alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 31.44 Right to administrative offset.

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered under § 31.42 or § 31.43, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement under § 31.46, may be collected by administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to the defendant.
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending June 15, 2013

|Filer             | Filing Type                      | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|DELANCO, MHC      | * SLHC Formation* MHC Conversion | Delanco, MHC, Delanco, NJ, proposes to convert to stock form and merge with and into Delanco Bancorp, Inc., Delanco, New Jersey, which proposes to become a savings and loan holding company by acquiring Delanco Federal Savings Bank, Delanco, NJ. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/15/2013 
|Newspaper:        | Not available                   
|Federal Register: | 07/15/2013                      
|WOODLANDS BANK    | * Branch                         | Woodlands Bank, Williamsport, PA, to establish a branch office located at the corner of Church and Jay Streets, Lock Haven, PA.                                                                                                                      | Newspaper:06/26/2013Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 06/26/2013                      
|Federal Register: | Not applicable                  

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
[Grafton,

December, 1881.]

#### Cox *v.*Johnson *& a.*

*Pike 8f*Parsons, for the plaintiff.

*Burleigh Adams*and *S. P.*Burnham, for the defendants.

Clark, J.

The sufficiency of the answer is not controverted, and no question of law is suggested.

*Gase discharged.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# C_2014135EN.01000301.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-222/12) (1)

1

((Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance - Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site))

2014/C 135/03

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Applicant:

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception to the obligation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Tipping lorry with a maximum weight of 25,5 tonnes carrying gravel along the public highway from a quarry to a site of road repair and maintenance works.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers vehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL 
                              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL 
                              STATEMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO 
                              REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K 
                              FOR YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1995 AND IS 
                              QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                              SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<CURRENCY>              U.S. DOLLARS  
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
<CASH>                         73840
<SECURITIES>                 1449598
<RECEIVABLES>                  98960
<ALLOWANCES>                    5867
<INVENTORY>                     2363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             1757943
<PP&E>                        137503
<DEPRECIATION>                 87576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               2203853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         226527
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                     6404
<COMMON>                       15356
<OTHER-SE>                   1297260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 2203853
<SALES>                        17379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              472081
<CGS>                          11754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 361448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                65279
<INCOME-TAX>                   17600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            21965
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   21965
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .56
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus LEONEL ROMEO CAZACO, a/k/a Jimmy Fingers, a/k/a Frank Nisbett, a/k/a James Romeo Nelson, a/k/a Phil, a/k/a Pod Supervisor Scott, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:96-cr-0066-REP; 3:06-cv-00729-REP) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonel Romeo Cazaco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leonel Romeo Cazaco seeks to appeal the district court’s orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cazaco has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Cazaco’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Cazaco’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Allstar Refinishing & Collision * From the County Court at Law

Center, Inc.

, of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CC

- 14325.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 193

- CV * July 2 9 , 2016

Aurelia Villalobos and * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

Nationwide Insurance Company, (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs

incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Allstar Refinishing & Collision

Center, Inc.
§ 266.5 State eligibility. ( a ) *General eligibility requirements under the rail service assistance program.* A State is eligible for assistance if: ( 1 ) The State has certified pursuant to section 5(j)(4) of the Act that it has or will adopt and maintain adequate procedures for financial control, accounting and performance evaluation in order to assure proper use of Federal funds;
( 2 ) For purpose of establishing a State Rail Plan, the State has submitted, in accordance with § 266.17(e) of this part, a planning application; and
( 3 ) For any other assistance, ( i ) The State has established an adequate plan for rail services in the State which: ( A ) Meets the requirements of § 266.15 of this part;
( B ) Is part of an overall planning process for all transportation services in the State;
( C ) Includes a suitable procedure for updating, revising, and amending such plan; and
( D ) As updated, revised, or amended has been approved by the Administrator;
( ii ) Such State Rail Plan: ( A ) Is administered or coordinated by a designated State agency;
( B ) Provides for the equitable distribution of resources; and
( C ) Includes a methodology for determining the ratio of benefits to costs of projects for which acquisition assistance, rehabilitation or improvement assistance, substitute service assistance, and rail facility construction assistance is sought;
( iii ) The State agency: ( A ) Has authority and administrative jurisdiction to develop, promote, supervise, and support safe, adequate, and efficient rail transportation services;
( B ) Employs or will employ, directly or indirectly, sufficient trained and qualified personnel;
( C ) Maintains or will maintain adequate programs of investigation, research, promotion, and development with provision for public participation; and
( D ) Is designated and directed solely or in cooperation with other State agencies to take all practicable steps to improve transportation safety and to reduce transportation-related energy utilization and pollution; and
( iv ) The State undertakes to immediately notify the Administrator of any changes in conditions which might affect its compliance with this section.
From: Kaszynski, Michael W [mailto: Michael. Kaszynski@opm.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:43 PM

Ta: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA

Subject: FEHB Program Parity Heaith Plan Carrier Guidance for 2010

| authored the health plan Parity implementation guidance for the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program in 2001 and more recently in response to the Paul Wellstone and
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 {see links below).

Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008 — Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

Carrier Guidance:
hitp://www.opm.gov/carrier/carrier_letters/2008/2008-17.pdf

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Call Letter
See page 4.
http:/Avww.opm.gov/carrier/carrier_letters/2009/2009-08. pdf
March 20, 2006

To: Aurora Gold Corporation
30 Ledger Road,
Balcatta, Western Australia, 6021 Australia


Tel. 604-687-4432
Fax  604-687-4709

Attention: Cameron Richardson
Email: c.richardson@telus.net
       ----------------------


From: Tomas Almeida, Certified Translator

Re: Translation of Option Agreement regarding Sao Domingos Project



                            Translator's Declaration

I,  Tomas  Almeida,  Certified  Portuguese to English Translator, Member in good
standing  of  the  Society  of  Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
(STIBC),  which  is  a  member  association  of  the  Canadian  Translators  and
Interpreters Council (CTIC), hereby attest that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the above-mentioned document is a true, correct and complete translation
of  the  Portuguese  document  presented  to  me.


Tomas Almeida



Tomas Almeida
19780 Honeydew Drive
Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2S6

Tel. 604-465-6128
Fax 604-465-6129
Cell.604-202-0031
Email: talmeida@telus.net
       ------------------
§ 229.71 Clearance above top of rail. No part or appliance of a locomotive except the wheels, flexible nonmetallic sand pipe extension tips, and trip cock arms may be less than 21 ⁄ 2 inches above the top of rail.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, April 3, 1995 (54), Para 54.12 Permission to File Conference Report]
[Page 525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.54.12  permission to file conference report

  On motion of Mr. DAVIS, by unanimous consent, the managers on the part 
of the House were granted permission until midnight tonight to file a 
conference report (Rept. No. 104-99) on the bill of the Senate (S. 244) 
to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal 
agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing 
the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes; 
together with a statement thereon, for printing in the Record under the 
rule.
```
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0655

STATE OF MONTANA.

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

FILED

NOV 1 0 2020

Bowen Greenwooc

Clerk of Supreme Co,jr

tatf.• nf Montana

ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Robert Gonzalez moves unopposed to dismiss this appeal on

the ground that Gonzalez died in custody on October 24, 2020. Gonzalez's death has

rendered the issues in this appeal moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this lb day of November, 2020.

Chief Justice

n/1 

11/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0655
§ 299.317 Track strength. ( a ) Track shall have a sufficient vertical strength to withstand the maximum vehicle loads generated at maximum permissible trainset speeds, cant deficiencies and surface limitations. For purposes of this section, vertical track strength is defined as the track capacity to constrain vertical deformations so that the track shall, under maximum load, remain in compliance with the track performance and geometry requirements of this part.
( b ) Track shall have sufficient lateral strength to withstand the maximum thermal and vehicle loads generated at maximum permissible trainset speeds, cant deficiencies and lateral alignment limitations. For purposes of this section lateral track strength is defined as the track capacity to constrain lateral deformations so that track shall, under maximum load, remain in compliance with the track performance and geometry requirements of this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 888 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 888

  To amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to provide for 
 renewals of grants for permanent housing under the supportive housing 
   program and for shelter plus care assistance to be funded through 
 section 8 rental assistance amounts made available under the Housing 
  Certificate Fund of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2001

 Mr. LaFalce (for himself, Mr. Weller, Mr. Frank, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sabo, 
  Mrs. Biggert, and Ms. Lee) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to provide for 
 renewals of grants for permanent housing under the supportive housing 
   program and for shelter plus care assistance to be funded through 
 section 8 rental assistance amounts made available under the Housing 
  Certificate Fund of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    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 ``Homeless Prevention Permanent 
Housing Renewal Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF PERMANENT HOUSING GRANTS AND SHELTER PLUS CARE 
              GRANTS UNDER HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND.

    (a) Supportive Housing Program Permanent Housing Grant Renewals.--
Section 429 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
11389) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Permanent Housing Grant Renewals.--For fiscal year 2002 and 
each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be appropriated, 
from any amounts appropriated under the Housing Certificate Fund 
account of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
such sums as may be necessary for renewing expiring grants under this 
subtitle for permanent housing for homeless persons with 
disabilities.''.
    (b) Shelter Plus Care Grant Renewals.--Section 463 of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11403h) is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Grant Renewals.--For fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year 
thereafter, there are authorized to be appropriated, from any amounts 
appropriated under the Housing Certificate Fund account of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for assistance under 
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, such sums as may be 
necessary for renewing expiring grants under this subtitle.''.
                                 <all>
```
Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 

Comment On: IRS-2009-0008-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS-2009-0008-0073 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Myron Ross Thurber 

Address: 

Spokane VAlley, WA, 

Submitter's Representative: Cathy McMorris Rogers 

Organization: Neurotherapy Northwest 

Government Agency Type: Federal 

General Comment 

I am licensed as a Physical Therapist and am also licensed with PhD in 

Counseling and Rehabilitation. Please consider adding BIOFEEDBACK, EEG 

BIOFEEDBACK to the list of services for parity. 

These modalities have a large body of research to substantiate their use as 

treatment. The Child and Adolescent Pychiatric Clinics of North America have 

reviwed the research and deemed these treatments to be consisdered as 

efficacious for treatment of: ADHD, Obsessive-coppulisve disorder, Genralized 

Anxiety Dissorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, phobias, depression, reading 

disabilities, and addicive disorders [L. M. Hirshberg et al/ Child Adolesc 

Psychiatric Clin N Am 14(2005)]. 

Sincerely, 

Myron R. Thurber 

PhD PT LMHC NCC BCIAC BCIA-EEG 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 28, 2009 

Tracking No. 809b92e1 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009