alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

February 15, 1943

No. 48016.

#### Protests 53404-K/90223, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Most of the samples have one surface flat and one convex, while one sample is flat on both surfaces. From the testimony of the only witness, which testimony was not contradicted, it was established that the articles are known as lens blanks or glass blanks. It appeared that the glass from which the articles were made was broken into pieces, put into a mold, heated, and pressed into the shape in which imported. After importation they are ground and polished on both surfaces and the edges are ground. As imported the blanks are dedicated to their use as lenses and cannot be used for any other purpose. After finishing they are assembled as parts of a complete condenser or projection lens system, these particular blanks being apparently condenser lenses. They are parts' of motion picture projectors. It appeared from the record that this issue is the same as that involved in *United States*v. *Univis Lens Co.*(20 C.C.P.A. 375, T. D. 46135). The merchandise in question was therefore held to be partly manufactured lenses of glass molded with edges unground. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 226 was therefore sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9298 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat qualified water 

competency and water safety lesson expenses as medical expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2024 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat qualified water competency and water safety lesson expenses 

as medical expenses. 

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 ‘‘Safe Water Instruction 

5 for Minors Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘SWIM Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAID FOR WATER COMPETENCY 

7 AND LIFE SAVING WATER SAFETY LESSONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 213(d)(1) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

10 end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9298 IH

1 of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting 

2 after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(E) for qualified water competency and 

4 water safety lesson expenses.’’. 

5 (b) QUALIFIED WATER COMPETENCY AND WATER

6 SAFETY LESSON EXPENSES.—Section 213(d) of the In7 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(12) QUALIFIED WATER COMPETENCY AND

10 WATER SAFETY LESSON EXPENSES.— 

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified 

12 water competency and water safety lesson ex13 penses’ means amounts paid to participate in 

14 basic water safety and basic swimming instruc15 tion or for equipment necessary for such par16 ticipation. 

17 ‘‘(B) OVERALL DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The 

18 aggregate amount treated as water competency 

19 and water safety expenses with respect to any 

20 taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed 

21 $500 ($1,000 in the case of a joint return or 

22 a head of household (as defined in section 

23 2(b)). 

24 ‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS RELATED TO WATER

25 COMPETENCY AND WATER SAFETY LESSONS.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9298 IH

1 Amounts paid for lessons described in subpara2 graph (A) shall be treated as qualified expenses 

3 only— 

4 ‘‘(i) if such lessons are focused on 

5 water safety and competency lessons and 

6 are not intended for competitive swimming 

7 or training lessons, and 

8 ‘‘(ii) in the case of amounts paid for 

9 any single item equipment, such amounts 

10 do not exceed $100.’’. 

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

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-200V

UNPUBLISHED

DEBORAH ANN PORTER-PUGH,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 17, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 4, 2019, Deborah Ann Porter-Pugh filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2

(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related 

to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular 

pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on March 6, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 14, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

at 1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent 

with SIRVA of the left arm and that it meets the requirements of a Table injury claim for 

SIRVA stemming from the tetanus vaccination on March 6, 2013.” Id. at 4. Respondent 

further agrees that he “did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s injury, and 

records show that she suffered the sequela of this injury for more than six months.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
- FPL_1554ocr-1
- FPL_1554ocr-2
- FPL_1554ocr-3
- FPL_1554ocr-4
- FPL_1554ocr-5
- FPL_1554ocr-6
- FPL_1554ocr-7
- FPL_1554ocr-8
- FPL_1554ocr-9
- FPL_1554ocr-10
- FPL_1554ocr-11
- FPL_1554ocr-12
- FPL_1554ocr-13
- FPL_1554ocr-14
- FPL_1554ocr-15
- FPL_1554ocr-16
- FPL_1554ocr-17
- FPL_1554ocr-18
- FPL_1554ocr-19
- FPL_1554ocr-20
- FPL_1554ocr-21
- FPL_1554ocr-22
- FPL_1554ocr-23
- FPL_1554ocr-24
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 08/25/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Denver Community Solar Garden Grand Opening Event

SUMMARY: 

Tim Rehder from EPA Region 8 spoke about the proposed rule for Existing Power Plants under Section 

111(d) of the Clean Air Act on August 21, 2014, at the Denver Community Garden Grand Opening 

Ceremony in Denver, CO. The meeting was hosted by the Clean Energy Collective.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Tim Rehder

External Stakeholders

Todd Davidson, Clean Energy Collective

Members of the Public
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD W. LANCE, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

17 USCMA 470, 38 CMR 268

*471No. 20,754

April 5, 1968

*Lieutenant Warren K. Morgens,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain R. S. Gasiorowski,*USMCR, was on' the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion

Kilday, Judge:

Appellant was arraigned before a general court-martial convened at Camp Pendleton, California, charged with larceny and unlawful entry, in violation of Articles 121 and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 930, respectively. He pleaded guilty and was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for three years. The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for twelve months. Thereafter, a board of review in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy affirmed the findings and the sentence.

This Court granted review to consider the negotiated plea of guilty and the method used to determine its providence.

There is, in this case, a pretrial guilty plea agreement. The agreement includes a waiver by the accused of any speedy trial or due process issue. Such a waiver is void, being contrary to public policy. Prejudicial error may be the result. United States v Cummings, 17 USCMA 376, 38 CMR 174. However, where the accused is not restricted in the defense of his case, no prejudice stems from this error. United States v Pratt, 17 USCMA 464, 38 CMR 262. We are satisfied in this instance that the improper pretrial waiver was not of compelling force.

The accused, though tried separately, was one of several men who were arraigned raigned together. *“Enmasse”*arraignments under such circumstances are erroneous. United States v Pratt, supra. Nevertheless, for the same reasons there shown, the guilty plea in this ease appears clearly provident. There is then no prejudice.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs in the result.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Pratt, 17 USCMA 464, 38 CMR 262, I would reverse the decision of the board of review and order a rehearing.
No. 52744.

protest 130355-K (St. Louis).

#### Jules Borel & Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

An importation of metronomes made at the port of Kansas City, Mo., was assessed with duty at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1541 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, plus a tax of 3 cents per pound on the copper content thereof under section 3425, Internal Revenue Code.

Plaintiff claims that the collector, in liquidation, assumed to appraise or reappraise the merchandise and adopted values in excess of the appraised values. Therefore, it contends that the liquidation is illegal.

The case was submitted on the official papers with time allowed Government counsel for brief. No brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

The official papers disclose that the merchandise was appraised as entered. On the invoice, however, we find the following notation in red ink:

Case arrived in bad order. Mdse, loose in Mail Pouch 22 pcs. est. 40% damage OHG

The initials are apparently those •of the acting appraiser, O. H. Garrison.

The collector’s report on the protest is as follows:

* * * The protestant does not claim a different classification is applicable. The claim of the protestant is that the collector used a value other than the *259appraised value in the liquidation of the entry. The importation was appraised as entered. The examiner noted an estimated 40-percent damage to the importation during the examination thereof and included such fact in his official return. The collector did not allow deduction in duty for the damage in liquidation because the importer failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 15.1, Customs Regulations of 1943.

It is thus apparent that the action of the collector was not an appraisal or reappraisal of the merchandise but was due to his refusal to allow a reduction in duty for damage to the goods.

From the facts as they appear by notations on the. official papers, it is apparent that any remedy which plaintiff might have would be a claim for damages under section 563, Tariff Act of 1930, which would entail compliance with the Customs Regulations of 1943, section 15.1. From an examination of the official papers, including the collector’s, report, we find no evidence that the regulations have been complied with. The action of the collector in refusing to make allowance for the estimated damage was therefore proper.

Plaintiff’s claim is overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Purpose of 

Grant Program

Eligible 

Applicants

Eligible 

Projects

Other

Changes

To provide operatng assistance to initate, restore, or enhance intercity 

passenger rail service. (49 U.S.C. 22908) 

• States, including the District of Columbia.

• An entty implementng an interstate compact.

• A public agency/publicly chartered authority established by 1 or more States.

• A politcal subdivision of a State.

• NEW Federally recognized Indian Tribe.

• Amtrak & Other IPR Carriers.

• NEW Rail Carriers in partnership with at least 1 of the enttes described above.

• Establishing new services.

• Additonal frequencies.

• Service extensions. 

• Ofering new on-board services. 

• Examples of eligible expenses: train engineer stafng, fuel, train dispatching, 

staton management, and overhead.

• NEW New priority to applicatons for routes selected under the Corridor 

Identfcaton and Development Program and operated by Amtrak.

• NEW Grants may provide operatng assistance for up to 6 years, and may not exceed:

 o 90 percent of the projected net operatng costs for the frst year of service.

 o 80 percent...for the second year of service.

 o 70 percent...for the third year of service.

 o 60 percent...for the fourth year of service.

 o 50 percent...for the ffh year of service.

 o 30 percent...for the sixth year of service.

Restoraton and Enhancements Grant Program

The Federal Railroad Administraton supports the naton’s rail network through a 

variety of compettve and dedicated grant programs designed to develop safety 

improvements, and encourages the expansion and upgrade of passenger and 

freight rail infrastructure and services. 

The informaton below highlights the changes to the Restoraton & Enhancement 

grant program that are enacted in Secton 22304 of the Bipartsan Infrastructure Law.

Restoraton and Enhancements Grant Program Fact Sheet

FY22-FY26 Funding: $100 Million/Year * [$50 Million from Amtrak Natonal Network Account]

AUTHORIZED FUNDING (* FULLY AUTHORIZED LEVELS) 

FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION, VISIT FRA’S WEBSITE: htps://railroads.dot.gov/BIL
No. 38984.

#### Protests 937699-G, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-171-1

Marco Estrada 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 110) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 22, 2012 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00171-JLG-EPD Doc #: 122 Filed: 08/22/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 4.1

                                RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     The following is the First Amendment to the Rights  Agreement,  dated as of
February 4, 2000 (the "Amendment"), between TransNet Corporation (the "Company")
and Continental Stock Transfer and Trust Company, as Rights Agent:

WHEREAS,  the undersigned Rights Agent and TransNet Corporation are parties to a
Rights Agreement dated as of February 6, 1990, and

WHEREAS the Company desires to amend the Rights Agreement pursuant to Section 27
of the Rights Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, the amendment shall be as follows:

1. Section 7. Amendment to Section 7 of the Rights Agreement: Section 7(a)(i) is
hereby  amended by deleting the reference to "February 6, 2000" and replacing it
with "February 6, 2010".

2. Exhibit A. Amendment to Exhibit A of the Rights Agreement:  SUMMARY OF RIGHTS
TO  PURCHASE  COMMON  STOCK is hereby  amended by  deleting  the  references  to
"February 6, 2000" and replacing them with "February 6, 2010".

3.  Exhibit B.  Amendment to Exhibit B of the Rights  Agreement:  FORM OF RIGHTS
CERTIFICATE.  The heading paragraph is hereby amended by deleting the references
to  "February 6, 2000" and  replacing  them with  "February 6, 2010".  The first
paragraph is hereby amended by deleting the references to "February 6, 2000" and
replacing them with "February 6, 2010".

4.  Governing Law. This  Amendment,  the Rights  Agreement,  each Right and each
Rights  Certificate  issued  hereunder  shall be governed  by, and  construed in
accordance  with  the laws of the  State of  Delaware  applicable  to  contracts
executed in and to be performed entirely in such State.

5.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of  counterparts
and  each  of such  counterparts  shall  for all  purposes  be  deemed  to be an
original,  and all such counterparts shall together  constitute one and the same
instrument.

6.  Effect of  Amendment.  Except  as  expressly  modified  herein,  the  Rights
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have caused this amendment to be duly executed
as of February 4, 2000.

                                    TRANSNET CORPORATION
Attest:


By:                                    By:
   Name:                               Name:
   Title:                              Title:

                                    CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER AND
                                    TRUST COMPANY
Attest:


By:                                    By:
   Name:                               Name:
   Title:                              Title:
US Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


### MAR 21 2016 Mr. Christopher R. Meinhardt Director ofMaintenance Air Methods Corporation 7211 S. Peoria Englewood, CO 80112 Dear Mr. Meinhardt: Southwest Region Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524

By letter dated June 3, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalfofAir Methods Corporation for an exemption from § 27.1 (a) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
. That exemption, ifgranted, would allow an increased gross weight from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds for Air Methods Corporation's Bell Model429 helicopter. The type certificate holder for the Model 429 helicopter, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, has previously petitioned for a similar exemption from§ 27.1(a) to allow an increase in gross weight to 7,500 pounds, and that petition was denied. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada subsequently requested reconsideration ofthe petition denial, and that was also denied. Your petition provides no information not already addressed in those denials. No further action will be taken on your petition. Your letter has been placed in the public docket No. FAA-2015-2542
.

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate Aircraft Certification Service Enclosures: Original denial (Exemption No. 10598) Denial ofReconsideration (Exemption No
. 10598A)
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted at The University of Connecticut, Stamford Campus located at One University Place, Stamford, Connecticut 06901-2315. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Friday, May 11, 2007 and Saturday, May 12, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 11, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET in room 131 and Saturday, May 12, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. ET in room 132 at The University of Connecticut, Stamford Campus located at One University Place, Stamford Connecticut, 06901-2315. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited time, notification of intent to participate in the meeting must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E7-6972 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P