alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9539)

#### The American International Products Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 840149.

*544(Decided November 13, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise the subject of the above entitled appeal to reappraisement is properly dutiable on the basis of American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended and that the said American Selling Price was as follows for the export period indicated.

> Item Export period Price

> Pas Sodium 1958 $1.90 per lb. less 1% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for the involved item, at the time of exportation heretofore indicated, was as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission herein.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/19/2012 EXPIRATION DATE: 03/31/2014

 (Reissue of PIL I10-V-04)

PROCEDURE INSTRUCTION LETTER NO. I12-V-08 

FROM: KEVIN G. STRICKLIN

 Administrator for

 Coal Mine Safety and Health

SUBJECT: Roof Bolt Spacing

Scope

This Procedure Instruction Letter (PIL) applies to Coal Mine Safety and Health 

(CMS&H) enforcement personnel.

Purpose

The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance to CMS&H enforcement personnel for 

the inspection of roof bolt spacing specified in approved roof control plans.

Procedure Instructions

When evaluating roof support spacing to determine compliance with an approved roof 

control plan, enforcement personnel should measure the lengthwise and crosswise 

distances between roof bolts. Inspection personnel should use reasonable judgment in 

determining from these measurements whether enforcement action is appropriate. 

The Agency recognizes that roof bolt spacing specified in a plan represents nominal 

dimensions and that reasonable tolerances for installation are permitted. To require 

roof bolt operator to reach inby and make exact measurements may introduce hazards. 

Therefore, an occasional inadvertent deviation that slightly increases the spacing of roof 

bolts but does not detrimentally affect support performance may not constitute a 

violation. Typically, roof bolt spacing that occasionally exceed the approved spacing 

pattern by less that 6 inches at intermittent locations and do not create a specific hazard 

should not be cited. 
2

Background

Permanent roof support systems approved in roof control plans are designed to ensure 

a minimum safe standard for the installation of roof support appliances. The Agency 

recognizes, however, that under normal mining circumstances inadvertent deviations 

can occur in the installation of roof bolts as a result of machinery limitations or human 

error. When this occurs, the integrity of the support system may not be necessarily 

compromised. 

Authority

Section 302 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, and 30 

U.S.C. Subpart 862; 30 C.F.R. pt 75, Subpart C.

Internet Availability

The PIL may be viewed on the World Wide Web by accessing the MSHA home page 

(www.msha.gov) and choosing “Compliance Info” and “Procedure Instruction Letter.”

Issuing Office and Contact Person

Coal Mine Safety and Health, Safety Division

Johnny P. Calhoun, (202) 693-9507

E-mail: calhoun.johnny@dol.gov

Distribution

MSHA Coal and All-volume Program Policy Manual Holders
Before the Second Division,

July 12, 1939

No. 41817.

#### Protest 126546-G of F. Newman (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain of the items in question consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United Stales*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim was therefore sustained as to these articles.
No. 52019.

#### Barth Feinberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 127477-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of music boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Thorens Co.*v. *168
      *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 165, C. D. 965). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Erik Holman, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 383]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered February 24, 1995, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8246 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8246

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify the criteria 
             for designation of rural emergency hospitals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2024

Mr. Arrington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify the criteria 
             for designation of rural emergency hospitals.

    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 ``Second Chances for Rural Hospitals 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF RURAL EMERGENCY 
              HOSPITALS.

    Section 1861(kkk)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395x(kkk)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``as of the date of the enactment of this subsection'' and 
        inserting ``as of January 1, 2014'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) was designated as rural by the Office of 
                Rural Health Policy of the Health Resources and 
                Services Administration.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.15 2014 Summary of Named Executive Officers' Compensation






EXHIBIT 10.15


SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS' COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL 2015 


Base Salaries.      Following are the current annual base salaries for the executive officers employed the Company as of March 26, 2015, who will be included in the Company’s Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Named Executive Officers”):


	
							
	Named Executive Officer
	 
	Title
	 
	Annual Base Salary

	Gary H. Schoenfeld
	 
	President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	 
	$
	1,050,000
	


	Michael W. Kaplan
	 
	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	437,746
	


	Alfred Chang
	 
	Senior Vice President, Men's Merchandising
	 
	$
	420,000
	


	Jonathan Brewer
	 
	Senior Vice President, Product Development and Supply Chain
	 
	$
	418,692
	


	Craig E. Gosselin
	 
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel
	 
	$
	393,917
	







Annual Bonuses.      The Company provides each of the Named Executive Officers with an annual incentive bonus opportunity pursuant to a broad-based bonus plan which covers the other executives of the Company, the non-retail managers, and other key contributors of the Company. Actual bonus amounts are determined by a combination of (i) the Company’s achievement of a pre-set financial target, and (ii) the individual’s achievement of personal and/or department goals. All bonuses are approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. Mr. Schoenfeld’s target incentive bonus is 125% of his base salary with a maximum incentive bonus of 250% of his base salary. All other Named Executive Officers have a target incentive bonus of 50% of his or her base salary with a target maximum incentive bonus of 100% of his or her base salary. The terms of the fiscal 2015 bonus plan are more particularly set forth in the Company’s Current Report on form 8-K which was filed with the SEC on March 24, 2015.


Additional Compensation.      The Named Executive Officers are also entitled to participate in various Company plans, including equity plans, and may be subject to other written agreements, in each case as set forth in exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Named Executive Officers may be eligible to receive perquisites and other personal benefits as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company’s annual meetings of shareholders.
# C_2008204EN.01002501.xml

| 9.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/25

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Codified version)

COM(2008) 39 final — 2008/0022 (COD)

(2008/C 204/07)

On 14 February 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Codified version)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 443rd plenary session of 12 and 13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March), by 125 votes with 6 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 12 March 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
EX 31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Arthur Viola, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  April 21, 2006  /s/  ARTHUR VIOLA ________________________ Arthur Viola Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Sole Director
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Doron Uziel, the Treasurer of Energtek Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
      certifies certify, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes
      of
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
      November 13, 2008




By:  /s/
      Doron
      Uziel





Name:  Doron
      Uziel


Title:  Treasurer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5005 

To authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration 

Settlement Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River 

Restoration Settlement Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN 

4 RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO IMPLE6 MENT SETTLEMENT.—Section 10009 of the San Joaquin 

7 River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111–11; 

8 123 Stat. 1355) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking 

10 ‘‘$250,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$750,000,000’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5005 IS

1 (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘$250,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$750,000,000’’. 

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

4 FRIANT DIVISION IMPROVEMENTS.—Section 10203(c) of 

5 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub6 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1367) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Before the Third Division,

March 7, 1951

No. 55317.

#### Ernst Roth & Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6772-R (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5018 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify and preserve 

the breadth of the protections under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. BOOKER, and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 

and preserve the breadth of the protections under the 

Medicare Secondary Payer Act. 

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 ‘‘Restore Protections 

5 for Dialysis Patients Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

7 The purposes of this Act are— 

8 (1) to clarify and preserve the breadth of the 

9 protections under the Medicare Secondary Payer 

10 Act; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5018 IS

1 (2) to prohibit health insurance plans from 

2 shifting primary responsibility for covering the cost 

3 of health care services needed by patients with end 

4 stage renal disease (ESRD) to the Medicare pro5 gram; and 

6 (3) to affirm Congress’ intent by clarifying that 

7 singling out dialysis services for disfavored treat8 ment through coverage limitations as compared to 

9 other covered health services constitutes inappro10 priate differentiations between the benefits provided 

11 to individuals with ESRD and other individuals, but 

12 does not change a plan’s current ability to limit 

13 which renal dialysis providers it includes in the pro14 vider network it elects to offer its enrollees. 

15 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION AND PRESERVATION OF PROHIBI16 TION UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

17 Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1)(C)) is amended— 

19 (1) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the fol20 lowing new clause: 

21 ‘‘(ii) may not differentiate, directly or 

22 indirectly, in the benefits it provides be23 tween individuals obtaining renal dialysis 

24 or having end stage renal disease and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 5018 IS

1 other individuals covered by such plan on 

2 the basis of— 

3 ‘‘(I) the diagnosis of end stage 

4 renal disease; 

5 ‘‘(II) the need for renal dialysis; 

6 or 

7 ‘‘(III) in any other manner;’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by adding at the end of the matter following 

10 clause (ii) the following new sentences: ‘‘Nothing in 

11 this subsection shall be construed as requiring a 

12 group health plan to include a particular renal dialy13 sis provider as part of the provider network the 

14 group health plan elects to offer its enrollees. The 

15 Secretary shall enforce this subparagraph consistent 

16 with the nonconformance determination require17 ments set forth in part 411 of title 42, Code of Fed18 eral Regulations.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Elizabeth WHEELER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 1044, 1377, Dockets 82-6310, 82-6326.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1983.

*263Before NEWMAN and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and METZNER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Charles M. Metzner of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge:

On petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs contend that our decision, 719 F.2d 595, has rejected what they characterize as “the improvement standard” for determining when disability benefits, once awarded, may be terminated. The issue on the merits that we decided was whether a grandfatheree, a person found to be disabled under the standards of a state plan in effect for October 1972 and receiving payments since December 1973, could continue to receive benefits if he met the disability standards of Vermont’s plan in effect for October 1972. We answered in the affirmative. We rejected the Secretary’s view that the plaintiff must meet only the prevailing federal standard; we disagreed with the Secretary’s alternative contentions that the federal standard was equivalent to the Vermont standard and that the Vermont standard was not ascertainable. We also rejected the District Court’s ruling that every grandfathered beneficiary could resist termination of benefits, in lieu of showing continued disability under the Vermont standard, simply by pointing to a prior finding of disability and relying on the Secretary’s failure to prove that his current medical condition had improved compared to what it had been at the time of the disability determination.

What plaintiffs apprehend is that our ruling forecloses consideration of any role for the concept of “medical improvement” in disability termination cases. It does not. What sort of record will meet the “substantial evidence” test in termination cases, whether the Secretary bears some burden of producing evidence of medical improvement after a beneficiary has presented evidence that the medical condition underlying the prior determination has continued, *see Kuzmin v. Sehweiker,*714 F.2d 1233, 1238 (3d Cir.1983), and whether a burden of persuasion remains with the beneficiary are issues that were not presented and not decided on this appeal. Our Court has adverted to those questions, *Delamater v. Sehweiker,*721 F.2d 50 at 54 (2d Cir.1983); *Schauer v. Schweiker,*675 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir.1982), but not resolved them. They remain for another day.

The petition is denied.
No. 61912.

#### R. H. Macy *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 288906-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.