.000′′ | 65°20′00.1716′′ |
| F | 16°02′53.5812′′ | 65°20′00.1716′′ |
| From Point F proceed along the international and EEZ boundary southwesterly, then northerly, then easterly, and finally southerly to Point A | | |
| A (intersects with the International and EEZ boundary) | 19°37′29′′ | 65°20′57′′ |

Table 1 to § 622.430
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 50 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to give priority consideration to selecting Pensacola 

and Perdido Bays as an estuary of national significance, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 50 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pensacola and Perdido 

3 Bays Estuary of National Significance Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PENSACOLA AND PERDIDO BAYS. 

5 Section 320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution 

6 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘and Lower Columbia River, Oregon and Wash8 ington’’ and inserting ‘‘Lower Columbia River, Oregon 

9 and Washington; and Pensacola and Perdido Bays, Flor10 ida’’. 

11 SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO FISCAL YEARS 

12 2024 AND 2025. 

13 With respect to the amendment made by section 2, 

14 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agen15 cy may not use for the implementation of that amendment, 

16 including, with respect to Pensacola and Perdido Bays, 

17 Florida, convening a management conference, developing 

18 or carrying out a comprehensive conservation and manage19 ment plan, or providing grants under section 320 of the 

20 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330)— 

21 (1) any amounts appropriated to carry out the 

22 national estuary program under that section for fis23 cal year 2024; or 

24 (2) unless the total amount appropriated to 

25 carry out that program for fiscal year 2025 is at 

26 least $850,000 more than the total amount appro-
3 

†S 50 ES

1 priated to carry out that program for fiscal year 

2 2023, any amounts appropriated to carry out that 

3 program for fiscal year 2025. 

Passed the Senate March 12, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 50 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

other purposes. as an estuary of national significance, and for eration to selecting Pensacola and Perdido Bays mental Protection Agency to give priority considto require the Administrator of the Environ-
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 15
Case 16-96048 Doc 52 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/05/17 10:41:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 15