alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-30-2023]

On April 25, 2023, AbbVie Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7I, in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (88 FR 27860—27861, May 3, 2023). On August 23, 2023, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: August 23, 2023.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-18466 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
U.S. 5th Fleet Hosts Israeli Defense Chief at Bahrain Headquarters
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces, hosted Israel’s Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi during a visit to Bahrain, March 10. Kohavi was joined by Major Gen. Tal Kelman, director for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) J5 directorate; Brig. Gen. Efraim Defrin, deputy director for IDF’s J5 directorate; and Brig. Gen. Amit Saar, head of the IDF Research and Assessment Department. The leaders discussed future opportunities for maritime security cooperation between IDF and U.S. 5th Fleet. The U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses approximately 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, parts of the Indian Ocean and three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, Suez Canal and Strait of Bab al-Mandeb.
Hillsborough,

Dec., 1894.

#### Hamilton National Bank *v.*Horton & *Tr.*

In the absence of fraud, wages of the defendant which have been once attached by the plaintiff in the hands of the trustee, and the trustee discharged, may be held in a second suit by the plaintiff on a different cause of action.

Foreign Attachment. Facts found by the court. March 13, 1894, an action was pending between the same parties, including-the trustee, who was then discharged. He then had in his hands $12.60 wages due the defendant.

March 15, 1894, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant upon a new cause of action, and the writ was served upon the trustee March 16. The trustee disclosed $29.10 due the defendant for wages, including the $12.60. Neither suit was for necessaries. The court charged the trustee for $9.10, and. the defendant filed a bill of exceptions.

*Joseph S. Matthews,*for the plaintiff

*D. S. $ LI. A. Gutter,*for the defendant.

"Wallace, J.

The discharge of the trustee in the first action terminated that suit so far as the trustee was concerned. There-was then nothing to prevent the wages which had been attached in his hands from being paid over to the defendant. A third party could then have attached them and had them applied on his claim. In the absence of fraud, there is no reason why the plaintiff cannot hold the defendant’s wages attached in a second suit on another cause of action after the discharge of the trustee in the first action, in the same manner that a third party could. The trustee was properly charged.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          480,463
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>            666
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              64,409
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           106,360
<OTHER-ASSETS>                       1,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     653,019
<COMMON>                             5,848
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          102,817
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 51,537
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     160,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               35,000
<PREFERRED>                          2,134
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               166,853
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  94,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        8,876
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     185,154
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      653,019
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          204,221
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 7,120
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         173,069
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         180,189
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             24,032
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      24,032
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>            13,912
<NET-INCOME>                        10,120
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>          2,317
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        7,803
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            12,386
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>           11,182
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               7,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         3.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                         3.34
        

</TABLE>
### TIME 1300 HRS 

### DATE 3/6/2015 

### RECORD OF CONVERSATION NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION Ray Johnson, FAA Airmen Training and Certification Branch, AFS-81 0 Mr. Kyle Witham, Withrotor Aviation Inc. 

### SUBJECT Request for further information, Withrotor Aviation, Inc. (Withrotor) petition for exemption Docket FAA-2015-0123 

### DIGEST On February 26, 2015, I contacted Mr. Witham for information needed to support Withrotor's request for exemption. This included the special purpose operations that Withrotor conducts in the aircraft that would be used under the exemption and the type certificate data sheet pertinent to those aircraft. Mr. Witham responded with the requested information on March 6, 2015 (via email). 

### CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED The information provided by Withrotor will be used by the FAA during the consideration ofthe petition for exemption.



## IR•yJohMoo,

# AFS-81~~
#### CHRISTOPHER L. EDELL, RELATOR, v. ROBERT J. McDERMOTT, AS JUDGE OF THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF PATERSON, RESPONDENT.

Argued January 17, 1933

Decided February 6, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Heher.

For the relator, *Randal B. Lewis.*

For the respondent, *Addison P. Rosenkrans.*

Per Curiam.

The rule calls on respondent to show cause why *mandamus*should not issue requiring him to appoint a clerk of his court from the eligible list provided by the civil service commission.

What relator manifestly desires is not that the office shall be filled, but that he be appointed to fill it, his name standing first on the list of three eligibles as a disabled veteran. In fact, this is the only status that he appears to have in the matter, for a status as a citizen and taxpayer does not seem to be suggested.

The explanation made by respondent for his refusal to appoint relator is that he considers relator not to “possess the business capacity necessary to discharge the duties of the particular position involved.” *Pamph. L.*1929, *p.*784. It is true that the relator passed the civil service test, and that chapter 122 of *Pamph. L.*1932 (at *p.*206) provides that this is to be regarded as evidence that he possesses the *273business capacity and is qualified; but we have in this case the testimony of respondent that he was well acquainted with relator both personally and officially, and for reasons stated in some detail by him, but which need not be restated here, considered him unfit. In this aspect the case is similar to *Davison*v. *Patterson,*94 *N. J. L.*338. We think he was justified in that conclusion; but even if we were in doubt on that point, a writ should not go, as it is fundamental that to justify a writ of *mandamus*the legal right must be clear. *Browne*v. *Lee,*98 *Id.*1, and cases cited.

The rule to show cause will bo discharged, with costs.
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/.../component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480b2f720&Comment=true[8/13/2010 3:57:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 13, 2010

Received: August 13, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b2f720

Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: HHS-OS-2010-0015

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: HHS-OS-2010-0015-DRAFT-0038

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Gary Brown

General Comment

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by PPACA, especially as

of January 1, 2014 when most of the reform components (Insurance Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.)

come into play.

The average consumer has a broad definition of “benefits.” Consumers view their health plan beyond the covered

benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan.

It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its application. For example,

if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained

the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be

critical both for the employer and the employee.

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether a group health

plan is “in or out.” The decisions the federal government makes today will determine the outcomes for tomorrow.

We may need to make some difficult decisions to create a sustainable health care system that will support a

growing economy in the future. That means getting as many citizens across the country participating at the

beginning to make it work and delivering on its promises to retain their support.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation.

Gary Brown
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH A. COLLINS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D12-6123 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 20, 2014.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John Radabaugh, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Christina Zuccaro, A ssistant Attorney General, Tampa, for A ppellee.

DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge. In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Joseph Collins properly raises a minor sent encing error relating to the costs imposed by the trial court. See In re Appellate Cour t Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). We reverse the senten ces in part with regard- 2 - to the cost of prosecution and remand for further proceedings c onsistent with this opinion. We affirm the convictions and sentences in all other respects. Following a jury trial, Mr. Collins was convicted of two counts of forgery, two counts of uttering a forged instrument, two counts of felon y petit theft, grand theft of $300 or more, and fraudulent use o f personal identification inf ormation. At the State's request, but without supporting documentation, the trial court imposed a cost of prosecution in the amount of $500. Mr. Collins filed a motion to correct sentencing error while this appeal was pending, pur suant to Florida Rule of Crim inal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), in which he raised the issue of the $500 cost of p rosecution imposed without supporting documentation. The trial court failed to ru le on the motion, and the same is deemed denied. See O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629, 6 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010): Costs for the state attorney shall be set in all cases at no le ss than $50 per case when a misdemeanor or criminal traffic offense is charged and no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged . . . . The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.

The burden is on the State to subs tantiate the amount of costs incurred in excess of the mandatory statutory amount. Simmons v. State, 24 So. 3d 636, 6 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

It was error for the trial cour t to impose the $400 amount over the mandatory $100 cost of prosecution without requiring the State to provide documentation for the additional amount. See id. at 638; Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of th e sentences, affirm in all other respects, and remand for further proceedings. We note th at the additional amount- 3 - may be reimposed if the State complies with the procedural requ irements of the statute. See Simmons, 24 So. 3d at 638. Convictions affirmed, sentences affirmed in part and reversed in part, and

remanded with directions.

VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
## SERVED: March 31, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.
FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action)
FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0287

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint dated May 14, 2013. Alaska Airlines. (hereinafterreferred to as "Respondent") filed an Answer dated June 13, 2013. Counsel for the Complainant has notifiedthe courtthat the matter has been settled and a hearing is no longer necessary. WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows:
This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed withprejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge
Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 TEL: 202-385-8229 FAX: 202-493-5142 ONE COPY Joanna L. Simon, Respondent's Counsel Morrison & Foerster, LLP 12531 High BluffDrive San Diego, CA 92130-2040 TEL: 858-720-5100 FAX: 858-720-5125 Email: JoannaSimon@mofo.com BradleyTilde, President AlaskaAirlines, Inc., Respondent P.O. Box 68900 Seattle, Washington 96168 Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel FAA Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest MountainRegion, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 TEL: 425-227-1417 FAX: 425-227-1007 E-MAIL: robert.spitzer@faa.gov FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.

2
#### John Swenarton, Respondent, v. Walker H. Shupe, Appellant.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.,

and Davis, P. J., and by Brady, J., dissenting.
# Europos Sąjungos C 163/2004

| | ISSN 1725-521X |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 163 |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir prane_imai | 47 tomas2004m. birželio 22d. |

ISSN 1725-521X

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 163

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir prane_imai

47 tomas2004m. birželio 22d.

---

| Prane_imo Nr. | Turinys |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Informacija |
| | Komisija |
| 2004/C 163/1 | Euro kursas |

Prane_imo Nr.

Turinys

I   Informacija

Komisija

2004/C 163/1

Euro kursas

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

I Informacija

Komisija

| 22.6.2004 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 163/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2004

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 163/1

---

Euro kursas (1)

2004 m. birželio 21 d.

(2004/C 163/01)

1 euras=

| | Valiuta | Valiutos kursas |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | JAV doleris | 1,2112 |
| JPY | Japonijos jena | 131,19 |
| DKK | Danijos krona | 7,4326 |
| GBP | Svaras šterlingas | 0,66115 |
| SEK | Švedijos krona | 9,1453 |
| CHF | Šveicarijos frankas | 1,5085 |
| ISK | Islandijos krona | 87,77 |
| NOK | Norvegijos krona | 8,3515 |
| BGN | Bulgarijos levas | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Kipro svaras | 0,58170 |
| CZK | Čekijos krona | 31,878 |
| EEK | Estijos kronos | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Vengrijos forintas | 254,35 |
| LTL | Lietuvos litas | 3,4527 |
| LVL | Latvijos latas | 0,6539 |
| MTL | Maltos lira | 0,4249 |
| PLN | Lenkijos zlotas | 4,5847 |
| ROL | Rumunijos lėja | 40 731 |
| SIT | Slovėnijos tolaras | 239,3900 |
| SKK | Slovakijos krona | 39,955 |
| TRL | Turkijos lira | 1 803 000 |
| AUD | Australijos doleris | 1,7526 |
| CAD | Kanados doleris | 1,6538 |
| HKD | Honkongo doleris | 9,4463 |
| NZD | Naujosios Zelandijos doleris | 1,9266 |
| SGD | Singapūro doleris | 2,0837 |
| KRW | Pietų Korėjos vonas | 1 400,75 |
| ZAR | Pietų Afrikos randas | 7,6962 |

Valiuta

Valiutos kursas

USD

JAV doleris

1,2112

JPY

Japonijos jena

131,19

DKK

Danijos krona

7,4326

GBP

Svaras šterlingas

0,66115

SEK

Švedijos krona

9,1453

CHF

Šveicarijos frankas

1,5085

ISK

Islandijos krona

87,77

NOK

Norvegijos krona

8,3515

BGN

Bulgarijos levas

1,9559

CYP

Kipro svaras

0,58170

CZK

Čekijos krona

31,878

EEK

Estijos kronos

15,6466

HUF

Vengrijos forintas

254,35

LTL

Lietuvos litas

3,4527

LVL

Latvijos latas

0,6539

MTL

Maltos lira

0,4249

PLN

Lenkijos zlotas

4,5847

ROL

Rumunijos lėja

40 731

SIT

Slovėnijos tolaras

239,3900

SKK

Slovakijos krona

39,955

TRL

Turkijos lira

1 803 000

AUD

Australijos doleris

1,7526

CAD

Kanados doleris

1,6538

HKD

Honkongo doleris

9,4463

NZD

Naujosios Zelandijos doleris

1,9266

SGD

Singapūro doleris

2,0837

KRW

Pietų Korėjos vonas

1 400,75

ZAR

Pietų Afrikos randas

7,6962

---

(1)

Šaltinis: valiutų perskaičiavimo kursai paskelbti ECB.

---
1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 31, 2017 1
Refiled in Redacted Form: February 7, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLISHED DUANE GRADDY and GENE GRADDY, * Legal Representatives of a Minor Child, * Chief Special Master Dorsey
S.G., *

* No. 08 -416 V Petitioners, *

* Denial of Entitlement; Measles, Mumps

v. * & Rubella (“MMR”) Vaccine; Hepatitis

* A ( “Hep A”) Vaccine; Varicella

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine; Autistic Disorder (“AD”);
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Residual Human DNA Fragments;

* HERV-K Fragments; Insertional Respondent. * Mutagenesis; Autoimmunity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Clifford J. Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, Vienna, VA, for petitioners. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION

On November 18, 2014, petitioners filed a status report in which they agreed to be bound by the ruling in the J.M. et al. (02-10V) case.

On August 31, 2017, I ruled against petitioners in J.M. et al. A copy of that decision is attached hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein.

Accordingly, petitioners are bound by that decision, and this case is DISMISSED

. In the absence of a motion for review, 2 the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in

accordance with this decision.

1 When this decision was originally filed, I advised the parties of my intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E -Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. §3501 note (2012) (Federal management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Although the petitioners did not file a motion for redaction in their case, petitioners in the lead omnibus case, J.M. et al. (02-10V), filed a motion to have their names redacted to initials. This decision is being reissued to reflect that the names of the petitioners in

the J.M. et al. case have been redacted to initials. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made.

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
#### JOHN S. KETANER, PROSECUTOR, v. FRANK G. LOTT, RECORDER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided September 15, 1933.

*769Before Justices Case, Bodine and Donges.

Por the prosecutor, *John G. Flanigan.*

Por the respondents, no appearance.

Per Curiam.

This writ brings up the conviction of the prosecutor for a violation of an ordinance of the borough of Flemington. The ordinance in question provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person * * * to hawk or peddle in or around any streets of the borough of Fleming-ton, fish, fowl, fruit, &e., from wagons, carts, automobiles or any other vehicles * * * from house to house, or to carry on or conduct the business of hawking or peddling without first obtaining a license * *

The fee provided for such a license was $100 a year.

The evidence of the violation was the testimony of John II. Lea, a state trooper, to the effect that he had seen prosecutor deliver a loaf of bread to a woman in Flemington and collect money for it. Prosecutor drives a bakery wagon for the General Baking Company, which operates from its Trenton bakery in many small towns in that section of the state. The evidence was that this company had sixty or seventy customers in Flemington. The particular woman who bought the loaf in question had been served for a year or more. The evidence on behalf of the prosecutor was that he had delivered the bread against an order previously given.

In *Hewson*v. *Englewood, 55 N. J. L. 522; 27 Atl. Rep.*904, it was held that the custom of soliciting orders, delivering against those orders, and soliciting further orders while making deliveries from a grocery wagon did not constitute hawking or peddling so as to violate an ordinance regulating those practices. The proven acts in the instant case, tested by that rule, do not constitute a violation of the ordinance.

It is not necessary to consider the other points raised.

The judgment is reversed.