alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 349.3 Certification criteria. The Administrator shall apply the following criteria for certifying that an individual merchant seaman is entitled to reemployment rights and other benefits substantially equivalent to the rights and benefits provided by chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, for any member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces of the United States who is ordered to active duty. It shall be the responsibility of each applicant for certification to submit relevant documentation to MARAD, Office of Maritime Labor, Training, and Safety, MAR-250, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 7302, Washington, D.C. 20590, establishing that— ( a ) *Employment as merchant seaman.* The applicant was employed after October 8, 1996, in the activation or operation of a vessel— ( 1 ) in the National Defense Reserve Fleet maintained by MARAD under authority of section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744) in a period in which that vessel was in use or being activated for use under 50 U.S.C. App. 1744(b);
( 2 ) that is requisitioned under section 902 of the Act (46 App. U.S.C. 1242); or
( 3 ) that is owned, chartered, or controlled by the United States and used by the United States for a war, armed conflict, national emergency, or maritime mobilization need (including for training purposes or testing for readiness and suitability for mission performance).
( b ) *Seaman credentials.* During the period of employment described in paragraph (a) of this section, the seaman possessed a valid license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document issued under chapter 73 (as applicable) of title 46, United States Code, as required by 46 App. U.S.C. 1132(c).
( c ) *Additional information.* If applicable, periods of hospitalization, convalescence, illness, injury, shipwreck or detention beyond the mariner's control were incurred in, or aggravated during, the performance of employment described in § 349.3(a).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2525 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2525

To require application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the 
  calculation of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for each all-
                         urban and rural State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2009

Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Adler of New 
Jersey, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Sires, Mr. Rothman 
 of New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Himes, Mr. Lance, Mr. Garrett of New 
Jersey, and Mr. Frelinghuysen) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the 
  calculation of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for each all-
                         urban and rural State.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safeguarding Our Hospitals' Futures 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY ON A NATIONAL BASIS IN THE 
              CALCULATION OF THE MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR FOR 
              EACH ALL-URBAN AND RURAL STATE.

    In the case of discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2009, 
for purposes of applying section 4410 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note) and paragraph (h)(4) of section 412.64 of 
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services shall administer subsection (b) of such section 4410 and 
paragraph (e) of such section 412.64 in the same manner as the 
Secretary administered such subsection (b) and paragraph (e) for 
discharges occurring during fiscal year 2008 (through a uniform, 
national adjustment to the area wage index).
                                 <all>
```
#### GUSSIE REICHNER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. SAMUEL T. DAVIDSON, DEFENDANT.

Decided September 5, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the applicant, *Weinberger & Weinberger.*

For the respondent, *Feder & Rinzler.*

Per Curiam.

We have examined with care the petition and find it to be without merit.

The result is that the application for a rehearing is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000825999
<NAME>                        Precious Metal Mines, Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        20,750
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     20,750
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       20,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                79,836
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             41,657
<OTHER-SE>                          128,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         20,750
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     20,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (20,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (20,850)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.01)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2397]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Genomic Medicine 
Program Advisory Committee will meet on June 11, 2007 in the Virginia 
Room, 2nd floor, at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel, 1127 Connecticut 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 8 a.m. and 
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on using genetic 
information to optimize medical care of veterans and to enhance 
development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant 
to veterans.
    At the June 11 meeting, the Committee will receive an overview of 
the VA health care system and electronic medical record, and will be 
asked to provide insight into optimal ways for VA to incorporate 
genomic information into its health care program while applying 
appropriate ethical oversight and protecting the privacy of veterans.
    Members of the public may make oral statements, limited to 5 
minutes each, during the period reserved for public comments. They may 
also submit, at the time of the meeting, a 1-2 page summary of each 
statement for inclusion in the official meeting record. Any member of 
the public seeking additional information should contact Dr. Timothy 
O'Leary at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93e7fafefce7fbeabdfcfff6f2e1ead3e5f2bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55213c383a213d2c7b3a393034272c1523347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
    By direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-2397 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2013055EN.01001203.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/12

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2012 — Barbin v Parliament

(Case T-228/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Death of the applicant - Non-resumption of proceedings by the successors - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 55/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Barbin

Parliament

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present appeal.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24




         The undersigned hereby makes, constitutes and appoints Stephen J.
Felice, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick and Thomas M. Molchan, each of them acting alone,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him in his name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to execute and cause to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1998 of DecisionOne Holdings Corp. and any amendents thereto pursuant
to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with all exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that
said attorney-in-fact or his substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.




Dated: September 17, 1998                         /s/ Peter T. Grauer*
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  /s/ Peter T. Grauer

* Identical powers-of-attorney (other than the signature blocks) were executed
  by Lawrence M.v.D. Schloss and Kirk B. Wortman.
§ 42.15-80 Special conditions of assignment for Type “A” vessels. ( a ) *Machinery casings.* Machinery casings on Type “A” vessels as defined in § 42.09-5(b) must be protected by an enclosed poop or bridge of at least standard height, or by a deckhouse of equal height and equivalent strength, except that machinery casings may be exposed if there are no openings giving direct access from the freeboard deck to the machinery space. A door complying with the requirements of § 42.15-10 is permitted in the machinery casing if it leads to a space or passageway which is as strongly constructed as the casing and is separated from the stairway to the engine room by a second weathertight door of steel or equivalent material.
( b ) *Gangway and access.* ( 1 ) An efficiently constructed fore and aft permanent gangway of sufficient strength shall be fitted on Type “A” vessels at the level of the superstructure deck between the poop and the midship bridge or deckhouse where fitted, or equivalent means of access shall be provided to carry out the purpose of the gangway, such as passages below deck. Elsewhere, and on Type “A” vessels without a midship bridge, arrangements to the satisfaction of the assigning authority shall be provided to safeguard the crew in reaching all parts used in the necessary work of the ship.
( 2 ) Safe and satisfactory access from the gangway level shall be available between separates crew accommodations and also between crew accommodations and the machinery space.
( c ) *Hatchways.* Exposed hatchways on the freeboard and forecastle decks or on the tops of expansion trunks on Type “A” vessels shall be provided with efficient watertight covers of steel or other equivalent material.
( d ) *Freeing arrangements.* ( 1 ) Type “A” vessels with bulwarks shall have open rails fitted for at least half the length of the exposed parts of the weather deck or other effective freeing arrangements. The upper edge of the sheer strake shall be kept as low as practicable.
( 2 ) Where superstructures are connected by trunks, open rails shall be fitted for the whole length of the exposed parts of the freeboard deck.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10063, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9014, June 5, 1969; CGD 79-153, 48 FR 38647, Aug. 25, 1983]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7230

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SHERIFF CLARENCE BIRKHEAD; DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; CAPTAIN RUSSELL; OFC. MAYES; SGT. CLARK; SGT. GREENE; SGT. D. WILLIAMS; SGT. WILLCOTT; OFC. BRUGGEST/BRUGEST; OFC. MONTANEZ; STAFF SGT. COLEMAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroe der, Chief District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00006

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7230 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen ’s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Birkhead , No. 1:21

- cv - 00006

- TDS

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7230 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
ACCEPTED

12-15-00226-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/4/2015 1:19:22 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/4/2015 1:19:22 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2500 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow nontaxable employer 

matching contributions to section 529 college savings plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2009 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. MICHAUD, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow nontaxable employer matching contributions to section 529 

college savings plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Help Kids Save for 

5 College Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONTAXABLE EMPLOYER MATCHING CONTRIBU7 TIONS TO SECTION 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS 

8 PLANS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap10 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2500 IH

1 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended 

2 by inserting after section 139C the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 139D. EMPLOYER MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

4 SECTION 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS PLANS. 

5 ‘‘(a) EXCLUSION.—Gross income of an employee does 

6 not include amounts paid during the taxable year by the 

7 employer to a qualified tuition program for the benefit of 

8 a designated beneficiary if such amounts are paid pursu9 ant to a college savings assistance program. 

10 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount excluded from the 

11 gross income of an employee under subsection (a) for any 

12 taxable year with respect to each designated beneficiary 

13 shall not exceed the lesser of— 

14 ‘‘(1) $1,000, or 

15 ‘‘(2) the amount paid by the employee during 

16 such year to such program for the benefit of such 

17 beneficiary. 

18 ‘‘(c) COLLEGE SAVINGS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.— 

19 For purposes of this section, a college savings assistance 

20 program is a separate written plan of an employer for the 

21 exclusive benefit of such employer’s employees— 

22 ‘‘(1) under which the employer makes payments 

23 to qualfied tuition programs for the benefit of des24 ignated beneficiaries, and 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2500 IH

1 ‘‘(2) which meets requirements similar to the 

2 requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (6) of 

3 section 127(b). 

4 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, 

5 terms used is this section which are also used in section 

6 529 shall have the respective meanings given such terms 

7 by section 529.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for such part III is amended by inserting after the item 

10 relating to section 139C the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139D. Employer matching contributions to section 529 college savings 

plans.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 44.05-15 Existing vessels. ( a ) In assigning load lines to an existing vessel the provisions of the regulations in this part shall be complied with in principle and detail insofar as is reasonable and practicable, having regard to the proven efficacy of existing arrangements for a special service voyage, and having particular regard to the provision of sufficient means for the protection and safety of the crew.
( b ) Where it is neither reasonable nor practicable to comply with this part in its entirety, the assigning authority will, in each case, report to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, the specific matters in which the vessel is deficient with such recommendations as may seem desirable. Upon the receipt of this report the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, shall determine such addition to the freeboard as will, in the judgment of the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, make the vessel as safe as if it had fully complied with this part.
§ 190.10-15 Vertical ladders not accepted. ( a ) Vertical ladders and deck scuttles shall not in general be considered satisfactory as one of the required means of escape. However, where it is demonstrated that the installation of a stairway would be impracticable, a vertical ladder may be used as the second means of escape.
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form  S-3  (Registration  Nos.  333-69047,  333-67625  and  333-43795)  of V-One
Corporation  and  on  Form  S-8  (Registration  Nos.  333-61909,  333-52909  and
333-17749)  of our report  dated  February 18, 2000 (except Note 11, as to which
the date is March 24,  2000),  with  respect  to the  financial  statements  and
schedule of V-ONE Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1999.

                                    /s/   Ernst & Young LLP


McLean, VA
March 28, 2000


                                 61
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-21]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164, dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-21 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: April 24, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

ODS Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 21244)          ( print page 21245)          ( print page 21246)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-2098 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

LEON JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

AMERICAN ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, 

LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff,

UNPUBLISHED

April 12, 2018

v No. 331725

Wayne Circuit Court 

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, LC No. 13-002627-NI

Defendant-Appellee,

and

OSCAR WILSON, ARROW LOGISTICS, LLC, 

and DAVID GRIGGS,

Defendants.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and MURRAY, JJ.

MURRAY, J., (concurring).

I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion to reverse this matter and remand it for 

further proceedings. Caselaw requires that before dismissing an action as a sanction a trial court 

must carefully evaluate on the record all available options. See Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich 

App 501, 506; 536 NW2d 280 (1995); Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 33; 451 NW2d 571 

(1990). The record discloses that the trial court failed to do so in this case, and therefore abused 

its discretion in dismissing the action without considering other factors on the record. I would go 

no further than that to resolve this appeal, and would not attempt to evaluate the factors the trial 

court should have considered when the record before us is not sufficiently complete to make a 

proper determination.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray