alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 502.205 Records in other proceedings.

Portions of the record of other proceedings may be received in evidence. A true copy of the records sought to be admitted must be presented in the form of an exhibit unless the presiding officer accepts the parties' stipulation that such records may be incorporated by reference. [Rule 205.]
# C_2014421EN.01006401.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/64

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2014 — BO v Commission

(Case F-121/11) (1)

1

2014/C 421/94

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 72.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.144-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of upholstered furniture as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2216 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2216

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) 
 to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints 
 to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2009

   Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself and Mr. Reyes) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                                Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) 
 to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints 
 to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED MONEY RECOVERED AT AIRPORT SECURITY 
              CHECKPOINTS.

    (a) Donation to USO.--Section 44945 of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``shall be retained by the Transportation 
Security Administration'' and all that follows before the period at the 
end and inserting ``shall be annually transferred, without further 
appropriation, by the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Transportation Security Administration) to United Service 
Organizations, Incorporated, to provide funding for its activities''.
    (b) Annual Report.--Section 515(b) of the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 1318) is amended by 
striking ``and specifically how the unclaimed money is being used to 
provide civil aviation security'' and inserting ``and the amount of 
unclaimed money transferred to United Service Organizations, 
Incorporated, and the dates of such transfers''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 4.07-20 Transfer of jurisdiction.

When it appears to the District Commander that it is more advantageous to conduct an investigation in a district other than in the district where the casualty was first reported, that officer shall transfer the case to the other district together with any information or material relative to the casualty he may have.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1459

To increase the supply of minority scientists and help meet the research

and development needs of the public and private sectors of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 6, 1995

Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To increase the supply of minority scientists and help meet

the research and development needs of the public and

private sectors of the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) there is a need for more minority scientists

6 in the United States to meet the research needs of

7 the public and private sectors of the Nation;

8 (2) to increase the number of minority sci9 entists, four historically Black universities, Alabama
2

•HR 1459 IH

1 A&M University in Huntsville, Alabama, Jackson

2 State University in Jackson, Mississippi, Prairie

3 View A&M University in Prairie View, Texas, and

4 Southern University and A&M College in Baton

5 Rouge, Louisiana, along with the Lawrence Liver6 more National Laboratory in Livermore, California,

7 established a Science and Engineering Alliance (in

8 this Act referred to as the ‘‘Alliance’’) in 1990;

9 (3) since its establishment, the Alliance has

10 demonstrated its impact on increasing the number of

11 minority scientists and providing opportunities for

12 such scientists to improve their skills;

13 (4) the Alliance has developed a Teacher 2000

14 initiative to increase the number of minority science

15 teachers in the United States;

16 (5) such initiative will establish Centers of Ex17 cellence in Teacher Preparation at the four univer18 sities described in paragraph (2); and

19 (6) such initiative would be a pilot project that

20 can serve as a national model for increasing the

21 number of minority scientists.

22 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

23 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Na24 tional Science Foundation $6,500,000, to be made avail-
3

•HR 1459 IH

1 able to the Alliance for the Centers of Excellence in Teach2 er Preparation.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

QUICKEN LOANS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-11408-MAG-RSW 

District Judge: 

MARK A. GOLDSMITH

Magistrate Judge: 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer. 

See ECF No. 15. 

I, Tamra T. Moore, certify that this document complies with Local Rule 

5.1(a), including: double-spaced (except for quoted materials and footnotes); at 

least one-inch margins on the top, sides, and bottom; consecutive page numbering; 

and type size of all text and footnotes that is no smaller than 10-1/2 characters per 

inch (for non-proportional fonts) or 14 point (for proportional fonts). I also certify 

that it is the appropriate length. See Order Regarding Defendants’ Request for 

Extension of Page Limitation (May 28, 2015), ECF No. 16. 

2:15-cv-11408-MAG-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 145
2 

Dated: May 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

LOCAL COUNSEL 

BARBARA L. MCQUADE 

United States Attorney 

PETER A. CAPLAN 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 226-9784 

P30643 

Email: peter.caplan@usdoj.gov 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

LESLEY FARBY 

Assistant Branch Director 

 /s/ Tamra T. Moore 

TAMRA T. MOORE 

ARJUN GARG 

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20530 

Telephone: (202) 514-8095 

Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 

Emails: tamra.moore@usdoj.gov 

 arjun.garg@usdoj.gov 

 

Counsel for Defendants

 

2:15-cv-11408-MAG-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 146
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on May 28, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document using the Court’s CM/ECF System, which will send notice of this filing 

to all counsel of record. 

 

 /s/ Tamra T. Moore 

 TAMRA T. MOORE 

2:15-cv-11408-MAG-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 147
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2522 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2522

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas 
  Municipal Water District Recycling Project, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 
That section 1631(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) In the case of the Calleguas Municipal Water District 
Recycling Project authorized by section 1616, the Federal share of the 
cost of the Project may not exceed the sum determined by adding--
            ``(A) the amount that applies to the Project under 
        paragraph (1); and
            ``(B) $40,000,000.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2522

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas 
  Municipal Water District Recycling Project, and for other purposes.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting 
to review 2007 projects, and hold a short public forum (question and 
answer session). The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities 
in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-393). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 24, 2007, 6:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bitterroot National Forest, 
Supervisor Office, Conference Room, 1801 North First Street, Hamilton, 
Montana. Send written comments to Daniel Ritter, District Ranger, 
Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, 
by facsimile (406) 777-7423, or electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a4e58435e5e4f586a4c59045f59"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4226302b363627300224316c3731">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Ritter, Stevensville District 
Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.

    Dated: April 4, 2007.
Barry Paulson,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-1787 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### HARRIET A. MORBERG, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC., PLAINTIFF, v. MORRIS & COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted January 25, 1929

Decided October 14, 1929.

Before Guinns re, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.

For the plaintiff, *Charles S. Van Aulcen*and *Addison V. Rosenkrans.*

For the defendants, *Wayne Dumont*and *William, V. Rosenkrans.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s intestate was killed by a Ford coupe of the defendant, driven by the defendant’s servant, running into him on the main street of Bloomingdale at night as he was crossing the street. The plaintiff has a verdict of $10,000, which is attacked as against the weight of evidence and as excessive. We are unable to see any merit in either of these points, and confess to some surprise that the rule should have been granted at all. The time was about seven-thirty at night, the weather clear, and the street that decedent was crossing, was sufficiently lit to make everything visible. The deceased, though not on a crosswalk, had reached the middle of the street headed for a street leading to his home and, as we read the evidence, was simply run down hv the defendant’s coupe, *862which threw him up in the air, landing on his head, and killed him. The fact that the left headlight of the coupe was smashed indicates that the deceased was a short step from safety. The testimony of the driver simply is to the effect that he was keeping a good lookout and that the deceased suddenly appeared from nowhere, and that he had no time to do anything. This testimony fails to impress us as particularly worthy of consideration, and we have no hesitation in saying that the verdict was not against the weight of evidence.

As to the damages; the deceased was a man of forty-seven years old, working in a silk factory as a weaver, and earning about $42 a week, with which he supported his wife and himself. It is plain that a very substantial pecuniary injury has' been sustained by the wife as next of kin, and we consider the verdict, under the circumstances, well within the bounds of moderation.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2356 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2356

To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
  1965 to require each State educational agency receiving assistance 
   under part A of title I of such Act to consider a teacher highly 
  qualified if the teacher is (or was) highly qualified in at least 1 
      other State and has at least 5 years of teaching experience.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2009

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
  1965 to require each State educational agency receiving assistance 
   under part A of title I of such Act to consider a teacher highly 
  qualified if the teacher is (or was) highly qualified in at least 1 
      other State and has at least 5 years of teaching experience.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    The Act may be cited as the ``Educators Achieving Reciprocity Now 
(E.A.R.N.) Act''.

SEC. 2. TEACHER RECIPROCITY.

    Section 1119(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Teacher reciprocity.--Beginning with the first day of 
        the first school year after the date of the enactment of the 
        Educators Achieving Reciprocity Now (E.A.R.N.) Act, each State 
        educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall 
        ensure that a teacher is considered highly qualified with 
        respect to an academic subject without requiring any further 
        actions, if the teacher--
                    ``(A) is (or was) considered highly qualified in 
                such academic subject in at least 1 other State; and
                    ``(B) has been teaching for at least 5 years in a 
                public or private school.''.
                                 <all>
```
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending July 28, 2007

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 21, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-287

Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-8478 CC, 20-252 AP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Multimed Care, Inc., a/a/o Alvaro Ramos Hernandez,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle 

Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Feiler & Leach, P.L. and Martin E. Leach, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”) appeals from 
2

a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Multimed Care, Inc. (“Multimed

Care”). United Auto argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s 

fees without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the 

fees. This issue is resolved by our recent decision in United Automobile 

Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1102a

(Fla. 3d DCA May 12, 2012), which the trial court did not have the benefit of 

at the time it entered final judgment. Based on our precent, United Auto is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.

1 

Id. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and 

remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

1 Multimed Care argues that United Auto waived its right to an evidentiary 

hearing by failing to timely request one pursuant to a 2019 interim case 

management order. This argument is without merit. The record shows that 

the trial court did not enforce its 2019 case management order and 

subsequently entered another case management order in 2020. Pursuant 

to this order, United Auto timely requested an evidentiary hearing. “By 

requesting that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of 

attorney’s fees, appellant[ ] preserved [its] right to a hearing.”” Id. at D1102a 

(alteration in original) (quoting Petrovsky v. HSBC Bank, USA, 185 So. 3d 

700, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THOMAS F. KANE

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee s

. § § No. 569, 2017 § § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C r. ID 0612001862 § §

Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: March 14 , 201 8

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O R D E R

This 14 th day of March 2018 , upon consideration of the appellant’s

opening brief, the State’s motion to affi rm, and the record on appeal, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Thomas F. Kane

, filed this appeal from the

Superior Court’s order denying his motion to reopen his criminal conviction

and sentence under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). The State has filed a

motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is

manifest on the face of Kane’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.

We agree and affirm.2

(2) Kane pled guilty but mentally ill in 2008 to Murder in the F irst

Degree and other related offenses. In exchange for his plea, Kane avoided a

possible death sentence, and the State dismissed ten other charges. The

Superior Court immediately sentenced Kane to life imprisonment under 11

Del. C. § 4209(a), plus a ter m of twenty

- seven years. Kane did not file a

direct appeal. In 2012, Kane filed a motion for postconviction relief, which

the Superior Court denied. We affirmed that judgment on appeal. 1

(3) On August 24, 2017, Kane filed a motion und er Civil Rule

60(b) to reopen his criminal conviction and sentence. On September 22,

2017, the Superior Court denied Kane’s motion because the relief he

requested was not properly sought under Civil Rule 60(b) and because

Kane’s convictions and sentence were the result of a guilty plea. This

appeal followed.

(4) Kane argues in his opening brief on appeal that he has a right to

seek relief from his criminal convictions under Civil Rule 60(b) an d that he

is entitled to have his convictions and sentence vacated in light of thi s

Court’s decision in Rauf v. State

. 2

1 Kane v. State , 2016 WL 1165949 (Del. Mar. 17, 2016).

2 Rauf v. State , 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016).3

(5) Kane is wrong on both counts. Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b)

cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction. 3 Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61 provides the exclusive remedy for setting aside a final

criminal conviction. 4 Moreover, this Court’s decision in Rauf did not

invalidate the life sentence provision of Section 4209(a), pursuant to which

Kane was sentenced. 5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

3 Jackson v. State , 2007 WL 2231072, *1 (Del. Aug. 2, 2007).

4 See Su per. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2) ( 2018 ).

5 Zebroski v. State , __ A.3d __, 2018 WL 559678 (Del. Jan. 25, 2018).
#### § 201.1 Scope of rules.

The regulations in this part govern practice and procedure before the Maritime Administration and Maritime Subsidy Board (as described in 49 CFR 1.66 and 1.67), hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Administration,” under the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, as amended, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, Merchant Ship Sales Act, 1946, Administrative Procedure Act, and related Acts. In addition, certain proceedings under sections 605(c) and 805(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, shall be conducted in accordance with part 203 of this chapter except as may be provided otherwise by the Administration.

[55 FR 12358, Apr. 3, 1990]